Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

Lrsky: Why not set up a demo that will prove your brother to be wrong and then have him eat his own words after listening with his own ears? With all of your expertise and connections in the field of electronics and audio, finding a suitable combo of gear that will demonstrate the differences of altering just one variable within a system shouldn't be hard to do at all.

Since he is a "naysayer", i would suggest using speaker cabling as a test. If you can find some inexpensive 10 gauge zip cord and some Nordost, the differences should be highly noticeable right off the bat. While Fulton Gold would work better than the generic heavy gauge zip cord, i was trying to make this as simple and inexpensive as possible in case others wanted to try such a test themselves.

The key here is to make the listener doing the comparison extremely familiar with the sound of the system and recording being used prior to introducing the variable to be tested. This allows them to think that they will know what they will hear based on previous exposure. Given that they are already familiar with the sonic traits of the recording and the system, any differences that are easily detected will seem quite pronounced to them at this point.

If you want to take advantage of your brother's belief in AB testing, use it against him. By carefully "rigging" the results, you can achieve the results that you want. That is, IF your brother is both a reasonable listener and honest.

Play a selected song or portion of a song for him using the heavy guage zip cord as the speaker cabling. Then act like you swap speaker cabling, but don't really do it. Play that portion of the song again. Then pretend to swap speaker cables again, but don't. This will give him three times the exposure to the one set of speaker cables that he would have normally had, further aquainting him with the sonics of the system. After three identical presentations, it will also lull him into a false sense of security that there is no difference between the cables.

On the fourth try, use the Nordost cabling. Not only should the differences be markedly noticed, but he should have a hard time denying that there isn't an audible difference. As a side note, i was able to identify the differences between 16 gauge and 12 gauge Monster Cable during a similar demo at a local Best Buy. I did so using songs & equipment that i had never heard before with 100% accuracy, so this test should be even easier to achieve positive test results with. Like i said though, this would require your brother to be honest. In such a test, even an unskilled listener should be able to tell the difference.

As a side note, the use of non-locking banana plugs makes speaker cable changes the fastest, most convenient method. This requires the least amount of time as you can simply pull and insert the new cabling. The use of at least 8' - 10' of speaker cabling will also tend to further highlight the differences as shorter lengths introduce less of a sonic signature into the equation. As i've mentioned before though, longer speaker cabling lengths are only a big deal when the cables themselves are not properly designed.

The reason that i picked the cabling that i did is that zip cord tends to roll-off the top end and lends a much warmer, fuller sound to the presentation. Nordost lacks warmth and tends to accent the upper midrange and treble region, making it just the opposite of heavy gauge zip cord. Both are poorly designed cables in the fact that their nominal impedance is appr 100 ohms, but due to the differences in conductor geometry, they tend to shape the audible region in contrasting fashion. Both are "coloured" cables and we are taking advantage of those colourations to demonstrate that audible differences are discernable. Sean
>

Rsbeck: We went through all of this garbage concerning loudspeaker cable non-linearities in another recent thread. In case you can't remember, you weren't able to refute any of the scientifically derived claims that i made in that thread. The fact that i used the information that you yourself presented as evidence should refresh your memory a bit. As such, trying to use that same incorrect info as a point of reference in another thread will not fly, nor is it ethical to try and do so. That point was already proven wrong and you're standing on fallow ground.

As far as Nordost goes, it will not suffer as much increased high frequency loss due to skin effect as the zip cord does. This is due to the differences in the size and shape of the conductors used. This is true even though the Nordost is a cable that exhibits a less than desirable amount of inductance and a higher impedance, much like zip cord.

The reason that the zip cord performs poorer than the Nordost at high frequencies is due to a "double whammy". That is, the zip cord is both high in inductance and high in skin effect. Combine the two and you have increased high frequency losses. As described in that other thread, these losses could come into play as low as appr 2.2 KHz. Exactly where it did occur in a specific system would be directly related to the nominal impedance of the speaker being used.

Taking the measured responses as derived from that same article and applying it to various impedance speaker loads, the -3 dB point of zip cord would appear at 67 KHz with it being down - .2 dB at 22 KHz. The - 3dB point would be appr 33 KHz and -.2 dB at 11 KHz with a 4 ohm load. The -3 dB point would be at 16.5 KHz and -.2 dB at 5.5 KHz with a 2 ohm load. The -3 dB would be at appr 8.2 KHz and -.2 of a dB at 2.75 KHz with a 1 ohm load. Obviously, a -3 dB response at 8 KHz with significant deviations below that frequency would be highly audible to say the least, but this is under worst case scenario of a 1 ohm load. As we can see, lower impedance speakers introduce TWICE the amount of high frequency roll-off into the equation when using a poorly designed speaker cable, so keep that in mind.

One should remember that these reductions in linearity WILL occur IF the impedance of the speaker varies within the audible bandwidth. This means that the power transfer characteristics of such a cable will compound the problem of power transfer as the impedance of the speaker itself varies. This is why certain cables with certain electrical characteristics may sound slightly different when connected to slightly different loudspeaker loads i.e. the power delivery potential of each amplifier will respond differently to the individual combo presented to it.

It is for this reason that we should be using a speaker cable with a very low and consistent nominal impedance over a wide bandwidth. Taking such an approach reduces the potential for deviations with ANY type of loudspeaker load and offers the potential for the most consistent performance possible.

It is this treble roll-off that causes most heavy gauge zip cord tends to sound "warmer" and "fuller" than some esoteric audiophile speaker cabling that was designed with a higher level of engineering and signal transfer theory behind it. Whether or not this is audible will depend on the listening skills of the end user and individual components that the system is comprised of. One should bare in mind that this example was based on a worst case scenario i.e. a 1 ohm loudspeaker load. A speaker with a nominal impedance of 2 ohms would show an appr loss of -4.8 dB's at 22 KHz, a 4 ohm load would show a loss of appr -2.4 dB's at 22 KHz and an 8 ohm load would show a loss of appr 1.2

The reason why the Nordost lacks bass / warmth has to do with the higher nominal impedance, which is about 120 ohms or so. This very high impedance is what reduces the effective power transfer of the cable. In plain English, less current flow equals less low frequency output. On most poorly designed speakers that utilize some type of vented alignment, this lack of low frequency output can actually help to balance out an otherwise "slow" & "bloated" presentation by shifting the tonal balance upwards in frequency. Then again, this is strictly a "band-aid" approach i.e. fixing one problem with another known problem. Nobody with a degree in electronics would ever think about using a 100+ ohm cable between a device with a 1 ohm output impedance and a load that is nominally 8 ohms or so. That is, if they were trying to maintain a high level of system linearity.

None of this type of info is "new" or part of a "technological breakthrough". It's simply based on the laws of physics and the common understanding of signal propagation that most electronic professional's should know and understand. If it was "new" and on the "cutting edge of technology", i surely wouldn't know about it. The fact that i do know about it and can explain it should tell you something about how out of touch most "wire & cable guru's" and "wire & cable naysayers" really are.

Other than that, my comments were directed at identifying speaker cabling, not power cords. Please bring your ABX knife and power cord comments with you to the proper thread, as a knife is out of place at a gun-fight. As previously mentioned, your original arguments were already shot down in that other thread. Sean
>

While i said i wasn't going to do it, here i am again. As if i could have stayed away.... : )

Rs: Your attitude on this thread is noticeably different than where we left off on the other thread that you took down the same route. After i had fully disected Audioholics / Elliott's info piece by piece for all to see, you basically ran for cover and the thread stopped shortly after that. After all, there was no reason for the thread to continue once the "major debate" had basically been resolved. That was with ALL of the bases were covered bit by bit and all of the data laid out for all to see and follow along with. I even quoted Elliott's own verbiage, word for word in some instances, that supported the conclusions that i had drawn. As such, you can't say that you didn't see those posts, etc... and that is why you were re-posting the same data, as you had responded after the fact in that other thread. What is amazing to me is that you would try to pull the same stunt all over again here in this thread.

Now with all of the info gone from that thread and me stating that i'm not going to go through all of that again, you climb back on your podium and pontificate the same message again. Is this thread doomed to take the same turn of events? Probably. It won't be my fault though as i'm really going to shut up now. Everyone that saw that other thread, and especially those that participated in it, know EXACTLY what was said, why it was said and how those conclusions were arrived at. I made sure of that because i broke it down piece by piece as best i could. Trying to say that you've "explained away my argument" in this thread AFTER the fact with all of the evidence gone is a pretty lame thing to try and pull.

As far as the original thread goes, my guess is that Agon deleted it for multiple reasons. That is, there was soooo much bickering in it AND there was technical proof that demonstrated that not all speaker cables are created equally, nor do they perform equally. This may have discouraged potential advertisers from spending their money with Audiogon i.e. seeing their name in lights, but in a negative manner. While i don't agree with such things, Audiogon is a business and it isn't my business to run. Their decisions are what keep this website operating, so that is all that counts.

I'll only add one more thing that i brought up last time. How can someone trust someone recommending a product that they themselves are not using? You keep spouting off about zip cord being as good as anything else, so why not sell what you have, make some money back on it and then use some zip cord? This would put you dollars ahead and you could then set an example for all to see. You would also have several dollars left over, allowing you to buy some more music and maybe even grab a meal or two while shopping for tunes.

At least with me, everyone knows that i put my money where my mouth is i.e. i recommend the same product that i'm using and have taken the time to explain why. And also as mentioned before, if i could find something that worked better, i would use it. The cable that i mentioned and use is not the "end-all" of speaker cable design and technology, it is simply the most well-rounded product available at a reasonable price.

Sayonara.... Take II.... Sean
>

All of the figures that i provided was extrapolated from the data that Rod Elliott provided on his website. These were the tests that you used as a point of reference. If you've got a problem with the figures quoted, argue with the guy that provided your points of reference. Don't ask me to disprove the info that you've already stated that you accept to be accurate. You either believe it or you don't, which is it? Sean
>

I'm NOT about to type out the novels that i did last time all of this "evidence" was introduced. Rsbeck failed to respond to any / all of my previous rebuttals on the subject because he couldn't refute the information that i used as a reference. That's because my reference was his reference. Refuting my statements would be the same as impugning his own reference point, hence his silence.

Since that thread has since been deleted ( hmmmm... wonder why??? ), i'm not going to argue with a brick wall. He keeps arguing the same thing, over and over again, which only covers a very narrow part of the big picture. When it is repeatedly demonstrated to him that cable bandwidth is directly related to the impedance of the speaker load that it is terminated with, he seems to go deaf / refuse to face the facts.

Pabelson: Most EE's know what their text books have taught them. The smart ones are the ones that use the text book as a guideline and then learn on their own. This is how technology and our knowledge base is furthered. If we relied on past technology and accepted "perfectly understood" theories as being the final word, the world would still be flat and the Sun would be revolving around the Earth.

I'm done here. I hope you guys have fun. Sean
>

PS... Welcome to Audio Review take II