Rgd - Could you explain the "return" and "transmit" part of your post? I don't understand. |
I have no way of verifying this rather astounding claim, but perhaps someone else does:
Virtually no high end cable company makes its own cables. Some don't even design their cables. Most of the cables come from the same factories; they choose among the factory's options of colors, materials, designs, termination styles and length. They are quoted a price and that's it. Some may do custom terminations, but that's all the "manufacturing" they do.
See http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html#Cab
This is a question of fact, not subjectivity. Saying "But I can hear the difference" is irrelevant. Can anyone convincingly verify or debunk this claim? |
Uh-oh Plasma, you're up to it again :-) |
Steve - maybe my explanation was not specific - there are 2 cables per side in a NON-biwire version. One for the positive speaker/amp terminal and another separate cable for the negative speaker/amp terminal. Totally separating the cables negates any cross-talk between the signals or so it it my understanding. In a bi-wire version there would be a total of 4 cables between the amp and a speaker - two positives cables attached to the positive HF and LF binding posts and both being attached to the positive terminal on the amp. This is also done for the negative side as well. Hence the need for 4 cables per speaker in a bi-wire version. E-mail me privately if I have still not provided you with a clear understanding of the cable configuration.
Plasma - these guys do everything by hand but do not extrude (hopefully the correct term) the copper themselves. They take solid core copper wire provided by a supplier and they wrap a number of them in a proprietary design with specific type(s) of insulation. They are what I consider all built by hand. The only thing they purchase "pre-made" is the copper - the rest is all performed manually.... So to disagree in this particular instance - terminating the cables by hand is NOT the only manual labor involved in the construction of these particular cables. As far as debunking my claim of hearing the difference you cannot for you were not thereto witness whether there was an audible difference or not - I stand by what I heard but truly wish I could offer a scientific reason for the difference. |
Rgd, forgive me for my skepticism, but have you (or anyone here) actually observed or been involved in the manufacture of cables? I would think that the extrusion of the jacket/insulation over the cable would be very difficult to perform by hand and my understanding of cable/wire manufacturing is that it is a very highly automated and capital intensive industry. Production economies dictate that a relatively low value-added, commodity type item such as cable (remember, audiophiles are unique in what they are willing to pay for wire) must be manufactured in large quantities to justify the capital intensity I have mentioned.
In such situations, small players that cater to limited volume niche markets (like the market for high-end audio cables) must rely on outsourcing or contract manufacturing arrangments. Given their low volumes, they simply could never recoup their investment were they to attempt to manufacture the cable themselves. Perhaps there are some exceptions to this? Anyone??? |
Frap, you can discount ABX testing as a means of comparison if you like, but you offer nothing in its place except a method so highly susceptible to errors and misjudgment that it's really useless for true comparisons of audible differences.
Liguy: Brush up on your transmission line theory, particularly the 1/10 wavelength rule, and you'll find that audio cable would have to be close to 1.5 kilometers long to *start* exhibiting transmission line characteristics at even the highest audio frequencies. |
Rgd - OK, I've just never heard the terms transmit and return used for speaker wire. Since the signal is AC each wire performs exactly the same function. |
I've done a bit of poking around the Net and looked at the North American Industrial Classification System maintained by the Bureau of the Census. The industrial structure is pretty much as I painted it in the last post, only with more levels in the supply chain. For the trivia hounds amongst you, here is the series of handoffs (NAICS text in quotations).
#1 --- wire is drawn
"NAICS 33142: Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in one or more of the following: (1) recovering copper or copper alloys from scraps; (2) alloying purchased copper; (3) rolling, drawing, or extruding shapes, (e.g., bar, plate, sheet, strip, tube, and wire) from purchased copper; and (4) recovering copper or copper alloys from scrap and rolling drawing, or extruding shapes (e.g., bar, plate, sheet, strip, tube, and wire)."
#2 --- drawn wire insulated by firms at next level in supply chain
"NAICS 33592: Communication and Energy Wire and Cable Manufacturing
This industry comprises establishments insulating fiber-optic cable, and manufacturing insulated nonferrous wire and cable from nonferrous wire drawn in other establishments."
#3 --- insulated wire sold to audio OEM's and turned into audio goodies
"NAICS 3343: Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing
This NAICS Industry Group includes establishments classified in NAICS Industry 33431, Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing."
I would venture that most, if not all, of the audio cable manufacturers pop up at the third/last level rather than the second. |
Well, yes Doc, the audio cable manufacturers pop up in the 3rd category. But the issue raised is whether many of the high end cable marketers are among the manufacturers (or final assemblers). My guess is that some are, some aren't. I find it hard to believe that Nordost Valhalla is made in the same third world factory as some lower priced branded cable. I even find it hard to believe that Kimber and Audiquest are not involved in the final assembly of their products. I think Ray Kimber has invited AA inmates for a factory tour.
Just suppose there were only one factory, and all the cables were made in the same place. So long as they were made to spec and the specifications were different as ordered by the designers, why would anyone care? You only have to look at a variety of cables to see that they reflect a lot of different ways to twist, wrap, coat and space different thicknesses of wire. Who cares where they are made? |
Doc - the copper used is supplied with some type of coating on it and is single stranded solid core. From this point the cable is "braided", "twisted", whatever one would call it using materials in between each strand. This process is proprietary in nature and I am unaware of the exact winding scheme but I can tell you that it is all wound by hand. A final outer sleeve is installed and then the terminations are soldered on. Economies of scale are not realized at this time as these guys are doing it as a sideline and therefore are not relying on it for daily income. The prototype "return" cable I mentioned earlier differed in internal construction but I can attest that each and every time the difference was audible. So in the end, I guess these guys qualify as Category #3 but the entire cable is hand constructed less the coating on the copper as supplied from the copper source. I would imagine that the DIY people here can appreciate what goes into hand constructing cables but as I am not one of them my explanations may leave out key technical terms and I apologize for that. I believe that Paulwp has coined some of the phrases I was looking for in my original post and I thank him for that. Bottomline is that in my experience there was a distinct difference when the negative post cables were swapped - but only as a result of the fact that these cables differed in construction. If I have the chance to do this "test" again I would take the time to single wire the speakers (not bi-wire) and alternate the different negative post cables to see (hear) if there are any differences. If any of you guys happen to pass through Alberta this summer please advise and I will arrange the same demo so that my experience can be refuted or corroborated. I thank the recent posters for the opportunity to offer my cable story without what had been expected (many negative votes...) |
Harmonic Technology has a specific process for drawing the wire through the die in a cooling process so as not to do violence to the crystalline structure. In fact, their process creates the "Single Crystal" copper wire for all of their product. I am not going to continue messing up this explanation. You can go read for yourself at their website.
But they may still have the process performed to specs at some off-shore site. You cannot afford to do any of these types of processes in this country. Could they be pulling our legs? Sure!( It would take quite a large pulley to get all of our legs at once ). But the results that I have had with the Harmonic Tech Pro Silway II make me realize that they are on to something. |
Audio Tekne draws there own silver wire and does the complete assembly process themselves. This is how they are able to maintain there high quality standards and keep there prices affordable. If you need an explanation of how cable is twisted and covered I would suggest contacting Brian at BMI (or if he's reading this he could help out) for he hand assembles all his power cords. It's not a huge mystery or so difficult only a machine can achieve it. Machines are for the mass production, for example computer cables, VCR and low/mid-fi audio, T.V. lights.......
Why is everything in high-end audio a conspiracy to some? |
It is easier to understand line cord differences if you think of them as religious articles. You cannot mass produce a religous item and expect it to have any power. It has to be hand made and of only the highest quality materials. |
I have been reading up a bit on cable as I will be experimenting with DIY IC's with a friend. It seems to be common knowledge that the signal not only passes through the wire but along its surface as well (in a different manner which is called "skin effect"). The sound is also influenced by the type of insulation(s) being used and how the insulation(s) meets (or does not meet as with an "air" surround) the wire. Impurities "in" wire may just be another obstacle for the signal to overcome (this is not saying that there cannot be "specific" impurities that would actually improve the sound). An example of this would seem to be silver oxide forming on silver cable based on the observations of others. Why limit it to just this? The types of connections and connectors used influence the sound (this I have already observed with a few DIY IC's). Also, getting back to "skin effect", how the surface of the wire is formed and finished should also have an influence as well. There is a lot to study and experiment with (and many different design features to take into consideration) if one keeps an open mind as well as an open ear(s). I consider the projects to be a fun and inexpensive ventures. As with most everything, it all depends on your outlook. |
I think we are loosing focus here. What John Dunlavy is saying, I think, is that yes there is basic princpals, as described earlier in his letter, and measuring tools, methods to varify if the cable is designed right.If all manufactures understand these principals and implement this COOK book manufaturing technique, ther would /shouls not be significant change in sound among diffrent makes. It is the methods used other than then the BASIC, like termiation boxes, diffrent weave techniques that different make claim to have invented that IMPROVES (actually it changes) the sound is BUNK( Cable Nonsense). That change in sound is what we here and prefer or not among different makes. I do hear changes in cables and chosen my cables accordingly. But I am not proponent of expensive cables-mine range between $300-800 price range.
I love Dunlavy's speakers (have V'S , II'S and I)and their speaker cable. To me their speaker prices are justified, however to some it may sound poor value. Similar analogy to Cable pricing. It is case of supply and demand. Like few posts above said, in this limited demand market, there is high cost of 'Research', manufacturing in lower qualntity, limited distribution and to be profitable, Cable makers have to charge accordingly. They believe in ' there is sucker born every minute' theroy. Some buy in the cable nonsense claims and here the difference in THIER systems, some don't.
Let me make another point. They say they all very well designed amplifier sound same, then why there are amplifiers costing megabucks. It is little bit of improvement and LOT of marketing technique. |
1. John Dunlavy is in his early 70's not 80's. And while he might have "senior moments" like many folks do, I can tell you from recent personal experience that he is anything but "loosing it".
2. John's philosophy of cable design is to insure that "loudspeaker cables possess all the electrical properties required to ensure that no audible degradation of complex musical waveforms and transients can occur between the output terminals of a power-amp, and the input terminals of a loudspeaker." (from his website)
3. John claims he can always 100% of the time hear the difference in sighted test and never in blind test.
4. He also claims that no one has ever figured out which cable was playing when he performed his blind test in his office.
5. Never has he said "no one can hear a difference"
6. I know folks who claim they have never missed identifying which cable was playing when doing the test blind and I believe them.
7. Lest we forget, this hobby is supposed to be fun but based upon some of the posts on this thread, it appears that some have yet to figure that out
8. I actually hope John Dunlavy is correct. Look how much money we can spend on music (novel idea)
9. You can take some of the mega buck wire and get estimates on cost to manufacture and you will find that the margins are in the bazillioin digits !! |
Following up...
I've debated JD many times on rahe - and if Deja.com still worked, I'd suggest that you check out those goings on...
In brief - JD does some nice work, but fall short of being able to make a *definitive* statement as to what is audible and what is not. I believe that he is wrong in his conclusions only because his tests do not reach far enough.
See below.
John Dunlavy On "Cable Nonsense"
2. John's philosophy of cable design is to insure that "loudspeaker cables possess
all the electrical properties required to ensure that no audible degradation of
complex musical waveforms and transients can occur between the output
terminals of a power-amp, and the input terminals of a loudspeaker." (from his
website)
Yeah, sure. The problem is the term "audible degredation" - this is problematic. The limiting factor(s) in determining audible degredation are 1) YOUR EARS/BRAIN & 2)THE ULTIMATE QUALITY OF THE SYSTEM. Unfortunately, both represent real and measurable compromises (even JD's speakers). So, just because the "literature" has not yet published tests that have found "differences" it does not mean that they are not there. The published tests are flawed IMHO, which is why the results are what they are.
3. John claims he can always 100% of the time hear the difference in sighted test
and never in blind test.
Then he is not hearing the difference at all. Few if any men of the age that John is CAN hear particularly well. :- (
That's bad for all of us. When I was 16 I could easilly hear the TV horizontal freq AND ultrasonic motion detectors (some of them). No more.
4. He also claims that no one has ever figured out which cable was playing when
he performed his blind test in his office.
He probably only used musical selections to do the tests - this makes zeroing in on the "differences" VERY difficult in the SHORT TERM. The real test of any system is simply stated making it *easier* for your brain to 'figure out' what it is hearing (less internal processing to extract and decode). You CAN listen to a 2" TV speaker and still hear music and recognize voices, right? There are other test signals that are much better suited to spotting instantaneous differences, oddly these "objectivists" and "scientists" never seem to manage to find or use them (as far as I am aware).
5. Never has he said "no one can hear a difference"
But manages to bash anyone who thinks they do?
_-_-bearlabs (bearlabsUSA.com) |
I'm about to embark on an interesting experiment. Here's my thinking:
I'd like to have an extrememly accurate wire, something that will transmit data (thats the electrical signal right?)really well... So I start thinking about nordost- they claim they came from aerospace- probably making extremely accurate cable for some high tech electronics. That sort of reminded me of the ribbon wire in my computer, the stuff that connects the hard drive and all sorts of stuff in there.
So I do a little research and I found out that there are HUGE differences in the amount and accuracy of data that ribbon cable can transmit. I could buy stuff at the local electronics store for $10.00 to have 20 feet of poopy cable, or can spend roughly $250 to get the cable that might be used in a server or extremely fast data intensive computer of some other sort, this expensive stuff is copper plated with silver and insulated in teflon. Sound familiar?
Now this cable is more mass marketed than any audio stuff, but still comes in around $250- without termination, directly from the dealer. Just like with audio it turns out the termination is the most expensive part.
Now I'm not sure if it will sound good, but I'm going to try it as soon as I get the money together (still paying off speakers...) In any case, with at least computers (transmitting data just like us) there are very measurable differences in cable. we just aren't doing the right tests yet.
Now I don't claim it would be great- but I can see how a cable manufacturer could charge $350 doing exactly what I am going to do. We'll see! |
Dunlavy's argument is that people can not distinguish between cables better than chance IN BLIND TESTS. His support is the result of many tests conducted at his facilities.
If you want to argue against Dunlavy, prove that people can sucsesfuly distinguish between cables IN A BLIND TEST, or that his sample was not statisticaly strong enough to make the generalization.
Mentioning that you can discern differences under other circumstances is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what he claims is the placebo effect which he is so frustrated by.
And even if under his circumstances YOU can, that does not refute the claim, you would also need a reasonably statisticaly valid sample of people to perform the same way. |
Something I don't get here.Check the Dunlavy website and see that John has just introduced a new reference speaker cable-
the Ultra.Go figure! |
Yes, but that's a different matter entirely. Let's not confuse apples and oranges with wire and , well, wire. |
THAT is the VERY reason that he got his ass "bbq'ed" over on the Asylum. Saying one thing and doing another is what made him the "poster boy" for hypocrisy on this subject. Sean
> |
Because Dunlavy makes another speaker wire does NOT change his position.
It means he has another design with different properties that was designed to insure that "loudspeaker cables possess all the electrical properties required to ensure that no audible degradation of complex musical waveforms and transients can occur between the output terminals of a power-amp, and the input terminals of a loudspeaker." (from his website).
He doesn't claim he can hear the difference or than any one else would. Nor does he claim it is SONICALLY better than zip cord...he just claims that it has different properties.
And what is wrong with building a product that someone might by. He is making NO claims that it is sonically better than anything else, just that it has been designed with engineering principles he believes in. Tell me one other speaker cable company that does this. They ALL claim ther's sounds better.
I would suspect that, given his position on speaker cables, he sells little of it |
So You Want To Argue.
Dunlavy's argument is that people can not distinguish between cables better than
chance IN BLIND TESTS. His support is the result of many tests conducted at his
facilities.
Right, and this is the problem - YOU CAN NOT GENERALIZE from one test situation and then declare that "A" is the truth based upon these results. This is what John *tends* to imply by his posts and writings - when questioned closely he either avoids the issue(s) or has to agree.
If you want to argue against Dunlavy, prove that people can sucsesfuly
distinguish between cables IN A BLIND TEST, or that his sample was not
statisticaly strong enough to make the generalization.
I do not have to do EITHER to question his CONCLUSIONS. It is sufficient to say that his test methodology is flawed and so the results that stem from it are equally flawed. They are statistically valid, but this comes from FLAWED tests. PERIOD.
Mentioning that you can discern differences under other circumstances is
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what he claims is the placebo effect which he is
so frustrated by.
I don't want to slam JD or his products, but let me say again that the LIMITING FACTORs in such tests are A) the listener's hearing ability, B) the system. I would suggest that at least in the tests published so far that item (B) is extremely questionable. Let me add that (C) the source material is also a limiting factor. NO DIFFERENCES CAN BE HEARD if any ONE or ALL of the limits are reached.
And even if under his circumstances YOU can, that does not refute the claim, you
would also need a reasonably statisticaly valid sample of people to perform the
same way.
Statistics are only as good as the TEST that underlies the statistics. There's little doubt that one can design tests that will give the appearance of being statistically valid for almost any result.
Think about the problem more fully.
_-_-bear (http://bearlabsUSA.com)
|
Most cable manufacturers are not wire manufacturers at all. It requires a significant capital investment to set up and operate a wire factory. The barrier for YOU to become a wire manufacturer is mostly the need to run the damn thing 24 hrs a day to make a profit and cover your overheads! So, unless you can sell MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of feet of wire, you're not going to be in any sort of wire business. MANY of the domestic wire operations have folded in the last several decades because it's tough to sell that much wire.
So, it is necessary for audio cable manufacturers to sub contract out their needs to one or more existing factories - their runs are insignificant compared to a typical industrial order - THUS, the prices are higher.
I have my pure Silver stranded wire drawn, stranded, and jacketed with PTFE ("teflon") for me by a small specialty manufacturer, I assemble it into what becomes Silver Lightning Interconnects. It is very expensive per foot because of the small quantities involved. By the time I'm done with the labor involved in the assembly and add in the costs of overhead and the materials, believe me there isn't a ton of profit. You can't look only at the cost of materials when you think about these cables.
I agree, some are junk, snake oil, and WAY overpriced. But not all. |
Bear is up to his usual "debating" tactics. If decades+ of established acoustics methodology and all the evidence (from scientifically valid testing) goes against you, then just claim that the testers don't have a system with sufficient resolution. Could you give us an example of a system that you feel does have sufficient resolution?
BTW, this is not to say that people don't get more enjoyment from their system from various cables even without any audible difference. I use Nordost from my DAC to amp just because I like knowing that it's extremely low capacitance, and almost bought Straightwire Rhapsody speaker cables just because they look great! In neither case did I hear a difference from the previous cable, but maybe my system just doesn't have enough resolution, eh?
Cheers,
JHunter |
The problem with blind tests is that they are typically conducted in less than familiar surroundings. As such, one may not be comfortable in test setting. They are also not allowed to familiarize themselves with the subtle timing, tonal or spatial cues that various cables CAN produce, but may take time to recognize. As such, being able to pick out the irregularities that do occur when going from cable to cable can become an extremely difficult task simply due to lack of familiarity.
With all of that in mind, the tests conducted by J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR showed his ability to differentiate between cables 100% of the time under double blind test conditions. On top of this, he was also able to distinguish whether there was was an ABX box in line 100% of the time. His ability to do this with witnesses refutes ALL other tests. Once an accuracy level that is irrefutable has been achieved, it simply becomes a matter of system resolution and the individuals' ability to hear such changes that comes into question. It is NOT a question of if there are audible differences anymore.
The fact that David Spiegel (the inventor of the ABX box) also told me first hand that another reviewer was able to differentiate between cables. This gives further credence to the FACT that cables can be audibly different. While Spiegel could not remember the reviewer's name, she showed up in response to a challenge that he issued that was open to ALL reviewers. My guess is that it was Enid Lumley, but i'm not sure. Keep in mind that Spiegel did these tests because he wanted to be able to prove or disprove that there were sonic differences amongst cables. As such, he will to this day say that HE can't hear a difference between cables under test conditions but acknowledges that others might be able to.
Give it a rest. Sean
> |
My post was stuck on the front of Bears.
*I* wrote So You Want To Argue, everything down to "...frustrated by". We must have hit POST simultaneously or something.
Re: system resolution and J. Peter Moncrieff, like I said, you can't draw conclusions from that small a sample, he may be an extreeme statistical outlier. I'm not convinced yet, but I am willing to accept that a critical number of people can hear cables in a "high enough resolution" system, it's just a shame to have to rely on so much anecdotal evidence from both sides.
Still, overall we're talking about the discernment abilities of everyone who considers cables (most all audiophiles willing to make the investment) and their individual systems.
:Grungle:
end of message (just in case!)
----- |
The community should understand the difference between "statistical" and "practical" significance. Consider the following example.
Through omniscience, we know that:
Car A gets 20.1 mpg.
Car B gets 20.2 mpg.
Obviously, the TRUE difference between the fuel efficiency of cars A & B is 0.1 mpg. Sampling a sufficiently large sample size of cars A & B, we would be able to detect a "statistically significant difference" between the mpg for the two cars. But once we do detect a "statistically significant" difference, what does it mean?
In this case, it means precious little in terms of "practical significance." That is, how much is a 0.1 mpg difference really worth in the real world? Not much! And certainly, consumers would not be willing to pay a significant amount of money for such a trivial difference in fuel economy.
Now to come back to the issue at hand in this thread, let's assume that it really is possible to find a "statistically significant" difference in the sound of cables (this is a leap of faith given JD's blind testing results, but references to a "J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR" keep cropping up and I'll accept this single result as valid). The central question becomes -- Is this "statistically significant" difference a "practically significant" difference. I would argue that it is not, especially in the context of the obscene prices charged by high-end cable manufacturers.
Understand that when statistical testing ends in non-significant results or mixed resutls (i.e., sometimes significant, sometimes non-significant) the most frequent reason is that the difference that is being observed (i.e., the "effect size") is so small. I suspect that it is the case here. Any true differences in the sounds of cables are so subtle and small that they cannot be detected with any consistency if at all. So a rational person must ask, is it really worth thousands of dollars to achieve such a subtle and small difference? Only the individual can answer that question for themselves. But as far as the audiophile cable manufacturers' claims of vast differences in and superiority of sound, I maintain that they are hooey at best. |
In a recent post, Detlof mentioned that he tailored his system to "his ears", i.e. the kind of sound reproduction HE likes. I subscribe to this view and, thereby, my opinion on equip is tainted with my preferences in musical reproduction.
Cables are part of the system and, assuming they contribute a sonic signature (i.e. different cables can make the system sound different), "that cable is best that supports/enhances MY sound the best".
In this respect, I also subscribe to Doc's view above, in that "vast improvements in sound (can) be hooey". Only vast if enhancing YOUR sound. If not, hooey (despite positive audiophile adjectives...).
Can't we say that cables are both a personal and system dependant affair? |
Docwarnock - Some people view audio gear as a hobby or an obsession like modifying cards. A guy who puts a new $1,000 exhaust in his car to gain 1/10th of a second in the quarter mile (a statistically insignificant gain in power, according to you) might look crazy to some. A guy who puts a new $1,000 power cord to gain 1dB of improvement in some area might also look crazy. But both guys are trying to make their gear the best it can be, not fit into the pefectly average category. |
Greg makes a good point, if someone moves a throw pillow to a different chair in my house, I would notice it, and say that it was a significant change (positive, or negative). If someone comes to my house, and is not very familiar with it , that person would not perceive anything wrong, or different. It is my complete familiarity with my room arranements that allows me to notice significant differences in what might be a subtle difference to someone else. Same with cables and systems. These tests don't prove or disprove much of anything, but if one person can hear differences 100% of the time,then anyone saying there is no difference is a fool. |
Jay, I think that you may misunderstand what I said. In your example, the gain in power may be real and thereby detectable as "statistically significant". But it is the practical significance of such a trivial gain that is in question. And I agree with you that people who are willing to go to such great lengths, both financially and otherwise, to exact such trivial differences do indeed "look crazy" (your words), or at least a little neurotic. |
Jaykapur, be real careful who you modifying cards with! Some guys get real angry when cards are marked. :-) |
Gregm, I could not agree more. As my system evolved into the current collage of stuff, I tried different cables to achieve the sound that I desired. I have a mixture of silver plated and plain copper. What I use is not important to this discussion but the fact that they work in my system is. I have taken some cables to other systems and found the synergy is not there. I can clearly identify with the concept of matching cables to a system and the owner's taste. |
No way to quote an earlier post...
Unfortunately there's no way to *quote* a previous post
in order to respond - like you can do on a usenet newsgroup by hittin the "reply" button... Grungle, I was responding to
your post and copied parts of it in order to make point by point responses... sorry if it caused confusion...
plus it looks like the software quotes the first few words of your post to make a title...thus my first line above!
:- ) |
JHunter wrote...
-->
Bear is up to his usual "debating" tactics. If decades+ of established acoustics
methodology and all the evidence (from scientifically valid testing) goes against
you, then just claim that the testers don't have a system with sufficient
resolution. Could you give us an example of a system that you feel does have
sufficient resolution? <--
I'm not sure what you mean, since I am relatively new here on Audiogon...
But, the published tests quote the systems that are used for the "testing." so it is fairly simple and easy to determine what level of resolution they are capable of.
As I have stated earlier, the limiting factors are: A) your hearing, B) the system and C) the source.
I have also said that it is far easier to hear very subtle
changes on an instantaneous basis when listening to PINK NOISE, as compared to *any* musical source. None of these tests involved any Pink noise.
HOWEVER, what counts in terms of long term listening is how much 'internal brain processing' is required for your concious to figure out what it is hearing! That is the difference between systems - nothing more.
It does NOT require a high-end system for you to recognize speech - a telephone is good enough. You can listen to a tiny 2" TV speaker and understand what is going on. Right?
So, the point that I make is that thus far the systems used for these tests are at minimum *questionable* in terms of ultimate quality and resolution, AND the source material is also questionable. SO, the conclusions drawn are valid ONLY for the specific TESTING that was done, nothing more.
JUST to exagerrate for clarity, IF the cable 'tests' were done with 2" TV speakers, it is very unlikely that anyone could possibly hear any differences, right?
This is clear.
As far as a "system" that I think has sufficient resolution, there are all sorts of candidates that I think would likely do the job. But, there is little point in quoting a list of components, as that is NOT the point at all. Needless to say, IMHO, none of these candidates were utilized in said published tests.
The point is to truly understand the limitations of published tests, and what they mean in reality. |
Bear, by "internal brain processing", do you mean familiairity leads to recognition? |
Ah, gotcha Bear. It's even more confusing in that we both use CAPS for EMPHASIS.
Doc Warnock, good point about practicality. I was geting carried away because I just finished a statistics course. I was all ready to wip out the null hypothesis, sample size, and a confidence interval...bunch a' greek letters too.
The point being that anecdotal evidence isn't really that strong, and enjoyable as they may be, these arguments can't be satisfactoraly settled without something more rigorus. Even then people would keep setting up straw men, flawed analogies, etc. so they won't have to change their comfy little outlooks.
Anyway, until I can at least try this stuff out properly for myself, I'm going to side with the skeptics and spend my resources elsewhere. |
Grungle, do a simple test. Simply compare some standard 12 gauge "monster" type speaker wire to some Kimber 4PR in YOUR system. There should be no major difference as they are both reasonable gauge, low resistance conductors. You can do this regardless of the resolution of the system. If you can hear a difference, you've learned something. If you can't, get a better system. Just kidding... : )
Really though, most of us were skeptics to start off with. After all, to most people wire looks like wire and should sound like wire. Right ??? It is only after an "ear opening experience" that most of us became "hardcore believers". Believe me, as an electronics tech, i had a REAL hard time believing some of this stuff. If you can go back into the Audio Review website and dig through their archives, you would be able to find some VERY intense arguments that i was involved in regarding power cords. The funny thing is that i was prepared to go to my grave believing that they could NOT change the sonics of a system in any way. I absolutely KNEW for CERTAIN that changing a few feet of wire from the wall outlet to the component couldn't "fix" all of the other "bad wiring" running from pole to pole and within the house. After all, theory and common sense tells us this, right ???
Well, i have to say that i was WRONG ( even if Fonzy couldn't admit it, i can ). I did do some testing and DID find a difference. Does this mean that we need to throw the textbooks out ? Absolutely not. It simply means that maybe we don't know as much as we think we do. Or maybe it means that we aren't looking in the right direction or asking the right questions... Who knows. All i know is that ANY wire change has the capacity to alter the sonics of a system.
Don't get me wrong here. We are not saying that ALL wires sound DRASTICALLY different, but that differences ARE possible. Not all changes will make the system sound "better" or "worse". Sometimes they just sound "different" or sometimes they sound the same. As such, most of us have tried various cables in different locations of our systems, judged how we liked them, if we could notice benefits, decided if we wanted to keep them there or try them someplace else, remove them, etc... and then moved onto something else.
Don't rule things out unless you've tried them yourself and done so under several different circumstances. As a case in point, here's a simple analogy to think about. Just because your car doesn't "act up" at the time that you take it in for service doesn't mean that there isn't a "problem". Sometimes you just have to create the "right circumstances" for the situation to occur. Once that happens, the "change in performance" could be QUITE drastic and VERY noticeable. The same can be said for wire / cable changes within a sound system. Sean
> |
Bear -
2 points:
First, while you're new to Audiogon I've followed some of the many discussions on rec.audio.high-end between you and folks such as Dick Pierce and JJ. If I recall correctly, there was quite a thread involving the topic of system resolution.
Your argument would be stronger were there a number (say, anything more than 1) of double-blind test showing differences between cables of similar electrical characteristics; surely not ALL of the test systems are so inadequate??? Incidently, I believe that these systems have in fact revealed differences if the cables have grossly different properties, so the systems used can't be hopeless.
Second, from your post can I assume that you don't object to the basic double-blind test methodology? If so, it might be interesting to try it out on your system using a pink noise source. Have you given this a try?
Cheers,
JHunter |
John Dunlavy strikes me as revealing part of the truth, enough of it to outdo everyone else, only to legitmize himself so that he can now charge $200 for his interconnects and even more for his speaker cable. At least he shows us some math, more than any of the others, but still not much. |
Sean, when I said i wanted to try this out "properly", I meant in a blind test, in my room, with my equipment. THAT'S what it will take to convince to 'upgrade' my cable. But that's just me. I would suggest you try a blind comparison also, let us know how it goes.
I can't dispute that cables can be engineered (allowing for in-line passive electronics too) to change the sound you get, but if "lamp cord" is electronicaly transparent where it matters to an audio signal, anything else would be coloration. Of course, who knows; I might just like the colored sound better.
If the effect is purely psychoacoustic, I'd rather upgrade my speakers or buy more music or something.
Re: Dunlavy's cables, the impresion I got is that he doesn't claim a sonic difference, only that he has tweaked and flatened electronic properties that don't have a discernable effect on the sound, pure specsmanship. It looks like he has no moral qualms about exploiting the market that cares about such things. At least he's not lying about it. |
Lamp cord is not acoustically transparent. The quality of the copper must have an effect on signal transfer.The cable companies that offer the purest materials seem to garner the best reviews. Harmonic Technology's single crystal wire comes to mind. |
... internal processing...
By internal processing I do not mean that familiarity leads to recognition - although there is an element of "ear training" that plays a role in how we all hear. The question is not familliarity as much as how much internal processing you are actually doing to have your mind say "ahhh I know what that is/means."
An example of this *sort* of thing is when you randomly tune your car radio to the middle of a song, one that you hear all the time, and it takes a few seconds to figure out which song it is, as you have tuned into a spot that is perhaps in the middle of a musical phrase, so you don't have the benefit of a "start" point (musically or lyrically) to guide you.
What I am speaking of is similar, but more subtle in that the clues that tell you where/what on a hi-fi system, and really give you the detailed tonal and spatial information are much more minute.
Perhaps one of the reasons that you can "hear" more on your own system is that you have given your brain an "algorithm" with which to quickly process the raw sound into intellegable information.
So, the test then is to be able to walk in "cold" (no pre-programming of your brain, just "natural" sound algorithms) and be able to *instantly* recognize all the sonic clues! Of course, this is not a constant, nor is it (as far as I know) measurable (yet), but if you think about what happens when you are out in the world everyday, or at a non amplified live performance, you don't have to strain or work at all, it all just *IS* <-- kind of a zen thing.
Hope that explains...
_-_-bear |
JHunter asked...
- are all the systems used for published DBTs inadequate?
Yes, IMHO, based upon those articles that I have read (which may or may not be all of them) the systems that were used are/were wholly inadquate on a number of levels.
There are also questions about other factors.
No, the tests are not worthless, but they are only valid for the test conditions - I object to these tests being used to draw wide ranging genralized conclusions.
I do not object to the DBT/ABX methodology, as far as it goes. It is certainly a methodology that does *test* something and do it reliably. What it is testing is still a big question! :- )
I personally have not tried Pink Noise in a DBT test. I am certainly willing to do so, and if someone out there wants to ante up a few $$ and some time and effort it can be made to happen... Since I'm short on both time and $$, I can't be an audio philanthropist for this one. If someone reasonably local to the NY/Phila/Boston axis wants to do such tests, I'd be willing to try to participate and lend whatever expertise I might be able to bring to bear.
Again, the differences that at least I am talking about are ones of *clarity* in the sense that information is easier to recognize. Since you *can* already recognize the information with what I will call "less than optimal" equipment/cables, this is a difficult thing to test - since the difference is one of *effort* on the part of the listener's brain!
I think this is really where the problem lies...
_-_-bear (bearlabsUSA.com) |
Bmpnyc wrote: "Lamp cord is not acoustically transparent. The quality of the copper must have an effect on signal transfer.The cable companies that offer the purest materials
seem to garner the best reviews. Harmonic Technology's single crystal wire comes to mind."
The largest effects upon subjective results with speaker cable is not the conductor. It is two things: the insulation and the geometry.
Lamp cord copper would work reasonbly well if the insulation was changed and the geometry was changed.
If you doubt that the geometry has a big effect, then try this and report back. Get some runs of lamp cord. Run one set like lamp cord. Take set #2 and separate the two condutors completely, by inches. Listen.
I think you'll hear a difference.
Having said that, I do think that for reasons that no one knows that pure Silver and copper do sound different, and SPC sounds different again... although again, this is more subtle than the difference in insulation and geometry.
_-_-bear (bearlabsUSA.com) |
I put lamp cord in quotes because I meant any reasonably priced 20 gauge wire, like the speaker wire off the rolls at the home center or whatever people call monster cable. I'm not sure that acctual lamp wire would be such a good idea. |
Why wouldn't "lamp cord" be a good idea ??? It is using the same low grade stranded copper and generic "plastic" type jacket that many "speaker cables" or "zip cord" uses. Are you trying to say that there MIGHT be a sonic difference between them ??? Could you please explain the reasoning behind your last statement ? Sean
> |
That should be 12 gauge. That's the second time I've made that mistake here. 20 WOULD sound bad. |
