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 |
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
> |
Yes, but that's a different matter entirely. Let's not confuse apples and oranges with wire and , well, wire. |
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! |
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. |
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! |
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) |
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 !! |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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...) |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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, 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??? |
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. |
Uh-oh Plasma, you're up to it again :-) |
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? |
Rgd - Could you explain the "return" and "transmit" part of your post? I don't understand. |
Here's my 2 cents worth...
First off let me say that I am a believer in that cables do make a difference (not always for the good) and that bi-wiring also makes a difference (also not always to the plus side of things).
This past weekend I spent some time with a pair of cable designers who I have come to know over the last 5 months. These guys make cables that have separate cables for transmit and returns as opposed to all cables being in the same jacket - typical stereo cables are 2 cables per channel and bi-wires are 4 cables per channel. We tested a prototype cable (bi-wire version) that was constructed in a different configuration in that the return wires were made slightly different in terms of the internal wrapping of the materials. The transmit wires were configured exactly the same. Using the same system (older but high end Sony cdp, Copeland preamp and amp) but using three different pairs of speakers (Duntech, B&W 803 S2 and a pair of DIY (vifa & seas drivers) I was able to tell each and every time when the return wires had been changed. I found what can best be described as an "aggressive" verus a "laid-back" sound when the cables were swapped. There were about 6 listeners there and we all were able to distinguish the differences although personal tastes lent to a discussion on which way sounded best. Some times I preferred the "laid-back" version while others preferred the other.
In a nutshell it can be said that I am a believer in cable differences but respect the right of those who believe that they don't make difference from a purely scientific standpoint or have tried but have noticed no difference. I am no electrical engineer but do have a background in ultrasonics (so I have some knowledge on how sound and electrical signals move through time and space) but it was my experience that there was a significant difference each time, audible to a number of people - I can't explain it scientifically but I know what I heard and the only thing our group of testers could not definatively agree on was which version sounded the best.
I am glad for the differences expressed in these forums as it allows for one's own experiences to be be heard (read) and it would truly be a boring world (audio and otherwise) if we all were of the same opinion... |
Liguy, I commented on the idea of "transmission line" theory applying to audio frequencys. I do not dispute the charterisic impedance of a cable even if it is only a centimeter in length. Do you happen to recall how long an IC would have to be to get even ONE standing wave in it at any audio frequency? (it is way more than a few feet) |
Steve, My "Placebo Effect" is in reverse. When I try Radio Shack cables vs multi kilobuck ICs I am praying and rooting real hard that Radio Shack wins the contest. I dont like paying the same price for an IC as an amplifier.It goes against my sense of what is fair and honest. On the other hand, who am I to say to a design engineer that the last five years of testing, scrapping, midnight oil burning,and cost etc.,does'nt warrent the price?
BTW, I have also heard many exotic speaker wires screw up the sound far worse than stranded zip cord. Getting zip cord to sound correct though, is not the way Monster or Sound Connections or the old Levinson company did it. They used too many strands to achieve a given guage and wound up with mud sonically. (here come the morter shells)
Paul, I also concur with your last paragraph......Frank |
Sqjudge, knowing you from our off air conversations I'll bet your loving Liguy's post. Hey Li... you have no idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!! P.S. Sqjudge, I've been working on a return message, I'll get it off soon. J.D. |
I'll admit that there must be some placebo effect in cabling. I will also admit that there is an audible difference too. For me to tell you all improvements heard are factual is as crazy as those who claim it's all psychological. As many of you know, I have strong beliefs in power cord benefits and have written extensively on my testing. I've started a new mission to try different Interconnects and speaker wires. I will be receiving two pair of the flagship model of hideously expensive speaker wires this week that I bought for 1/10th of the retail price. I also have five different brands of Interconnects on the way. If I end up with these speaker cables, the retail cost of my system will double. That can not be justifiable right? I'll let you know. What I can tell you is power cords alone have allowed me to hear things (the foot pedal on piano as an example) that are simply not audible with stock cords. I need no "blind" testing, it's factually there or not there. If anyone wants to argue that point, please save the effort, I will not acknowledge your short sighted opinion. For me to assume anything but improvement from higher quality speaker wire and interconnects, given my experience with power cords would be hard. If a power cord can qualitatively make an audible difference, then I must assume cables will to. Like I say, I'll let you know. As always I'll be using my blindfold testing with my buddies. Yes this is the "unapproved and non-accredited" by the great AudiogoN science community test, but it's the one I have always used.
It's interesting to note that these speaker cables are copper! I've been a real fan of silver over the years, but remain open to experimenting with other materials. It's been stated in a number of reviews that the lower price siblings of these cables are capable of being more revealing than the silver cables they were compared to. I find it difficult to believe that the reviewers have too much political motivation in that these cables are rarely advertised and not a part of any magazines "top" lists. Just simple marketing and hideous pricing. I will refrain from giving out the brand to try and keep my review as un-bias to the reader as possible. Stay tuned, it should be fun! J.D. |
Sqjudge, how is that possible when you say that audio cables do not act as transmission lines. Take it from an EE who has around a bit much of transmission line theory applies both to Audio and RF. Capacitance is capacitance, inductance is inductance, resistance is resistance and impedance is impedance no matter what frequency you have. |
I do admit that I think that the MEGA priced cables are so far out of line. So I set out to find the best speaker ( or interconnect for that matter ) cable that I could for the money. I set my speaker cable price at $500. And I found some very good cables at that price. And some that I would not have given you $50 for. My return on investment on cables that cost $3000 could not possibly balance out enough to make me not squirm with guilt ever time I saw those cables hanging off of my speakers. Would I really be getting anything close to 6 times the cable. Me thinks not. But if someone does count it worthy, then head on buddy. But it just doesn't make sense to me. But to say that Ratshack or any standard cable can give better sound than my treasured find. ThatÂ’s like claiming Bose over Dynaudio. ( Maybe thatÂ’s the problem, maybe they are Bose lovers. With Aiwa receivers ).
And if it is the "PLACEBO" effect. Then here is the reality. I am glad that it only cost me $500 and not $3000 to be fooled. HAA!!. If it was true, I would eat my speaker cables. And my speakers. With mustard. I cannot beleive how fooled we are. Us fools who appreciate reproduced music at home must be a pretty gullible bunch. How on earth did we all get the same MOJO all at once. Maybe it was our favorite audio adds? |
Docwarnock.Find one thread where i state i dont belive in test.If you can I will eat my shorts.Dont post when you are misinformed. |
Jhunter, what was the reason for that attack? I've never hurt you to my knowledge. I've spoken with John Dunlavy quite a few times, I was relating to a post above and agreeing that John at 80 something, is indeed losing some mental faculties. He does tend to drift a bit, but I'm not saying anything pro or con to John or his ideas. I've owned Dunlavy speakers for years and fully believe he is one of the brightest men in audio, and that his speakers are the best buy in audio. For you to attack me regarding this post shows me your true intentions on AudiogoN. I'll add you to the list, thanks. J.D. |
I just don't understand why "believers" are not willing to give some credit to the placebo effect. Here's a little story. I went to the CES show in Anahiem some years ago. The rep for a new line of speakers that had just come out lived there. He was excited about these new speakers and invited me to his house to listen. It didn't take long to figure out that something wasn't right. So, I took off the grills and found that a wooden shipping support was still fastened to the woofers! He wasn't a idiot, but he was embarrassed. I just laughed to myself thinking of all dumb things I had thought I had heard and all the things I should have heard right away and didn't. |
I love this thread! Let's keep it going forever, and don't say wires is wires in response to any thread asking for comparisons or descriptions of any specific wires, because you can vent all you want right here. This is just what I suggested in "Farewell" or somewhere, don't go away, just take the subject to a segregrated area where people who are interested can discuss, or just lurk.
I agree with almost everyone above. Mr. Dunlavy is absolutely correct that many many cable claims are pure snake oil. Leafs is right about the MIT cables. But, Frank (Frap) is right that abx is inadequate, and everyone who says different cables sound different is right.
The opening entry in this thread contains a link to only one of Mr. Dunlavy's cable nonsense posts. If interested, people can search for the rest. In one of them, he says that the RS Gold interconnects are just fine. I sent him an email once and told him that the RS cables seem to attempt to merely pass the signal through, while some other cables attempt to alter the signal, and so the RS cables are actually "better" than a lot of audiophile approved interconnects. He thanked me for my "interesting" message, but didn't respond when I later asked him which RS cables he was talking about. (The RS audio cables are ok for connecting a sub, the a/v cables are better but still a little dull -ok for inexpensive and bright electronics.)
Now Frank (Frap), I agree with you with respect to really good cables. You have to live with them for a while. But so-called budget interconnects like AQ Ruby and Kimber PBJ can be distinguished within a few seconds. As to which is better, it depends on what you're listening through, because neither is really accurate. |
This is utter nonsense 702. Dr Floyd Toole, credentials and all, does'nt even beleive that differences in Amps exist that measure the same. He has always been a hardliner Julian Hirsh type and I would hate to think of our sonic past and presant, had Floyd's philosophy been the only one.
Finnish Scientist Dr Matti Otala, probably the world's most accomplished amplifier expert and author of many great AES journal papers years ago, built and marketed the worlds most textbook perfect amplifier long ago called the Citation XX. There was not a single reason on earth for this amp Not to be perfect in all areas. The whole thing sounded only so-so. There is more to it than textbook perfect design. I'll say it again, rapid ABX switching means nothing. You must live with the product and listen extensively to music you are familiar with. Then a correct "Lock" can be identified. |
Sqjudge -
My EE class showed the same thing - and it's correct. JD knows this also; he designed the Z6 primarily as a technical exercise and to give people the theoretically best possible solution. Reflections are not significant at audio frequencies (unless you've a much bigger living room than I!!), but the impedance matching buys a trivially small - and audibly undetectable by anyone - margin.
WHY do you think he acknowledges that there's no difference between his cable and zipcord? Hint: because the job of a cable is to have the same signal at the output as at the input - nothing more, nothing else. Barring some grossly overpriced tone controls masquarading as cables (or grossly undersized wires), the overwhelming majority of cables do an equally good job to the human ear.
Anyone disagreeing with this is welcome to demonstrate it in a double blind test.
Cheers,
JHunter |
Good point, Jhunter.
Dr. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive published a report in the AES journal some years ago where they had a group of 40 listeners evaluate various speakers in various listening positions, both "blind" and "sighted" tests. Some listeners were inexperienced, while about 9 or 10 claimed to be audiophiles. Interestingly, the inexperienced listeners were more consistant in their scoring of the speakers between the "blind" and the "sighted" tests, which suggests that they were to some extent more reliant on the speakers' audible characteristics, while the "audiophile" listeners' score jumped more wildly going from "blind" to "sighted" tests, which seems to indicate that they were more heavily influenced by what they saw and less by what they heard. |
Jadem6 -
If you don't understand what JD was talking about, maybe there's a reason?? ;-)
JHunter |
Or to rephase Doc's statement, for some reason tests based on SOUND ONLY are suspect amongst a large proportion of "cable believers". Let everybody know which component is being tested and it becomes a meaningful test????
Not in my book.
JHunter |
I agree with Dunlavy that the snake oil peddled in cable claims only serves to detract from actual technological development and advances in audio quality, and tarnishes the audio industry in general. |
Leafs, I thought that you didn't believe in tests? So now why are you slamming MIT based on the result of a pernicious and feared test?
Oh, never mind. I now understand that if it is a controlled test conducted in a systematic, unimpassioned, objective way then the results are suspect. But throw together 5 audio dweebs and "Katy bar the door." |
Sorry Pops you did not like them.I promot Coincident because for 299.00 they give me better sonics than any 1500.00 MIT cable i have ever heard.If the 1500.00 MIT cable which lost an A/B test with 5 others listening was priced in the 300/500 range i would not slam it but at 1500.00 its SNAKE OIL. |
Hey Leafs - in your opinion, you spend more time on one-liners slamming MIT and your promotion of Coincident cables. Hmm, interesting. I borrowed Coincident speaker cables from a buddy here on audiogon and they didn't do it for me, IMO. Does't mean they're snake oil. |
There was nothing amis with the MIT.Its plain snake oil. |
Sean, there are three types of mid level speaker cables that I tried along with the 12 gauge wire -- MIT T2 biwire and single wire, AudioQuest Slate, Nordost Flatline. The MIT single wire and AudioQuest did not sound appreciably better than the 12 gauge, and I found the Nordost and MIT biwire to actually sound a bit poorer (I'm suspicious that there might have been something amiss with the MIT cable, or something strange in the biwire configuration of the speakers, so the comparison may not be entirely fair). For reference, I'm running CJ amps into ProAc speakers, and the cable runs were around 12-15 feet each. Also, since my testing wasn't terribly scientific, I chose to dismiss any differences that were not very apparent and pretty dramatic.
As I mentioned before, my inability to hear, or my system's inability to produce a difference in the speaker cables may be entirely unique to me, and the results may be quite different for other folks. Also, I have not tried any of the higher end cables, and its possible that the differences at that level might be more striking. However, since I'm already getting a great deal of pleasure from the sound as it is, I'm more than satisfied to live with my perceptions (or delusions, you be the judge...).
Cheers,
Ken |
I know for a fact that cables can react with a system and have bad results. I watched on an oscilloscope an amplifier pruduce a beautiful 1.2 MHz sine wave when connected to some unusually high capacitance DIY cables similar to John Risch's design. It is clear that cables and systems can interact but sometimes that can be in a productive manor! |
If his speakers gave value for $ I would give his thoughts on cables some merit.Since for the half the money john charges for some of his models you can get much more speaker for the dollar i will disregard what Jonh has to say. |
Do you all mind. This discussion, and the propoganda that is its subject, is having an adverse effect on the cable sales over in the classifieds. Thanks. |
|
When I was first beginning to explore beyond the realm of Monster Cable, I switched from Monster's heavy speaker wire to Tributaries wire at $3 a foot. In the first minute of listening something was apparent when listening to my reference CD. What I had previously thought was a real instrument was in fact a sampled reproduction. Did someone say they can't hear a difference between cables? I don't have a problem with that until they say there is no difference, simply because they didn't notice it. Some people don't know a horse from an ass, and I have no problem with that either, until they try to sell me an ass claiming they are all the same. |
