|   Wire links. | A
Jun 27, 2002 1:01 PM | | It has been a while since I posted the following set of links, so I thought some of the newer visitors to this site might find them interesting. There may also be a new link or two to the list. If any of the links don't work, please post a response that mentions that, and I will try to find a new link that works or plan on removing it from my list for the future. Thanks.
Before you buy any expensive wires, you might want to look at the following:
http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm
(Some double blind tests.)
http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_plac.htm
What's the Placebo Effect?
(Why Double Blind Testing is needed. Someone may easily believe they hear a difference when they do not actually hear a difference; the more impressive LOOKING thing usually is believed to "sound" better. Consequently, listening when you can see what you are hearing is unreliable for testing any controversial matter. Double blind tests can indicate whether it is the appearance of the thing {rather than the actual sound it makes} that influences people to believe that it sounds better. Many people hate double blind tests, because they do not always give the person the result they wanted; i.e., they often believe they hear things that they cannot. It is an unfortunate characteristic of humans that they tend to blame the test rather than to consider that they may have been mistaken about what they can actually hear. There have even been some fun tests where nothing is changed, but people swear they hear a difference!)
http://www.radioworld.com/reference-room/wired-4-sound/rwf-lampen-July18.shtml
(More on the Placebo Effect.)
http://www.mastersonaudio.com/features/20010115.htm
Blind Speaker Testing at NRC
(More about why Double Blind Testing is needed. "We did some blind-versus-sighted tests and they showed that when you saw the product that you were listening to, that fact changed the ratings more than the sound.")
http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/wire.htm
Speaker Wire - A History
************
(This one has a chart recommending wire gauges. Don't use wire that is too small. Because 'generic' 12 gauge wire is so inexpensive, I recommend not using anything smaller, unless you absolutely have to {as, for example, you are running it through a conduit that is not large enough}. Also, the entire article is interesting and informative.)
************
http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html
Cable Nonsense
http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Cable/product_3854.shtml
Reviews of Radio Shack RS Gold Interconnects.
(For this one, you should scroll down to the review by Christopher Fucik. Read a review? Read it, and you should understand why. His review is long, but well worth reading. His measurements are enlightening.)
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html
(A wire manufacturer unwilling to have his claims actually tested. Why is it that, after so many years, there has been NO wire manufacturer who has actually bothered to prove their claims about their wires being audibly superior to ordinary ones? No, it is NOT a lack of money; see the next link.)
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm
"A $100 stereo cable is something like undercoating on a car. To move the product, you have to motivate the salesman."
(There is plenty of profit for wire salespeople. Why don't they spend some of that money to prove their claims? Wouldn't that really help sell the wires? And no, it is not that expensive or difficult; many manufacturers already use double blind procedures for testing various equipment, including speakers. The only explanation that I have found plausible is that their claims are false, but you should think carefully about the matter for yourself.)
http://www.magnani.net/~al/DigitalWireLabTest.html
"A delicate digital AC-3 signal originating from my $4500.00 Theta DaViD transport THROUGH A WIRE HANGER...the Dolby Decoder reported ZERO errors..."
http://www.dself.demon.co.uk |
| Wire links continued. | A
Jun 27, 2002 1:03 PM | | http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/subjectv.htm
Science and Subjectivism in Audio.
(A very good read.)
http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/truth.htm
Audio Distortions
(Another very good read. This one illustrates 'technobabble'. If you don't understand something, it could be something important, or merely marketing hype with a few facts thrown in to sound impressive.)
http://www.elecdesign.com/magazine/pease/040494.shtml
What's All This Hoax Stuff, Anyhow?
http://www.elecdesign.com/magazine/pease/122790.shtml
What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?
http://www.sound.au.com/madashell.htm#sorry_gripe
I Am As Mad As Hell - Find Out Why
http://www.avahifi.com/7pennys.htm
Seven Shiny Pennies
(I am not the only one annoyed by BS marketing of audio products. Do you want to buy some magic beans with your hard earned money, or do you want to face facts?)
For the following two, you must subscribe (it's free) to The New York Times on the Web.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/circuits/articles/23down.html
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/circuits/articles/23wire.html
Wires are one of the big controversies at this site. I think expensive wires are a waste of money, but you should THINK about the issue carefully for yourself. If expensive wires are better, why is there no proof that they are?
"Proof," of course, is more than just some people making some claims; many have claimed to be abducted by aliens, but that does not prove that they have been. "Proof" requires scientific evidence. In this case, double blind listening tests would probably be the most satisfactory type of test, which should be repeated by others, as one person could cheat (or make a mistake) in one test, and that would not be proof of anything. (Remember the claims of "cold fusion?" When the tests were repeated, it was shown that the original testers had made a mistake.)
Do NOT confuse something being measurable with something being audible. Many things can be measured but not heard. 100 kHz can be measured, but is not audible to humans. (No, I am NOT saying that no measurements are relevant to what can be heard; I am saying that not all measurements are relevant.)
When someone says, "Trust your ears" or "Hearing is believing", consider this: Do you thoughtlessly trust your eyes when you see a stick inserted halfway in water? If you don't trust your eyes without thinking, why would you trust your ears without thinking? I recommend not mindlessly trusting your sensory organs, but engaging your brain before you make a decision.
Curiously, sometimes people will say "trust your ears", and then they themselves will make judgments without listening for themselves, like saying that an interesting article (about a cheap RCA CD player being audibly indistinguishable from players costing over $1000 in a blind test) must be wrong, without ever listening to the cheap CD player. (See: The $ensible $ound, # 74, Apr/May 1999, pg. 28-30.) People often buy expensive things not for their function, but for their status, but they may convince themselves that it is function. No one, for example, buys a watch that costs thousands of dollars just because they want to know what time it is, though some may claim that that is their motive. Do you think the same idea could apply to the world of audio equipment and accessories? The status of a thing is very important to many people, and often clouds their judgment. For more on the human psychology of this, you can start by reading Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes". There is a reason why certain children's stories have such an enduring appeal; it is because they illustrate real traits of humans. See:
http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm Or:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7008/index31.html Or:
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1620.html
This brings to mind another lie, that everyone knows is a lie, yet, strangely, some people believe it is true: "You |
| Wire links continued again-this site no longer allows long posts | A
Jun 27, 2002 1:05 PM | | This brings to mind another lie, that everyone knows is a lie, yet, strangely, some people believe it is true: "You get what you pay for." Everyone knows this is false; if it were true:
1) you would not need to think (or listen) at all in order to know what to buy; always, the more expensive the item, the better;
2) buying things on sale would not help, as the same product would be worse than it is at full price;
3) looking for a bargain would always be foolish, because the lower priced item would always be worse;
4) product brands would be totally irrelevant; always, the more expensive the item, the better;
5) looking for advice on what to buy would be foolish once one knew, the more expensive the item, the better;
6) those "white van" speakers would be worth every penny one paid for them (there could not possibly be any kind of con, because "You get what you pay for.");
7) building something yourself to save money would be a waste of time, because it would necessarily be inferior to anything more expensive.
Need I go on? The simple fact is that price does not correspond to quality; in audio equipment or in anything else. Of course, price is tied in with the prestige of an item, because anything that is very expensive cannot be owned by most people, so it will virtually always, with some people, seem like something wonderful if only it is very expensive. This is true regardless of whether it is audio equipment or anything else.
Beware of 'technobabble'. There is nothing like including a few impressive facts and half-truths while omitting important and relevant facts when someone is trying to convince you of something that is false. This may occur in an advertisement, or in someone's post here; there should be one posted in reply to this any minute now, but I cannot promise that someone will comply and give us a good example (there might, instead -- or in addition to -- be insults like those contained in "The Emperor's New Clothes" against those who cannot see the new clothes). See:
http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/truth.htm
I do NOT suggest that anyone blindly follow anything I or anyone else has said, either on this forum or on any link; I strongly recommend that people think carefully about the issues for themselves AFTER considering different points of view. I leave it to the true believers to post links for the other side, as any such links from me would be regarded by many as a misrepresentation of the other side (as if there were only two sides to this issue).
Indeed, I disagree with some of what is said in the links I have provided. To give you one example, I believe that Christopher Fucik is mistaken in his belief that "...the cables included with your components are crap, and an investment in interconnects that are sturdy, corrosion-resistant, and well-sheilded is wise." I have never had any problems with the included wires breaking or the ends becoming damaged; they are sturdy enough if you do not yank them from the middle -- if you abuse things, then you should expect that you may damage things from time to time. And I do not put my audio system in a very corrosive environment (which would generally be a very bad idea), so corrosion is not a major issue in my case. I have also not had shielding problems that were not fixed by simply moving wires away from other wires. Now, if your conditions differ from mine in relevant ways (e.g., you have your equipment in a corrosive environment), or if you treat your wires differently from the way I treat mine (e.g., if you abuse them), then following his advice on this point is what I would recommend (well, actually, I would recommend getting your equipment out of the corrosive environment and stop abusing your wires, but if you are going to do so anyway, then buying sturdy wires will be a good idea). In any case, his other comments, where he gives reasons for his views, are extremely useful. (By the way, I am NOT saying that Mr. Fucik's positio |
| Wire links continued yet again | A
Jun 27, 2002 1:07 PM | | Indeed, I disagree with some of what is said in the links I have provided. To give you one example, I believe that Christopher Fucik is mistaken in his belief that "...the cables included with your components are crap, and an investment in interconnects that are sturdy, corrosion-resistant, and well-sheilded is wise." I have never had any problems with the included wires breaking or the ends becoming damaged; they are sturdy enough if you do not yank them from the middle -- if you abuse things, then you should expect that you may damage things from time to time. And I do not put my audio system in a very corrosive environment (which would generally be a very bad idea), so corrosion is not a major issue in my case. I have also not had shielding problems that were not fixed by simply moving wires away from other wires. Now, if your conditions differ from mine in relevant ways (e.g., you have your equipment in a corrosive environment), or if you treat your wires differently from the way I treat mine (e.g., if you abuse them), then following his advice on this point is what I would recommend (well, actually, I would recommend getting your equipment out of the corrosive environment and stop abusing your wires, but if you are going to do so anyway, then buying sturdy wires will be a good idea). In any case, his other comments, where he gives reasons for his views, are extremely useful. (By the way, I am NOT saying that Mr. Fucik's position with which I disagree is foolish; I just think that 'better' wires are unnecessary, for the reasons stated above.) Be selective in what you believe, and decide these things for yourself. (I am sure you already pick and choose your beliefs about many things -- how many people are always right, and how many are always wrong? Most people, of course, are neither.)
Regarding the connecting wires that are often included with components: Obviously, the manufacturer regards those wires as good enough for connecting their components, and if you cannot trust them with selecting wires, then you should not buy their components in the first place. Wires are far simpler than audio components, and if they are not capable of selecting satisfactory wire, then they are far too incompetent to design and manufacture components. Besides, take a look at the wires used inside electronic components and speakers; they are usually not much different from supplied connecting wires. If special wires were really needed, then they would need to be inside the components and would also generally be supplied by manufacturers. Given the cost of many components, they would include exotic wire if it really improved the sound, instead of the interconnects that they do include. If the included interconnects made their components sound bad, then many of the components would be returned, wouldn't they?
If you decide to listen to wires for yourself, listen "blind" (i.e., have someone else hook up the wires and not tell you what you are hearing; decide if it is good or not, then look and make sure they did not hook up the "inferior" wires too loosely). People who object to listening blind do not want to get the "wrong" answer; they are like the people in The Emperor's New Clothes. Many judge sound quality by price and prestige rather than by sound. This is one reason why many hate double blind tests, because such tests force one to listen with one's ears rather than with one's prejudices. Judge by the sound, not by seeing what it is first.
There are many issues to consider when listening for oneself. There are situations in which one hears a real difference, but the difference is due to something other than the exotic wires.
For example, when switching speaker wires, people commonly move the speaker. If you reposition your speaker in your room, even slightly, this can make an audible difference. So when you hear a difference after changing wires, it could be because of repositioned speakers rather than the ne |
| Wire links continued some more | A
Jun 27, 2002 1:08 PM | | For example, when switching speaker wires, people commonly move the speaker. If you reposition your speaker in your room, even slightly, this can make an audible difference. So when you hear a difference after changing wires, it could be because of repositioned speakers rather than the new wires.
Another thing that people sometimes do is switch out an old corroded or damaged wire. The improvement then with the new wire may be because of the corrosion or damage to the old wire, not due to the special new wires being expensive.
People often listen more intently after making a change because they are trying to hear a difference. This greater attention to the details of the music may cause them to notice more things in the music, and therefore they may believe that the new wires improved the system when really it is that they are now paying attention to the details. To guard against this sort of thing, one must listen blind.
You should also repeat your tests many times; otherwise, you might just have a 'lucky guess' rather than actually hear a difference.
If you do not guard against ALL of the above, any listening you do yourself will be worthless -- no, it will be worse than worthless, because it will probably convince you of something without having any real evidence. It is exactly like judging a stick to be bent when it looks like it is bent while halfway in water. That is not good evidence at all that the stick is really bent, and listening for oneself, without taking the necessary precautions, may very well lead to like errors.
Depending on the type of connectors on your amplifier (receiver) and speakers, you might choose to have different connectors at each end of your speaker wire. What will work best in your case will depend on the types of connectors on your equipment, and how often you plan on disconnecting and reconnecting things. By the way, I suggest that, if you have a soldering iron and are capable of using it, you can 'tin' (i.e., melt solder into) the ends of braided wires instead of buying "pin" type connectors. Retighten your connections after a few days (if you have the type of connections that can be retightened). If you prefer a different type of connector, by all means, buy it.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience (Not directly about audio per se, but it is relevant to various types of claims made about audio equipment. This can help one distinguish between reasonable types of support for controversial claims and unreasonable ones. Also good for evaluating things other than about audio. If you click on only one link, click on this one. It is worth reading more than once. You might want to bookmark it, and read it again in a couple of weeks.)
One last thing: If someone claims something that most electrical engineers regard as impossible, and makes the claims here rather than in a scientific forum -- is the person a misunderstood genius or just another quack? (History tells us which of these is more likely....) By all means, read what they say and decide for yourself. YOU decide whether their remarks are 'technobabble' or the truth. But whatever you do, THINK FOR YOURSELF.
*****************************
"Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I've taken the approach of shopping with my brain and not so much with my ears. I have yet to be disappointed." -- Christopher Fucik, from:
http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Cable/product_3854.shtml
*****************************
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing you hear." -- an English proverb
*****************************
My apologies for the length of my explanations, but, unfortunately, I have found that some people who profess to be experts on the subject matter have had difficulty understanding the relevance of the various links. Frankly, I expect that in the future, I will need to make the explanations even longer for th |
| Wire links continued for the last time (hopefully) | A
Jun 27, 2002 1:10 PM | | My apologies for the length of my explanations, but, unfortunately, I have found that some people who profess to be experts on the subject matter have had difficulty understanding the relevance of the various links. Frankly, I expect that in the future, I will need to make the explanations even longer for these people. On the other hand, there will probably be some who will not like what I post no matter how clear or reasonable the explanations may be.
It's your money; spend it how you like. |
| Congratulations you set a new record for consecutive posts (nt) | Richard Greene
Jun 27, 2002 1:41 PM | | (nt) |
| Wire links continued for the last time (hopefully) | pctower
Jun 27, 2002 5:09 PM | | In short, it took you five posts to say that DBTs are the only reliable way to determine if audible differences really exist between cables.
If you are truly interested in educating people as you say, and your motives are so pure, why did you not include any of the following information:
_____________
The synopsis of Leventhals article that appeared in J.AudioEng.Soc.,Vol.34,No.6, 1986, June follows:
When the conventional 0.05 significance level is used to analyze listening test data, employing a small number of trials or listeners can produce an unexpectedly high risk of concluding that audible differences are inaudible (type 2 error). The risk can be both large absolutely and large relative to the risk of concluding that inaudible differences are audible (type 1 error). This constitutes systematic bias against those who believe that differences are audible between well-designed electronic components that are spectrally equated and not overdriven. A statistical table is introduced that enables readers to look up type 1 and type 2 error risks without calculation. Ways to manipulate the risks are discussed, a quantitative measure of a listening test's fairness is introduced, and implications for reviewers of the listening test literature are discussed.
Shanefield responded at J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 35, No. 7/8, 1987 July/August, page 567, part of which follows:
While the Leventhal treatment enhances our theoretical understanding of A-B tests, the engineering usefulness is another matter. A value judgment needs to be made as to whether a low number of p is at all useful. My own judgment is that low numbers for p are of little practical use, even though it is satisfying to have a mathematical understanding of them. In other words, if two amplifiers can only be distinguished audibly a small percentage of the time (with a low p), but the experiment can be repeated fairly precisely (with a high "confidence"), then the audible difference is "useless" to me, even though it might be "statistically real." This low p is just as useless as a high p with a low confidence, and the reason is that, either way, there would be no audible difference on which we can depend. In fact, since the same data could usually lead to either conclusion, one type of uncertainty is simply being exchanged for another.
In that same issue, Leventhal responded to Shanefield at page 569, part of which follows:
Regarding old conclusions, published listening studies employing a small number of trials or listeners (small N) typically fail to produce statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Many readers reach the conclusion: "there were no audible differences." My paper suggests a more accurate conclusion: "there were no large audible differences, but judgment should be withheld about small or moderate audible differences because the studies were not sufficiently powerful (sensitive) to find them when they occur." Professor Shanefield and others interested only in large audible differences will find no practical difference between the conclusions. But those interested in small or moderate audible differences will find the conclusions to be different.
Regarding engineering usefulness, even engineers interested only in large audible differences should find the paper useful. First, it discusses statistical assumptions and design considerations for listening studies, Published listening studies often founder on one or both of these requirements. Second, an engineer de- signing a listening study can use Table 3 to find the minimum N to employ before the risk of overlooking large differences becomes unacceptably large. For ex- ample, assume it important to keep type 1 and type 2 error risks small and approximately equal. Table 3 shows that one interested only in large differences (p _> 0.9) can employ merely 10 trials or listeners (N = 10) and require eight correct for significance at the 0.06 |
| Mine continued | pctower
Jun 27, 2002 5:11 PM | | See also: http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?141
__________________________
b My apologies for the length of my explanations, but, unfortunately, I have found that some people who profess to be experts on the subject matter have had difficulty understanding the relevance of the various links. Frankly, I expect that in the future, I will need to make the explanations even longer for these people. On the other hand, there will probably be some who will not like what I post no matter how clear or reasonable the explanations may be.
You certainly seem impressed with your own importance and intellectual superiority. |
| Mine continued | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 10:20 AM | | I don't think he is at all. Why would you jump to this conclusion? You only read a few pages but don't know him either. You certainly cannot offer any better insights to hearing audible differences, why, and provide supporting data of any kind, right? |
| Typical unconstructive response from audio voodoo believers | caldera
Jun 28, 2002 11:34 AM | | Nothing satisfies you people. No matter how carefully explained, subjectivists ALWAYS find something wrong with an objectivists explanation or thier comparison tests. The tiniest, most insignificant error is enough to "prove" the objectvist is wrong.
Then when you ask the subjectivist to explain THEIR side you get either: 1) Nothing 2) A long-winded, overly complicated, patronizing post that contains all manner of references to pseudo-sciences or New Age philosophy, or ESPECIALLY half-baked theories presented as fact (this last one runs rampant at audioasylum) or 3) A smart ass retort reminiscent of what is heard at recess at the local elementary school, albeit with "bigger" words.
End result: the subjectivist has proven nothing. The objectivist? at least he has utilized thinking rooted in fact and common sense. Science cannot explain ALL things, but it can explain a lot.
__/C\__ |
| Typical unconstructive response from audio voodoo believers | pctower
Jun 28, 2002 12:29 PM | | b The tiniest, most insignificant error is enough to "prove" the objectvist is wrong.
Where did I say you were wrong, let alone attempt to prove it? Where did I claim you had made an error? I merely pointed out that you had left out an important piece of scholarly work relating to the subject. I hope you are not contending that the Leventhal issue is "tiny". It goes to the very heart of how DBTs should be conducted in order to produce satistical results that are reasonably reliable.
b Then when you ask the subjectivist to explain THEIR side you get either: 1) Nothing 2) A long-winded, overly complicated, patronizing post that contains all manner of references to pseudo-sciences or New Age philosophy, or ESPECIALLY half-baked theories presented as fact (this last one runs rampant at audioasylum) or 3) A smart ass retort reminiscent of what is heard at recess at the local elementary school, albeit with "bigger" words.
What do you contend my "side" is? Do you contend the material published in the AES Journal that I referred to is "pseudo-science" or "New Age philosopy" or a "half-baked" theory? What exactly have I said that you would lable as "pseudo-science" or "New Age philosopy" or a "half-baked" theory?
b End result: the subjectivist has proven nothing
Again, please describe exactly what you claim I am trying to prove?
b The objectivist? at least he has utilized thinking rooted in fact and common sense. Science cannot explain ALL things, but it can explain a lot.
Do you accept the validity of the scientific method? If so, do you also accept that argument (not in the sense of nasty comments, but in the sense of scholarly discourse) is part of the scientific method?
Given the current evolution of human knowledge, I would certainly agree that science cannot explain everything, but that it can explain a lot. Whether it will eventually be able to explain everything is not a question on which I have an opinion.
b Typical unconstructive response from audio voodoo believers
Exactly what is it that I believe in that warrants your label of "voodoo"? |
| The post was more about subjectivists in GENERAL , not.......... | caldera
Jun 28, 2002 1:45 PM | | .....you in particular.
But I think you are over anaylzing though. Scientific discussion is one thing-yes, this helps expose us to new theories or conceptsand aids us in undertanding them. But that is different from already proven FACTS. And there have been many tests using DBTs that prove people can't hear diferences between Widget "A" and Widget "B". DBTs are not THAT complicated but many, many subjectivists constantly nit-pick them to death, coming up with the most outlandish reasons why DBTs "cannot" work.
I had to take two statistics classes for my Industrial Technology degree and did a stint as a quality control inspector for a year (you'll have to take my word for these things). I know how easily numbers can be twisted around to suit one's purposes. But again, DBTs aren't akin to quantum physics and this constant harping over them using arguments only someone on LSD can understand is irritating. Those arguments are much like an Escher painting--they seem to begin nowhwere and end nowhere, serving only to confuse and tire (objectivists) to the point they finally give up out of sheer frustration. so, the subjectivist (in his mind anyway) "wins" the argument.
You must have seen how most subjectivist/objectivist message threads quickly degenerate into arguments about HOW each other is arguing-and no longer is the discussion about cables, amp sound, etc. And it's almost always the subjectivists initiating this--which to me, causes me to think that they know they are losing the argument and need a diversionary tactic. And wehn cable-beleivers start questioning reality ITSELF (as I mentioned below in entropy's thread) all semblence to a coherent, Earth-based discussion is thrown out the window and it is an anything-goes atmosphere and nothing can be proven. Again, the subjectivist "wins". (It is getting difficult to explain this. Trying to describe chaos is confusing).
I refuse to be drawn into a belief system that questions anything/everything despite proof to the contrary. That, I believe, is a condition known as "insanity".
<b>__/C\__</b>
The REAL thing: http://soonersports.ocsn.com/sports/m-wrestl/okla-m-wrestl-body.html
(an awesome misunderstood sport that keeps me grounded and my face full of scratches!) |
| Wire links continued for the last time (hopefully) | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 10:17 AM | | He didn't post it because he is psychic and knew you would:)
However, it is still interesting that no further testing is available from wire companies with better statistical data. Why? After all, They have the burden of demonstrating audible differences, don't they? Remember who has the burden in the court of science.
Oh, when some get 8 of 10, more trials are needed. What do they reveal? Nothing new. |
| Wire links continued for the last time (hopefully) | pctower
Jun 28, 2002 10:46 AM | | b However, it is still interesting that no further testing is available from wire companies with better statistical data. Why? After all, They have the burden of demonstrating audible differences, don't they? Remember who has the burden in the court of science.
I don't take issue with this statement at all. What really bothers me is the arrogant attitude so many naysayers seem to convey. As you know, when I first joined this forum, I said some pretty brutal things about your attitude. It took me a while to get used to your agressive style and to understand what your true position is - that of critical observer and defender of truth. I have come to respect the way in which you keep personalities, both yours and others, out of the discussion.
However, I don't see such restraint in many of the other naysayers and nothing gets my blood boiling faster than when I believe I'm witnessing intellectual arrogance. I'm sure my responses on such occasions come accross as judgmental and boorish, but I just can't keep quiet. |
| Wire links continued for the last time (hopefully) | mtrycrafts
Jun 29, 2002 5:44 PM | | b I have come to respect the way in which you keep personalities, both yours and others, out of the discussion.
THanks, mean it sincerely. We may get together for a listen yet:)
b , but I just can't keep quiet.
I resemble that :) |
| Wire links continued for the last time (hopefully) | pctower
Jun 30, 2002 10:19 AM | | b We may get together for a listen yet:
I'd really enjoy that. |
| Wire links continued for the last time (hopefully) | mtrycrafts
Jun 30, 2002 5:21 PM | | I'll keep it in mind when I am in the area:) |
| "A" You're the man! | Chuckd55
Jun 28, 2002 8:39 PM | | I've been going crazy trying to find that dself.denon link. Someone else posted it here and I could never find it again. THANKS!
An error statement in one link. Your nytimes link says speaker wires have to be the same length. Actually they don't. Also they don't have to be the same length even if you're concerned about audible difference. Mine are 4' and 12'.
Refreshing to see some sanity at the A/R "asylum". I know, I know, my POV didn't say people will agree with it.
I don't have the time to argue here everyday. As someone said "arguing on the internet is like the special olympics, you can win, but you're still retarded". (No offense to the retarded meant by this reference).
So my Stereophile link and Mtry did say there ARE measurable differences between wires. Perhaps some day they will be audible. I'd rather spend my time at the dealer next month and compare my 12 ga. from Home Depot to their Transparent speaker cable.
Hi, Pctower, I know you don't speak to me. Anyhow, I found a definition of insanity. If you don't things exactly as they really are, you are insane. So none of us are totally sane. We're all maybe, unsane. Of course, truly insane people cannot fit the real world with the world that is in their own head. Thereby can't function in the real world.
How many more months are you going to argue on the internet before you do the blind test? Why not just get it over with and move on?
As for the Bible. I like 2 Thessalonians 2:10
"He will completely fool those who are on their way to hell because they have said "no" to the Truth; they have refused to believe it and love it, and let it save them, so God will allow them to believe lies with all their hearts, and all of them will be justly judged for believing falsehood, refusing the Truth, and enjoying their sins"
And if all else fails, remember Charlie Brown's famous words
"No problem is too big to run away from". |
| Hey Chuck, I'll speak to anyone... | pctower
Jun 29, 2002 11:46 AM | | as long as they are very, very careful not to offend my delicate sensibilities.
b How many more months are you going to argue on the internet before you do the blind test? Why not just get it over with and move on?
I view my participation here and a personal blind test as pretty much mutually exclusive. My interest here is primary an intellectual one. I have no position as to whether cables actually sound different. My own personal experience suggests to me that they do, but that experience has never been subject to controls that would allow me to be sure.
My main interest here is the many unsubstantiated claims that are made on both sides of the issue. Surprisingly, I find that far more such claims eminate from the naysayer side, but perhaps that's just because there are more naysayers than yeasayers here.
My own blind test will not be rigourous enough to prove anything, and even if I can't identify different cables under blind testing, I have no idea if that will alter my subsequent experiences with cables. Conducting such a test is relatively low on my priority list, but I hope to get it done this summer. However, regardless of how it turns out, it won't keep me from challenging unsupported claims and intellectual arrogance, regardless of which camp it comes out of.
BTW, I find it interesting that you would want me to make up my mind and "move on." People like mtry made up their minds years ago, but I haven't seen you suggest that they move on. Does the fact that they happen to agree with you have anything to do with that? |
| Hey Chuck, I'll speak to anyone... | mtrycrafts
Jun 29, 2002 5:55 PM | | b My own personal experience suggests to me that they do, but that experience has never been subject to controls that would allow me to be sure.
This is why you are unique in the yeasayer camp:)
I have a friend who used to write for a small publication. He told me what will he write if he cannot hear differences in a DBT. So he never participated in one. We are still friends :)
b My own blind test will not be rigourous enough to prove anything,
Just do enough trials:) If you end up with significance, we can redo with better supervision:) |
| Hey Chuck, I'll speak to anyone... | pctower
Jun 30, 2002 10:15 AM | | I've had this fantasy as to how such a writer might go about participating in a secret DBT. He would absolutely have to make sure that the participants would remain silent forever if he couldn't properly identify the components or, in the alternative, he would have to be prepared to kill them following the test. |
| Hey Chuck, I'll speak to anyone... | mtrycrafts
Jun 30, 2002 5:23 PM | | b or, in the alternative, he would have to be prepared to kill them following the test.
Too many alternatives. Maybe the precons can be fooled :) |
| delicate sensibilties (LOL) | Chuckd55
Jun 30, 2002 8:31 PM | | My own blind test will not be rigourous enough to prove anything, and even if I can't identify different cables under blind testing, I have no idea if that will alter my subsequent experiences with cables"
I guess many people really believe that they can hear differences and that DBT must be flawed, not them. Otherwise when the test shows that DBT proves there are no differences, then why buy the expensive stuff? Certainly not for audible reasons.
Rush "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice".
"BTW, I find it interesting that you would want me to make up my mind and "move on." People like mtry made up their minds years ago, but I haven't seen you suggest that they move on."
I was under the impression that you were here to help you come to a decision as to whether there are audible differences with wire or not. Hence my comment.
I don't think Mtry is here to resolve anything, he just likes to p!$$ people off (just kidding Mtry). Actually it's good that someone here takes the time to post here a provide some kind of reality check against every tweak that comes along. I just don't have Mtry's the time or interest to do so.
"Does the fact that they happen to agree with you have anything to do with that?"
No, actually my personal value system. Why stagnate in an endless circle of debate which never proves/disproves anything?
I personally would rather come to a decision and move on. As with this wire debate, I have had the extremely great displeasure in life to come upon other "bottomless pits" where the deeper you dig for answers or a resolution you get nothing but more stuck in the pit. Walking away with the questions unresolved has been the only solution.
If being here arguing with Mtry forever makes you happy then that is fine. I am sure that someone with your intelligence and talent could do great things for the world versus stagnating here. Don't know if arguing here makes the world a better place or really benefits anyone.
So I pretty much took my own good advise and "moved on". |
| "A" You're the man! | mtrycrafts
Jun 29, 2002 5:50 PM | | b and Mtry did say there ARE measurable differences between wires.
Don't think I ever said anything less. ONe can measure the difference when you cut off one inch of cable.
b Perhaps some day they will be audible.
Not unless evolution improves your hearing:)
b I'd rather spend my time at the dealer next month and compare my 12 ga. from Home Depot to their Transparent speaker cable.
Futile. |
| Oops, guess I shouldn't have read all this. | Spiky
Jun 28, 2002 7:31 AM | | > "Believe only half of what you see and nothing you hear." -- an English proverb
Wow, you had me until this. I was all set to take out my nice, cheap, professional wires and put back the crappy freebies. Because damage couldn't exist in these magic 24 AWG wires, right? There's no way something that cost $.05 to manufacture could have any sort of problems now or in the future.
But then you threw in philosophy as your final proof of what wires mean to a sound system. So I guess you're just a naysayer shill. I guess I'm stuck with high-quality <$10 wires. Oh, well. |
| "naysayer shill. " | mtrycrafts
Jun 28, 2002 10:23 AM | | ah, nothing better to say, something worthwhile with some contrary, credible evidence. Shame. |
| naysayer who can't read | Spiky
Jul 1, 2002 10:02 AM | | Contrary? To what, pray tell? Please be specific. |
| The Truth About Wire links continued some more, Part 3 | Jon
Jul 8, 2002 9:57 PM | | The warnings about listening to cables are hilarious!
If you believe any of this, then you would have to be paralyzed from commiting to any audio component purchase, because even your own ears can not be used, according to the naysayers.
This is poppycock.
No one should HAVE to perform a DBT to make an audio component purchasing decision, yet this is what A is implying, that without conducting a blind test, you might "fool" your self.
Again see:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/general/messages/206918.html
The real truth of the matter is, we CAN use our ears to decide what to buy, and it does not have to be DBT, ABX or EIEIO.
Besides, IF you really wanted to conduct a listening test, the information presented here is NOT sufficient to do so, as noted before, just listening under blind conditions, guarantees NOTHING ELSE, not the quality of the listening test, or the sensitivity of the tests.
If you really want to do some tests, then do it right, see:
How to listen, excerpt from my AES paper:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/4321.html
and get a copy ofthe paper, AES paper, preprint #3178, "A User Friendly Methodology for Subjective Listening tests", presented at the 91st AES convention, October, 1991.
Consisting of 33 pages of text, and 19 references, it is too long to try and present here, and I urge anyone interested in the details to get a copy from the AES, it is available for $5, and can be ordered from:
http://www.aes.org/publications/preprints/search.html
and for more on audio cables, some technical info, see:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/c4.htm
Jon Risch |
| The Truth About Wire links continued some more, Part 3 | FLZapped
Jul 9, 2002 7:42 AM | | [This is poppycock.]
What a brilliant scientific observation.
[Again see:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/general/messages/206918.html
The real truth of the matter is, we CAN use our ears to decide what to buy, and it does not have to be DBT, ABX or EIEIO.]
We're not guilty of producing a totally "yeasayer" link when you just finished lamblasting "A" for the opposite. Nah, you wouldn't do that, it would make you a hypocrite, no?(Especially considering YOU are it's author.)
[If you really want to do some tests, then do it right, see:
How to listen, excerpt from my AES paper:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/4321.html
and get a copy ofthe paper, AES paper, preprint #3178, "A User Friendly Methodology for Subjective Listening tests", presented at the 91st AES convention, October, 1991.
Consisting of 33 pages of text, and 19 references, it is too long to try and present here, and I urge anyone interested in the details to get a copy from the AES, it is available for $5, and can be ordered from:
http://www.aes.org/publications/preprints/search.html]
Yes, a non-reviewed, paper that never made it past pre-printing and has been questioned as to it's validity in producing accurate, reapeatable results.
[and for more on audio cables, some technical info, see:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/c4.htm]
And again, this link that has already been shown to contain inaccuracies, Jon, why must you keep reposting the same old stuff? Are you following the old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will eventually be believed?
-Bruce |
| The Truth About the Wire links, continued. Part 2A | Jon
Jul 8, 2002 9:43 PM | | Second, this was done on digital audio data for a DVD, which uses packetized data, rather than a continuous stream of digital data words as does CD digital audio. A completely different data mechanism, and one that will not necessarily correlate to CD digital audio. Note that the implication is that the results would be true for all digital audio signal transfer.
For more info on jitter, see:
http://members.nbci.com/Jon_Risch/jitter.htm
and the referenced articles and URL's contained within.
************************************
[ http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/subjectv.htm
Science and Subjectivism in Audio.
(A very good read.) ]
It should be noted that Douglas Self is a mega naysayer of notorious reputation. Highly biased viewpoint and presentation, with information presented in a slanted manner. The contents of the web site are one man's opinion, as are those of any other web site. It is just that his website is designed specifically to try and present a particualr POV.
http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/truth.htm
Audio Distortions
(Another very good read.)
This has little or nothing to do with cables, apparently, it was felt that it was a good time to get in a commercial for nay-saying !!! At least it did not link you to a porn site !
[ http://www.elecdesign.com/magazine/pease/040494.shtml
What's All This Hoax Stuff, Anyhow?
http://www.elecdesign.com/magazine/pease/122790.shtml
What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow? ]
The Pease web pages have been addressed, he was sold a bill of goods by certain people, one masquerading as an audio engineer, namely Tom Nousaine. Pease was neverr told the whole story, or just what the real facts were, or that the ABX listening tests were all conducted by amatuers, not audio professionals.
[ http://www.sound.au.com/madashell.htm#sorry_gripe I Am As Mad As Hell - Find Out Why
http://www.avahifi.com/7pennys.htm Seven Shiny Pennies ]
Rod Elliot is also a well known nay-sayer who absolutely refuses to acknowledge that there may be more to audio cables than simply frequency response. He speaks about insulators and conductors as if they were textbook perfect, and any engineer designing in the real world knows better.
For some references to info that illuminates the situation about cable parameters, and proivides some scientific and physics related information, see:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/c4.htm
[ For the following, you must subscribe (it's free) to The New York Times on the Web.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/circuits/articles/23wire.html ]
I saw these once earlier, and the question would be: where do these 'experts' get their information? Some of the big names mentioned in the article are familiar, but others, such as Alan P. Kefauver, who knows? Pretty much a worthless article, as it just rehashes the controversies, in an effort to seem newsworthy.
The DIY article is a joke of mega-hoot proportions, for some real information on building your audio cables, that will actually provide some high performance, see:
All the DIY cable links on one page:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/cables.htm
[ Wires are one of the big controversies at this site. I think expensive wires are a waste of money, but you should THINK about the issue carefully for yourself. If expensive wires are better, why is there no proof that they are?
"Proof," of course, is more than just some people making some claims; many have claimed to be abducted by aliens, but that does not prove that they have been. "Proof" requires scientific evidence. In this case, double blind listening tests would probably be the most satisfactory type of test, which should be repeated by others, as one person could cheat (or make a mistake) in one test, and that would not be proof of anything. . ]
Nor is one test tha |
| The Truth About the Wire links, continued. Part 2B | Jon
Jul 8, 2002 9:45 PM | | Part 2B
Nor is one test that comes up empty, proof of anything. Do you know how many naysayer "listening tests" there are that are published? Not even in a peer-reviewed, professional journal but just the popular press? Just three on speaker cables, and nothing else.
Aside from the alien abduction inference that cable sonics are just as silly, there is plenty of "proof" for audiophiles all over the world: the proof of their own ears. DBT proponents would have you ignore this proof, based on scientific presentation criteria, but what other proof do you need than what you hear on your system? As noted elsewhere, when you suddenly hear something on familiar program material that was never noticed before, when auditioning a component, this is not some sort of delusion or insanity, it is real and should be enough proof for any reasonable person that they did indeed hear something on that component.
[ When someone says, "Trust your ears" or "Hearing is believing", consider this: Do you thoughtlessly trust your eyes when you see a stick inserted halfway in water? If you don't trust your eyes without thinking, why would you trust your ears without thinking? I recommend not mindlessly trusting your sensory organs, but engaging your brain before you make a decision. ]
Optical illusions do not necessarily equate to hearing. You are supposed to think about things, but not TOO hard, or you might see through the smoke screen of naysayer BS.
As for trusting what you hear, see:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/general/messages/206918.html
Jon Risch |
| The Truth About the Wire links, continued. Part 2B | FLZapped
Jul 9, 2002 7:34 AM | | Still trying to make this argument? Four postings later and it still not any more valid.
-Bruce |
| The Truth About the Wire links, continued. Part 2A | FLZapped
Jul 9, 2002 7:29 AM | | [[ http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/subjectv.htm
Science and Subjectivism in Audio.
(A very good read.) ]
It should be noted that Douglas Self is a mega naysayer of notorious reputation. Highly biased viewpoint and presentation, with information presented in a slanted manner. The contents of the web site are one man's opinion, as are those of any other web site. It is just that his website is designed specifically to try and present a particualr POV.]
And that's all you can say? So it's just your personal opinion of the individual, rather than anything to do with his work, no?
[[ http://www.sound.au.com/madashell.htm#sorry_gripe I Am As Mad As Hell - Find Out Why
http://www.avahifi.com/7pennys.htm Seven Shiny Pennies ]
Rod Elliot is also a well known nay-sayer who absolutely refuses to acknowledge that there may be more to audio cables than simply frequency response. He speaks about insulators and conductors as if they were textbook perfect, and any engineer designing in the real world knows better.]
And you talk about insulators, with the exception of "teflon" class insulation, as if they are the evil of the world. Yet you have yet to prove any of your claims. So how could anyone expect you to adequately be a judge of this fellow's work?
[For some references to info that illuminates the situation about cable parameters, and proivides some scientific and physics related information, see:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/c4.htm]
Lets start with the very first reference from c4:
[Duncan, Ben & Harrison, Andrew; The Great Cable Test (part 1), Hi-Fi News and Record Review, July 1999, p.30-33, Vol. 44, #7
Duncan, Ben & Harrison, Andrew; The Great Cable Test (part 2), Hi-Fi News and Record Review, August 1999, p.32-41, Vol. 44, #8
Duncan, Ben & Harrison, Andrew; The Great Cable Test (part 2), Hi-Fi News and Record Review, September 1999, p.40-53, Vol. 44, #9
Comments:
The above three part article is a landmark series, as Duncan and Harrison show that Speaker Cables have a dynamic phase shift with a change in signal level. Phase shift is nothing new, and many have supposed that phase shifts might be a portion of the reason cables sound different from one another. However, the measurement results given in these articles is noteworthy because it shows that speaker cables are definitely non-linear components. A given loudspeaker cable's total amount of phase shift changes as the signal level changes.
This means that FM is present, and an effect sonically akin to digital jitter is occuring within speaker cables.]
The following reference answers this very well:
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html
Which blows your comments allto hell, Jon. Again, you have failed to do the necessary rigourous work to prove your pet theories - and with all your wailing about peer review, you went off and bit on a flawed test to create yet another whole argument, just like the op-amp, cable reflection article, you finally had to admit was flawed.
[The DIY article is a joke of mega-hoot proportions, for some real information on building your audio cables, that will actually provide some high performance, see:
All the DIY cable links on one page:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/cables.htm]
Ah yes, this page, whith its mix of somewhat useful information and out-right science fiction, especially regadng bi-wiring. This was recently dealt with and has also been done in the past:
<a href="/crforum?14@@.ef8ce06/35">FLZapped "Bi-wiring Pro & Cons" 7/4/02 11:39am</a>
-Bruce |
| The Truth About the Wire links, continued. Part 2A | rode
Sep 18, 2002 9:14 PM | | Jon wrote "Rod Elliot is also a well known nay-sayer who absolutely refuses to acknowledge that there may be more to audio cables than simply frequency response. He speaks about insulators and conductors as if they were textbook perfect, and any engineer designing in the real world knows better."
Jon is a fraud and a liar! I have *never* claimed that all conductors and insulators are perfect. There is ample proof (as in real, genuine, tested proof) that the difference between cables is not audible *if* comparable topologies are compared (dollar value notwithstanding), whereas Jon has zero proof of anything, except his "good name" (which isn't!).
To Jon, "proof" seems to be simply that he said it, and therefore it must be true. Well, everyone in the real world knows that it doesn't work that way. It is interesting that Jon will say things like (and I quote) ...
"Proof," of course, is more than just some people making some claims; many have claimed to be abducted by aliens, but that does not prove that they have been."
Very true, so Jon, now is the time for you to put your proof where your mouth is. Instead of putting words into the mouths of others, try offering some proof (not "proof") that you are right, and that the cables do make as much difference as you claim, and that in a DBT you *can* get a statistically significant result in your favour.
So far, this has never been shown to be the case, so now is the time for you to show us (all) that we are wrong. None of the people you have defamed in your vast list of "naysayer" references will be easy to convince, but since you are obviously so much smarter than us, now is the time to demonstrate your erudition and scientific method in a manner that we can use to go forward.
Rod Elliott (ESP)
http://sound.au.com |
| REPLY part 1 | Jon
Sep 22, 2002 2:08 PM | | Rod,
First, I see that you have rewritten your web site page on cables. Kind of convenient to eliminate any earlier statements that might have been embarrassing. Also kind of convenient to mix in some mis-direction and ad homenium attacks on the ESP cable pages.
I especially love the first paragraph after the heading: "Preamble Part 2". A leading question that you also answer, complete with spin.
Pure science that is.
Second, Rod Elliot is an excitable boy who did not read the posted statement very well.
I said: "He speaks about insulators and conductors as if they were textbook perfect.... "
Rod says: "I have *never* claimed that all conductors and insulators are perfect. "
Speaks about as if they were perfect, and saying that you "claimed they were perfect" are two different things.
Now what Rod protests never actually got said, and is a typical misdirection that naysayers use all the time to make an argument out of the precise words that may or may not have been used, and to draw attention away from the real issues.
If you ignore materials quality, and do not even mention anything about the cables, except the textbook pure LCR parameters, as if they were all that existed, then is this not implying such is the case?
Is not saying things like (found at: http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm ):
"So far, there has not been one shred of evidence that indicates that TeflonTM (wonderful stuff that may well
be) is audibly superiour to PVC in a properly controlled double-blind (or ABX) test. Differences are measurable (with the right equipment) but are not relevant to the audio range unless the "facts" or cable topology are manipulated to influence the test. "
Are you not saying that you consider PVC insulation to be sonically equivalent to teflon, and that this would make the PVC audibly "perfect" ?
As far as the "one shred of evidence" statement, that is quite over the top, and a typical exaggeration of the situation. As noted, there are indeed measurable differences between teflon and PVC. This is called evidence in the scientific world.
But then you go on and make the statement " ..but are not relevant to the audio range....", and this is just a bald-faced statement without any backup. You provide no references or citations, or ANY sort of valid backup for this statement. How can you say this, without providing any evidence? Isn't this exactly what you are accusing others of doing? No where on your web site do you provide any backup for this statement.
In another portion of that page, you state:"The fact of the matter is that no metallic conductor causes (non-linear) distortion. "
This is wrong and untrue. Of course, with the typical mind-set of the naysayer, who either assumes that you know all of his complicated caveats and double-talk excuses, they tend to forget about some of the details of cables. Like the many cables that have steel cored center wires, instead of pure copper. These kinds of cables WILL generate harmonic distortion, and even IM, due to the hysterysis of the steel core.
From: http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p2.htm
[ Another popular method of minimising inductance is to use a pair of coaxial leads (e.g.75 Ohm TV/video coax or similar). The inner conductor of one and the outer conductor of the other are joined to make the +ve lead, and vice-versa for the negative. A good quality coax has a relatively low capacitance, and by interconnecting in this way, inductance is also reduced by a very worthwhile margin. ]
Indeed. And guess who invented that method of coaxial cable connection, and publicized it for speaker cable use. Me.
See:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/page2.htm
and
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/s1.htm
I have been posting this design on the internet for over 8 years, it was invented independently by me 20 years ago.
However, what is relevant, is that instead of talking about the materials that would be used for these |
| REPLY part 2 | Jon
Sep 22, 2002 2:12 PM | | PART 2
However, what is relevant, is that instead of talking about the materials that would be used for these cross-connected coaxial cables, you even specifically state the use of TV or video coax as appropriate for such a connection.
Yet many of these have steel cored center wires, or aluminum braid, or a tinned braid and some foil for the outer shield. See: http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/25155.html
None of these combinations is an ideal conductor situation, especially when there are many coaxial cables that have an all copper construction. Almost all will have a PVC jacket, which will become a significant portion of the cable dielectric system.
In other words, you are completely ignoring ALL the materials quality issues, and focussing ONLY on the LCR parameters. This is what I was posting about, and I fail to see how you can possibly deny it.
If you are focussing only on the FR and amplitude issues, and ignoring the real world behavior of the individual LCR parameters, then that certainly seems like a pretty strong indication of behaving as if the individual parameters were textbook perfect. Otherwise, you would not ignore them.
[ There is ample proof (as in real, genuine, tested proof) that the difference between cables is not audible *if* comparable topologies are compared (dollar value notwithstanding)... ]
Well, that is quite a statement. Now the very same kind of criteria are going to be applied to the yeasayers "lack of evidence" and this evidence, right? So let's see, where are those peer-reviewed, professional journal papers that provide your proof? Oh, you say you don't have any such papers, only a mere handful of popular press articles that have null results? What's that, you want to claim a null is a negative?
Oh, I see, the strict kind of evidence that is required for yeasayers is not what you had in mind for your naysayer evidence.
Fact is, there just is not much in the way of the "gold-standard" published papers kind of evidence for either camp. However, my own personal experiments, listening tests and experiences have shown me that there are audible differences between audio cables, under controlled listening conditions. While I have not formally published the results, I have informally made much of the end results available on the web via free DIY designs, or via AES papers. So for myself, I _KNOW_ that audio cables can sound different. I _KNOW_ that teflon sounds beter than PVC. This was arrived at scientifically, and conducted in such a manner as to eliminate any doubt that the proceedings were relevant and valid.
Folks can dismiss this all they want, but if they are willing to believe in the ABX website results,or posts on the news groups regarding a few flawed null results, then they should be equally willing to consider my reported results as well. Neither side has a leg up here, unless of course, you want to resort to a belief system or psuedo-science?
[ It is interesting that Jon will say things like (and I quote) ...
"Proof," of course, is more than just some people making some claims; many have claimed to be abducted by aliens, but that does not prove that they have been." ]
Interesting quote, and of little relevance, but it is not even what I posted, but rather, I believe that the poster who uses the monikor "A" has posted this statement. It was not me. We're not confused, are we Rod?
As for "proving" any thing to you, I place you in the same class as some of the other naysayers, who are so obviously biased and unable to look at or think about audio cables without preconceived notions, that you will not accept as valid ANY evidence, no matter how proper or valid it might actually be. In other words, I truly believe that nothing will ever satisfy your mind set, you will continue to deny the validity of ANY evidence or proof offered. There would always be excuses made to deny any results or tests, dismissals of any work |
| REPLY part 3 | Jon
Sep 22, 2002 2:15 PM | | Part 3
There would always be excuses made to deny any results or tests, dismissals of any work done, no matter by whom or what organization. You have firmly made up your mind, despite the evidence that does exist already, and no amount of further evidence or data would ever convince you otherwise.
You bring up the ABX web site in your write-up. What a joke! The tests they have there are not even close to what real science is all about. The sample sizes are way to small, the number of listenenrs and trials also way too small. Kinda like conducting a quickie BS listening test (let's see, if I listen for 5 seconds to each cable, can I hear anything? Nope. Null result. Add it to the tally.) and trying to say it is relevant or valid evidence.
I have to wonder just how hard you have tried to learn about audio cables, other than being fed the official party line of the ABX/DBT camp? You make this statement (again at: http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm toward the bottom)
"I saw remarkably few references to aluminium even being used (let alone sounding "bad") in interconnects, and no adverse comments at all about it's use as a voice coil winding wire. I must confess that I did not spend a vast amount of time on this, partly because as I said early in this section - cables are just not very interesting :-) "
Well isn't that special. So just how much have you looked into cables, apparently not that much. It does raise questions about your experience level with audio cables, any direct first hand experiences you have had listening critically under controlled ocnditions to audio cables YOURSELF.
I wonder, have you ever tried any of my DIY designs? Listened to them, compared them to zip cords and OEM freebies? Or just made blanket statements, without any real world experiences, nothing but paper arguments of dubious quality and validity. I find this to be relevant, because of the naysayers who have ever actually tried my DIY designs, none of them have ever posted again negatively about audio cables. Few naysayers will try them, perhaps because they fear the results.
I would say to you, try some of my DIY designs, conduct your own listening tests using a superior method (see:
AES preprint #3178, "A User Friendly Methodology for Subjective Listening Tests", presented at the 91st AES convention, October, 1991.)
See:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/c4.htm
for a annotated cable bibliography. It has many convenient web URL's to visit for info.
Not all of this can be dismissed or called invalid. Especially when you won't play by the same rules and provide the necessary backup for your own claims and statements.
Jon Risch |
| Reply to REPLY part 1, 2, 3 | rode
Sep 24, 2002 6:00 AM | | Jon,
You say I have "rewritten my web site" to eliminate anything that may have been embarrasing. FYI, I didn't remove anything, only added some material.
"Speaks about as if ..." vs. "said" is no real difference - the end meaning is virtually identical. I was waiting for you to bring that up - it is irrelevant, since the intent is the same. Typical psychotic reaction to a simple statement in the hope it will deflect the argument - it won't work.
Since PVC is considered perfectly acceptable for RF and video (extremely demanding applications), why on earth would anyone think that it can "degrade" audio - if it is *so* inferior that it can affect an audio signal, then no video feed would be watchable. The effects of different types of insulation can be measured easily, but at audio frequencies they are of no consequence. I don't need to prove this - you need to prove the contrary, since you are the one pushing this particular "barrow".
Where are *your* double blind tests that show that the difference is audible.
Steel cored cables generate non-linear distortion??? As in harmonic distortion? I have measured the distortion levels of various metallic conductors (including solder) and the distortion residual remains at the lowest I can measure (no additional distortion). This ranks with demagnetising CDs as complete rubbish. Prove it Jon - where are the references, the data and the evidence to prove that steel cored cables introduce harmonic distortion? It should be easy enough to measure, so how come no-one has done so?
As for the interconnected coax speaker lead, I didn't know that you invented it, but it does seem like a good idea where extremely low inductance is needed. I have no argument with that, and I never suggested or implied that any old cable could be used - I didn't say (or imply) any more than what is written, i.e. that such cables can be built. I don't have anything to deny, since I didn't say anything about the construction of the cable - I leave that to others who may be interested in experimenting further.
The burden of proof lies with you, Jon. You are the one making claims that the differences are audible, whereas the vast majority of the population will say that they can't tell the difference - especially in a DBT. If anyone makes a claim that their product is superiour to brand "X", then they had better be able to prove it. In *any* other field, claims of false advertising are regularly fought (and won) because the proof was not forthcoming.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case in "high-end" audio, where everything from special rocks to cable "towers" is claimed to have magical or mystical "benefits", without a shred of evidence. As I said above, the burden of proof is upon *you*, not anyone else!
You _KNOW_ that Teflon sounds better than PVC, do you? Why? Where is the scientific data that you loudly proclaim to have accumulated? Why would you hide that data from the world? If you _KNOW_ something like that, it is surely in everyone's interest to make it known to others.
You dismiss the ABX website out of hand because the test results do not agree with your own. At least there are some results - no-one has seen any of yours. Because you seem so fond of snake oil, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that the tests you say you have done were double-blind and conducted properly, comparing like with like. Not because we are "naysayers" but because you have failed to demonstrate your credibility. The ABX site may not be perfect, but it has infinitely more test data than you have shown (i.e. zero).
I do appear to have attributed something to you which was not yours - sorry about that. It was just a mistake, but as is to be expected, you try to make a point from it. Won't wash with anyone though.
I am "so obviously biased" and "unable to look at or think about audio cables without preconceived notions", |
| Reply to REPLY part 1, 2, 3 A | Jon
Sep 24, 2002 10:09 AM | | [ Since PVC is considered perfectly acceptable for RF and video (extremely demanding applications) ... ]
Big goof here, NO ONE that I am aware of uses PVC insulation for RF coaxial cables, for RF or video use.
Yes, PVC IS that bad, it is not used because the DF and DA would melt the coax when any RF power was passed through it.
This is a good example of just how little you know about cables in general, much less the specifics of audio cables.
Strike 1
[ Steel cored cables generate non-linear distortion??? As in harmonic distortion? ]
If you can not measure distortion with steel cored conductors, then ALL of your measurements are suspect, as are any conclusions you draw from them.
Sensitive test equipment can measure the distortioncaused by steel alaigator clips used to conduct the singal, much less an enitre steel cored speaker cable!!!!
Not even the most rabid naysayers on the planet, including Arny Krueger, and Tom Nousaine, will recommend that using steel cored cables for audio is OK, but rather, it is to be avoided. This places you in a category all by yourself, the supreme naysayer of all.
Strike 2
[ The burden of proof lies with you, Jon. ]
The CLASSIC naysayer cop-out.
Yet you make claims at yuour website. Unqualified by weasel words or the usual caveats, but straight out claims.
Where is the back-up for your claims? Or is tit he typical naysayer cop-out that onlyh the yeasayers must conform to a very strict standard, whiole the naysayers can cite amatuer nulls as solid gold negatives?
Apparently, the same old BS as always.
[ You dismiss the ABX website out of hand because the test results do not agree with your own. At least there are some results - no-one has seen any of yours. ]
At least? This is your "science", your evidence? The ABX web site?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !
You ARE joking, right?
The ABX site has so few listening tests, so few trials, so few subjects, that it could not even begin to qualify as some sort of scientific endeavor.
When a null result is produced, YOU CAN NOT DRAW _ANY_ CONCLUSIONS FROM IT.
Especially when it is a single instance, without adequate controls and qualification.
One of the HUGE flaws that most of the cited DBT tests have, is that the sensitivity of the listen test set-up was NEVER determined, that is, they never determined exactly what the test COULD hear, how sensitive it was. It could have been totally ridiculuous in nature and execution, which would be responsible forthe null, and yet, there would be little poit in drawing any sort of conclusion from it.
Then you say that since I exspouse the use of high performance cables, that my research and statements are suspect? Perhaps you would like to sign up for the Inquisition?
In other words, since I am not in YOUR camp, what I say and do is suspect!
OK. Sure, that's real logical and scientific.
Jon Risch |
| Reply to REPLY part 1, 2, 3 A | rode
Sep 24, 2002 3:55 PM | | b "Strike 1" ... Big goof here, NO ONE that I am aware of uses PVC insulation for RF coaxial cables, for RF or video use.
Big goof Jon? PVC is used regularly for the outer sheath, and in some of the "better" cables to boot. See http://www.gepco.com/PDF_files/digitalvideo.pdf Foam polyethelyene is a common dielectric. Your point was ...? Exit Strike 1
b "Strike 2" ... Not even the most rabid naysayers on the planet, including Arny Krueger, and Tom Nousaine, will recommend that using steel cored cables for audio is OK, but rather, it is to be avoided. This places you in a category all by yourself, the supreme naysayer of all.
I didn't "recommend" using steel at all. What I *said* was that it does not cause non-linear (i.e. harmonic) distortion. You say (yet again) that it does, and I ask (yet again) for *any* reference where this has been measured and documented.
You are attempting to twist the discussion to suit your own ends, as usual. It didn't work before and it won't work now. Exit Strike 2.
As is typical and usual, the "burden of proof" is the "Classic nayasyer copout" by your reasoning. So when people say "I hear no difference", and/or "I measure no difference", you think that this is something that must be proven. Well if I (or anyone else) hear or measure no difference, then there is obviously no difference to hear or measure - period. *That alone* is all the proof that is needed at this level.
You say that you *can* hear and measure a difference, so you need to prove it. Where an audible difference exists, a corresponding measurement difference exists - since you make claim after claim, then you should also be able to back it up with at least *some* evidence. So far no-one has seen *any*!
b When a null result is produced, YOU CAN NOT DRAW _ANY_ CONCLUSIONS FROM IT. Especially when it is a single instance, without adequate controls and qualification.
When a non-null result is claimed, where *zero* proof of any kind is offered, and where the controls are based on your methodology which is not even semi-blind, we are supposed to believe it? I think not Jon. You *still* carry the burden of proof, and nothing, *nothing*, you say to try to weasle out of this changes things one iota.
What you say is suspect because of the many ludicrous postulations that you regurgitate time and time again - it has nothing to do with "camps", but a simple matter of credibility. You have utterly failed to demonstrate to anyone that you have anything of value to offer.
Twist, squirm, deceive all you like - it still changes nothing you have said, and only works against you in the long term. Your credibility (or what little is left of it) is not enhanced by ...
b At least? This is your "science", your evidence? The ABX web site?
b HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !
The ABX web site is one, PCABX is another, in fact the web is a vast resource of solid claims and real tests. You offer nothing at all, and this defines your "science" and your "evidence". QED
Cheers, Rod |
| Reply to REPLY part 1, 2, 3 B | Jon
Sep 24, 2002 6:39 PM | | I can not believe that you trying to say that you really didn't mean the dielectric aspects of PVC vs. teflon.
In case it didn't register, and this was the tack you are taking, the Cross-Connected 89259 coaxial speaker cables will have the jacket as a part of the dielectric system, due to the cross-connection. So even though the coax jacket may be teflon or PVC, and is normally not an issue, when used for cross-connected speaker cable it is, and the jacket IS a part of the total cable dielectric system.
No commercial coaxial cables for RF use PVC as the insualtor.
Still Strike 1, and a Grand Weenie Award for trying to wiggle out of it so lame.
RE the steel cored wires, now you are trying to say that you did not imply that such was OK to use?
Again, if you can not measure distortion when you run audio signal current through steel, then I suggest that you get your test equipment repaired, or learn how to use it properly.
I should not have to verify basic physics fundamentals, or forgone conclusions.
[ ...and where the controls are based on your methodology which is not even semi-blind, we are supposed to
believe it? ]
Again, an obvious failure to have ever read the paper in question, as it would then be clear that not only is the test blind, but reaches double-blind equivalency. I have also posted about this before, and if mtry and the gang were not so conveniently forgetfull, he could have told you that the identity of A and of B are not known to the listener's.
I also proposed AT THE AES PRESENTATION, that the method could be used in an ABX format, by introducing the X trial after the ABA or ABB sequence. This has since been discussed many times at AR and at other message boards. However, it is also mentioned in the updates, and at the post where I have an excerpt from my paper on how to listen. ( http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/4321.html )
Your excuse for your ignorance is? (Especially since I provided the URL's in the first posted reply).
RE the ABX web site and the PCABX web site being valid and accepted evidence of any sort, well, these sites do not meet the time-honored tradition of peer-reviewed, professional journal published articles. Aren't these what you are demanding from me for my listening test results?
So, instead, I post them at a web site, JUST LIKE THE ABX AND PCABX sites!
NOW HOW ARE THEY ANY DIFFERENT OR BETTER THAN MINE? I mean REALLY!? Because YOU agree with them, and not with me? Kinda funny, since you were just accusing me of the same thing......
These web sites are just as anecdotal strictly speaking, as mine is, no better, no more or less credible. Yet you and many other naysayers willingly accept them as valid evidence, and treat their so-called results as solid gold negatives.
IF YOU ACCEPT THEM AS VALID, THEN TO BE SCIENTIFIC AND LOGICAL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT MINE AS WELL. A positive wipes out a null any day of the week, case closed you can go home now.
If you disallow my site, then they too must be placed in the same category, OR IT ISN'T SCIENCE ANYMORE, just your religion showing through.
Hilarious how the naysayers, the folks who claim to be the most scientific people on the planet, do not get this right,and continue to act and behave as major full-blown hypocrites!
Anyway, you have not even touched on the original points, another typical naysayer tactic of re-direction:
so I am right about your stance on ignoring materials quality,and treating the LCR parameters as if they were perfect? I made a pretty strong case, and you did not touch on one aspect in reply.
I am right about your not having conducted any listening tests, or having written a paper on the subject?
And finally, what about all the claims you make at your web site. including this one:
"All well designed interconnects will sound the same."
Well, I read the web page, and found nothing like the "gold-standard' evidence that all naysaye |
| Reply to REPLY part 1, 2, 3 B2 | Jon
Sep 24, 2002 6:41 PM | | Part 2
Well, I read the web page, and found nothing like the "gold-standard' evidence that all naysayers routinely demand of others. Where is your evidence, your citations, your references?
The short references section at the end references two of your own web pages, and absolutely NOTHING else that relates to audio cables, or interconnects, and why "the well designed ones will all sound the same".
Oh, I see, you can demand this from others, but do not have to supply it yourself, even though you made a direct and testable claim. More hypocrisy.
I think it is quite clear, that the "outrage" you expressed regarding my simply saying:
"Rod Elliot is also a well known nay-sayer who absolutely refuses to acknowledge that there may be more to audio cables than simply frequency response. He speaks about insulators and conductors as if they were textbook perfect, and any engineer designing in the real world knows better. "
has not been substantiated, in fact, you have not addressed the real issue YOU raised, but rahter have been dancing all over the place, claiming jacket, not dielectric, etc.
Note that the most henious thing I said about you was that you were a "well-known naysayer"
Then you said:
"Jon is a fraud and a liar!"
Then you put words in my mouth, saying that I said that you said "claimed that I consider all conductors and insulators to be "perfect". What I actually said is quoted just up the page a bit, and it is NOT the same thing, and you know it.
Then the words "idiot", and "raving psychotic" and "delusional" came up, and were used to try and denigrate.
How does this chain of events make me out to be the dishonest and terrible ad homenium attacker, and you the innocent wronged party? Oh yeah, naysayer logic is involved, quick run for your lives, the black hole created due to the strain on the fabric of the space-time continuim was too great!
Give it up Rod, you protest entirely too much to be serious about your original "hurt", and then went off on an unjustified naysayer rampage.
You should quit this silliness now, before even mtry and his gang see through your game.
Jon Risch |
| Reply to REPLY part 1, 2, 3 (Part II) | rode
Sep 24, 2002 6:06 AM | | I am "so obviously biased" and "unable to look at or think about audio cables without preconceived notions", which must make us equal. You are so obviously biased that you cannot imagine that you are wrong about any aspect of your diatribes - you just as happily dismiss everything that is contrary to your own belief, but when *you* do it (as opposed to "A", mtrycrafts, FLZapped or me, for example) it is somehow "different"? - you won't fool many people with that line. That is flawed reasoning at its finest.
Regarding my comments on aluminium cables, you wrote "Well isn't that special." This may mean something to you - hey, you may be rolling on the floor laughing for all I know. The fact remains that I have searched the web for comments, and found nothing of substance - perhaps you have some more scientific studies that you are keeping secret. I'd ask, but you won't tell us anyway. C'mon Jon, just a snippet - does aluminium cause harmonic distortion too, or is the outer oxide responsible for some foul malaise that only you can hear?
From your site, I see that cables also create FM. That test was *so* flawed that an infant could see through it, and it has been discredited and denounced as the sheer fantasy that it is. And no, Teflon won't make a difference.
Since you play to a set of rules that change halfway through the "game", you are hardly the pot that should be calling kettles black. In none of your posts have you offered proof of anything, in fact, you are a greater naysayer than any of the others you accuse. I have not seen reference to any measurement test that supports even *one* of your theories, yet you continually tell everyone else how wrong their theories are.
Perhaps it is simply that "Jon's theories are valid because Jon said they are", because that's as much evidence as anyone has seen in your posts.
Cheers, Rod |
| Reply to REPLY part 1, 2, 3 (Part II) A | Jon
Sep 24, 2002 5:47 PM | | Re my certainty about audio cables sounding different, this is quite simple really, I have been there, done that, and found out the truth.
You, on the other hand, have not refferred me to one listening test regarding cables that you have conducted, not one published paper you have written.
Regarding the aluminum cables, JPS brand audio cables, a well regarded brand, uses aluminum cored wires for their cables. Another way of putting it would be copper-clad aluminum.
No one else uses aluminum wires for audio cables simply because of the termination and oxidation issues, even with welding, the connection is not an assured one for something that gets twisting stresses.
You can "get away" with aluminum on RF coaxial cables, but this does not mean it is OK for audio use.
Voice coils sometimes do use aluminum, not all do, and these use special soldering techniques or ultrasonic welding techniques to connect to the wire leads.
In any case, the aluminum is a red herring brought up by you. I just thought it was funny that you did not even know of the existence of a major cable company that used aluminum wires.
RE my multitone bi-wire results, only a handful of very bright folks have gotten the full implications of that test, many misconstrue it to the point of an overly simplistic and casual view. Some, like Bruce Burke, do not fully understand the test signal issues, and so, do not even recognize the distortion products for what they are, coalling it "noise". Others, just fail to see past the cross-over related roll-off, which is not wholly responsible for the differences charted.
As fo it being discredited and denounced, well, the ONLY people who have ever done that have been confrmed naysayers. Mtry did this, but in his case, he doesn't even understand the science behind the test signal.
Bruce B. did this, but he is confused about the actual distortion products. Arny Krueger, the grand master of the naysayer's has attempted to peform his usual mis-quotation/re-direction spin and spiel on the subject, but despite his best efforts, was not able to successfully rebut much of anything, despite his own claims of victory (you know, I find it amazing that the only folks I know who are never wrong, and never admit to losing an argument, despite obvious holes you could drive a truck through, are the naysayers).
That's the short list. No one else has seen fit to try and take me to task over the AES paper or the web site, other than this small handfull of audio cable naysayers. It wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the threat to the naysayer status quo, could it?
[ In none of your posts have you offered proof of anything, ... ]
A typical naysayer claim, but as with most of these, there is no meat either.
It is apparent that you have not even bothered to look at this:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/c4.htm
and the citations and references within.
Jon Risch |
| To sum it up... | MonstrousMike
Jul 1, 2002 7:08 PM | | <<<<< That psychological reaction (i.e. sighted listening biases) has been observed informally for years, and in 1994 Toole and colleague Sean Olive put it to the test. They performed a series of blind listening tests in which the listeners didn't know what speakers they were hearing, and then repeated them exactly but with the speakers visible. In the conclusion of the paper they presented to the Audio Engineering Society, they said "when listeners knew what they were listening to, the opinions were dictated more by the product identity than by the sound. . . . That an effect of this kind should be observed is not remarkable, nor is it unexpected. What is surprising is that the effect is so strong, and that it applies about equally to experienced and inexperienced listeners."
This is a quote from Ian Masters who worked on blind audio testing of loudspeaker designs.
So all you out there who perform sighted tests either in your home or at the audio store, you run the very real and proven risk that you are deciding on purchases based on a product name and not audio differences.
If you're comparing similarly priced amps, speakers or CD players, perhaps sighted biases are not much of an issue. But if you're comparing $10 speaker wire to $500 speaker wire, you might want to follow a more rigorous decision-making process. |
| To sum it up... | pctower
Jul 2, 2002 8:59 AM | | b So all you out there who perform sighted tests either in your home or at the audio store, you run the very real and proven risk that you are deciding on purchases based on a product name and not audio differences.
I think this accurately sums up just about everything we talk about here.
b If you're comparing similarly priced amps, speakers or CD players, perhaps sighted biases are not much of an issue.
Even in this case, I think it probably is a significant issue.
Too bad we can't all put our heads together to collectively take actions that will lead to widespread conduct of valid audio DBTs. |
| A Lot of Hooey HaHa | Jon
Jul 3, 2002 10:00 AM | | Most of these links have nothing to do with hard core technical aspects of audio cables, just ragging on subjectivists in general.
The few links that DO have some technical content, do not provide any proof or references that back up the technical claims, nor do they provide enough logical and reasoned evidence. Just more opinions about cable (or in some cses, just subjectivists).
Additionally, the ABX web site is just another form of anecdotal evidence, rather than some sort of genuine scientific endeavor, it was all done by (psychocoustic) amatuers. Not worth the lectronic ink it was printed on.
I will post a detailed rebuttal to the list content in the near future, so as to show how pitiful this list really is.
Jon Risch |
| A Lot of Hooey HaHa | mtrycrafts
Jul 3, 2002 4:01 PM | | Oh, Jon, when will you offer your evidence, not refuting what is posted as that is not evidence to support your imaginations for audible differences? Never? Nothing to prove? You don't have any, more like it, LOL.
Yes, a lot of HOOEY, Jon. |
| HaHa.... | MonstrousMike
Jul 4, 2002 5:55 AM | | <<<< The few links that DO have some technical content, do not provide any proof or references that back up the technical claims, nor do they provide enough logical and reasoned evidence. Just more opinions about cable (or in some cses, just subjectivists). >>>>
And your rebuttal list will provide proof and references and will back up all your claims, right?
<<<< Additionally, the ABX web site is just another form of anecdotal evidence, rather than some sort of genuine scientific endeavor, it was all done by (psychocoustic) amatuers. Not worth the lectronic ink it was printed on. >>>>
And your rebuttal list will not try to use any anecdotal evidence since it is not worth the electronic ink it is printed on, right? |
| A Lot of Hooey HaHa | FLZapped
Jul 7, 2002 4:49 PM | | [ Most of these links have nothing to do with hard core technical aspects of audio cables, just ragging on subjectivists in general.]
Me thinks the pot calls the kettle black considering the science-fiction found on your website.
[I will post a detailed rebuttal to the list content in the near future, so as to show how pitiful this list really is.]
What, because they didn't use your methodology? At least they're further ahead than you are. So far you've provided ZERO listening test results that have ben asked for (repeatedly).
[I will post a detailed rebuttal to the list content in the near future, so as to show how pitiful this list really is.]
Don't bother, we've already seen your best work an it isn't impressive.
-Bruce |
| The Truth About the Wire links, Part 1A. | Jon
Jul 8, 2002 9:20 PM | | Comments On A's List
[ http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm ]
(Some double blind tests.)
And as for all double blind tests, the fact that they are double blind has no other meaning for other aspects of the tests. They could be the world's worst listening tests, done under double blind conditions.
We don't know what the exact test conditions were, the web site does not tell us. We don't know hardly any of the details of these tests, and so, a reasonable thinking person would have to discard the results from these tests as being of unknown validity or usefulness. Unless of course, you are willing to just take their word for it. Hey, I got some land in Florida, it's really great.....
for a more practical real world view of the use of ABX testing, see:
http://philsaudio.stryke.com/abx.htm
[ http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_plac.htm
What's the Placebo Effect? ]
Double blind testing is needed for scientific evidence, but is it really necessary for an audiophile wanting to improve their system?
Trust your ears, and don't let the placebo bug-a-boo psyche you out.
[ http://www.mastersonaudio.com/features/20010115.htm ]
What does this have to do wioth audiocables? It is tests on speakers! No one in their right minds argue about whether or not speakers sound different!
[ http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/wire.htm
Speaker Wire - A History
*********(This one has a chart recommending wire gauges. Don't use wire that is too small.)********* ]
There are many things that are quite out of date in the information presented at this web site. This is a good example of the old school on cable matters. Blinders and tunnel vision.
The chart is strictly concerned with resistive losses and the resultant amplitude drops. The author states that the table is based on a nominal resistance (resistive load) and approx. 5% (1/2 dB) of signal loss to the speaker.
Now when ABX/DBT proponents talk about doing speaker cable tests, or interconnect tests, the concern for level matching is always raised, and the criteria used is not 1/2 dB, but +/- 0.1 dB.
Quite simply, if the speaker cable can cause a 1/2 dB loss or more into a nominal rated impedance (say, 8 ohms), then what will it do into a loudspeaker? For a resistive load, the loss will be all across the audio band evenly (ignoring speaker cable inductance, we'll look a that later.), and there will be no effect on the frequency response.
But a loudspeaker is NOT a flat resistance, it has a widely varying impedance across the audio band, and typically has a rising impedance in the crossover region, to as high as 30-60 ohms. When we examine the signal from the amp at the speaker terminals, due to the impedance of the speaker dipping down to below the nominal rating (it is not uncommon for an 8 ohm rated speaker to dip down to 6 ohms or even less), and rising up far above the nominal, the voltage divider action of the speaker cables resistance will cause the frequency response to deviate across the band, directly inverse to the speakers impedance. Where the speaker impedance dips low, the losses are greatest. For the nominal 8 ohm system with a loss of 1/2 dB into 8 ohms, the real world impedance dip of 6 ohms will cause approx. 3/4 of a dB loss.
Conversely, for the high impedance region near the crossover frequency, the losses may drop to 1/10 of a dB. The net change across the audio band can easily be as much as 2/3 dB if this wire table is followed.
Interestingly enough, this far exceeds the +/- 0.1 dB criteria held dear by the ABX/DBT proponents.
The above is all predicated on strictly resistive behavior for the speaker cable, but ordinary zip cords also exhibit a significant amount of inductance, sometimes enough to roll-of the HF's by as much as 0.3 dB at 20 kHz for a 10 foot length. If a speaker system also happened to have low impedance at HF's, |
| The Truth About the Wire links, Part 1B. | Jon
Jul 8, 2002 9:22 PM | | Part 1B
The above is all predicated on strictly resistive behavior for the speaker cable, but ordinary zip cords also exhibit a significant amount of inductance, sometimes enough to roll-of the HF's by as much as 0.3 dB at 20 kHz for a 10 foot length. If a speaker system also happened to have low impedance at HF's, which is not uncommon for electrostats or high end speakers, then the total deviation within the audio band could easily approach or exceed 1 dB due to speaker cables that meet the table's requirements.
This very aspect of cables was brought up in an article by E. Brad Meyer in Stereo Review, "The Amp/Speaker Interface",Vol. 56, pp. 53-56 June 1991.
So cables that are substantially less resistive than what is shown in the referenced table would be a good thing, and avoid uncontrolled frequency response deviations due to the speaker cable.
Another problem with using this wire table, is that it will also allow the damping factor at the speaker to drop to around 16 or so with real world speakers. This can cause the bass to sound boomy and ill-defined, with reduced punch and tautness.
The issue of cable inductance is ignored as well, oridnary lamp cord/zip cord can have enough inductance to actually roll-off the high frequencies, this additional roll-off gets added to the resistive losses, and the total deviation across the audio band goes up even higher. Into a 4 ohm load, at 20 kHz, as much as 0.3 dB of roll off can occur. Add this into the resistive losses, and the total loss at 20 kHz is now almost 1 dB ! Make the cable longer, and the inductance goes even higher, and this is NOT accounted for in this chart. For a 20 foot run, using wire gauges according to this chart, the losses at 20 kHz could reach 1.3 dB.
My own opinion is that lower resistance AND lower inductance cables than are recommended in this chart are going to offer less frequency response deviations, as well as other less obvious improvements, such as loudspeaker damping, and then there is always the issues of the quality of materials used in the cables, the cheap zip cord (AKA lamp cord) cited in the referenced article uses very poor insulating materials, and the quality of the copper is in question.
Some of the other issues raised at this web site:
Oxygen free copper and silver wire. Once again the only issue that is examined is the resistivity. What about how OFC reduces the disruptions to the copper metal's crystal lattice? Many high end cable companies have found that very hig purity copper, or some special way of processing it is necessary for best results. It is not just the resistivity issue, but a certain amount of concern for non-linearities as the signal passes through.
Listening tests are brought up.
While the results of this "test" sound impressive, they really have very little meaning in terms of scientific evidence. Listening tests can not be considered to be scientific evidence until they have been published in a peer-reviewed professional journal, so that the details of the test can be examined by others, and the results adequately duplicated.
Neither this listening test anecdote, or that of the ABX web site have been so published. Anyone can post things on an internet website, I have my own website, were I provide listening test results that show that cables sound different. I believe that my tests were done at least as well, and quite probably better, than either the ABX web site tests, or the tests at Mr. Russell's web site. To be perfectly honest, my test results have not been published in a peer-reviewed professional journal either, so they are also in the category of anecdotal evidence.
The Stereo Review Cable test article is brought up. This is one of the more controversial articles, as it was so-heavily edited by the Stereo Review editor to read the way he wanted, that the original author challenged the editor regarding the conclusions that the article appeared to make.
On |
| The Truth About the Wire links, Part 1C. | Jon
Jul 8, 2002 9:23 PM | | Part 1C
The Stereo Review Cable test article is brought up. This is one of the more controversial articles, as it was so-heavily edited by the Stereo Review editor to read the way he wanted, that the original author challenged the editor regarding the conclusions that the article appeared to make.
On the whole this web site page is sadly out of date, and provides no hard core data that is relevant, and the wire table does not allow for a very basic level of accuracy in terms of speaker cables.
[ http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html
Cable Nonsense ]
Dunlavy has been answered before, and he has yet to respond to several telling questions. See:
http://www.audioreview.com/message/DCForumID8/1483.html#49
which is a response to a post by Dunlavy Audio Labs here on AR.
[ http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Cable/product_3854.shtml
Reviews of Radio Shack RS Gold Interconnects.
(For this one, you should scroll down to the review by Christopher Fucik. Read a review? Read it, and you should understand why. His review is long, but well worth reading. His measurements are enlightening.)
Mr. Fucik was also taken to task for his very simplistic way of looking at the cables, and only being concerned with bandwidth, as if that was all there was to audio cable performance. He posted his review on the Cables section, and was answered. Several of his statements of "fact" were challenged and answered.
I also note that you are picking and choosing what you wish to believe. If Mr. Fucik's opinions are good enough to parade around as evidence for your POV, then why do you only agree with a portion of them?
[ http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html
(A wire manufacturer unwilling to have his claims actually tested.) ]
This is essentially hear-say, we do not get to hear the other side of the story, perhaps it happened this way perhaps it did not, but the whole idea that the manufacturer was expected to drop what he was doing and conduct a listening test based on the guy showing up at the door is quite ridiculous in any case.
Of course, it has nothing to do with whether or not cables make a sonic difference either, just an attempt to bad-mouth aftermarket cable manufacturer's.
[ http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm
"A $100 stereo cable is something like undercoating on a car. To move the product, you have to motivate the salesman."
(There is plenty of profit for wire salespeople.) ]
While the article may be factually correct (we have no way to easily find out) in terms of the business side of things at Monster Cable, the marketing and sales practices of one cable manufacturer do not relate to the whole industry. There plenty of aftermarket cable companies that practice a very conservative and reasonable business model.
The quote cited by the Forbes writer is sheer nonsense, as what kind of cable expert is this writer anyway, and where did he get his evidence to draw this conclusion?
Yet another article that has nothing to do with how cables sound, just more bad-mouthing.
[ http://www.magnani.net/~al/DigitalWireLabTest.html
(Zero errors when using a coat hanger as a wire for digital signals.) ]
I use this as a prime example of what some of the evidence that gets presented by objectivists is all about: misdirection.
First, the measurements were looking ONLY at whether or not there are any errors in the digital data stream, not anything else as far as can be determined. That means that how much jitter the coat-hangar introduced in a total mystery, and undocumented. Jitter is much more likely to be a cause of audible degradation, as the error correction is quite robust, and is generally conceded to NOT be the issue with digital audio signal transfer.
Second, this was done on digital audio data for a DVD, which uses packetized data, rather than a continuous stream of digital data words as does CD digital audio. A completely different d |
| The Truth About the Wire links, Part 1C. | FLZapped
Jul 9, 2002 7:08 AM | | [[ http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html
Cable Nonsense ]
Dunlavy has been answered before, and he has yet to respond to several telling questions. See:
http://www.audioreview.com/message/DCForumID8/1483.html#49
which is a response to a post by Dunlavy Audio Labs here on AR.]
Nothing like using a dead link for a reference, Jon.(audioreview link)
[[ http://www.audioreview.com/reviews/Cable/product_3854.shtml
Reviews of Radio Shack RS Gold Interconnects.
(For this one, you should scroll down to the review by Christopher Fucik. Read a review? Read it, and you should understand why. His review is long, but well worth reading. His measurements are enlightening.)
Mr. Fucik was also taken to task for his very simplistic way of looking at the cables, and only being concerned with bandwidth, as if that was all there was to audio cable performance. He posted his review on the Cables section, and was answered. Several of his statements of "fact" were challenged and answered.
I also note that you are picking and choosing what you wish to believe. If Mr. Fucik's opinions are good enough to parade around as evidence for your POV, then why do you only agree with a portion of them?]
First of all, where are these "taken to task" writings? This is hearsay unless you produce them here,as you expect in the "cable challenge" link. Second, why should "A" agree with everything everyone says, that would show a serious lack of individual, critical thought, now wouldn't it? You surely don't agree with many things other people say, and have been caught distorting what they say to make it bolster you POV, so Jon, that makes you a hypocrite.
-Bruce |
| The Truth About the Wire links, Part 1B. | FLZapped
Jul 9, 2002 6:40 AM | | [The issue of cable inductance is ignored as well, oridnary lamp cord/zip cord can have enough inductance to actually roll-off the high frequencies, this additional roll-off gets added to the resistive losses, and the total deviation across the audio band goes up even higher. Into a 4 ohm load, at 20 kHz, as much as 0.3 dB of roll off can occur. Add this into the resistive losses, and the total loss at 20 kHz is now almost 1 dB ! Make the cable longer, and the inductance goes even higher, and this is NOT accounted for in this chart. For a 20 foot run, using wire gauges according to this chart, the losses at 20 kHz could reach 1.3 dB.]
You're making the SAME classical mistake again trying to add the resistive losses and inductive losses and then making people think this is what they'll hear. Jon, why do you insist on misleading in this way?
As you previously stated, resistive losses are equal through out the band, therefore, the only thing we're concerned with is the additional inductive losses, so the REAL difference is 0.7 and 1dB, using your previous 0.3dB number. Even so, room responses, manufacturing tolerances, etc. will exceed these numbers in the average listening room. Besides the fact, you haven't even established whether or not this is greater than the JND numbers for 20kHz. So now we're back to audibility.
[Oxygen free copper and silver wire. Once again the only issue that is examined is the resistivity. What about how OFC reduces the disruptions to the copper metal's crystal lattice? Many high end cable companies have found that very hig purity copper, or some special way of processing it is necessary for best results. It is not just the resistivity issue, but a certain amount of concern for non-linearities as the signal passes through.]
Something you have completely failed to prove even exists in either measurable or audible amounts.
[While the results of this "test" sound impressive, they really have very little meaning in terms of scientific evidence. Listening tests can not be considered to be scientific evidence until they have been published in a peer-reviewed professional journal, so that the details of the test can be examined by others, and the results adequately duplicated....To be perfectly honest, my test results have not been published in a peer-reviewed professional journal either, so they are also in the category of anecdotal evidence.]
Yet you would have us believe they are valid on your word. Once again, the pot calls the kettle black.
-Bruce |
| The Truth About the Wire links, Part 1B. REPLY | Jon
Jul 9, 2002 9:13 PM | | [ You're making the SAME classical mistake again trying to add the resistive losses and inductive losses and then making people think this is what they'll hear. Jon, why do you insist on misleading in this way? ]
No, YOU are the one who is thinking of the loudspeaker as a resistive load, and with real world loudspeakers, which have a varying impedance, the FR DOES vary all across the band, and ther HF inductance WILL add to the FR variations!.
This is pointed out and illustrated in this article:
Meyer, E. Brad.; "The Amp/Speaker Interface", Stereo Review, vol. 56, pp. 53-56 (1991, June)
[ Even so, room responses, manufacturing tolerances, etc. will exceed these numbers in the average listening room. ]
So what? This is a tired old naysayer Red Herring, and usually goes like this: " there are +/- 15 dB or more variations in the room response, speaker manufacturing tolerance are +/- XXX dB, the recording studio's EQ the recoprdings ZZZ dB, and so on and so forth.
Yet even the ABX web site can detect a 0.3 dB across the band change in over all level, and larger FR variations can also be detected as sounding different. people reliably detect all kinds of subtle differences in components despite thes "huge" variations in the overall response, so just because there ARE overall variations, does not mean that small difference will ALWAYS be swamped out, to the contrary, they may actually make it such that it is easier to hear small differences of certain types.
I don't know if you realize it, but you are trying to defend making the speaker cable an uncontrolled TONE CONTROL, that the user has no ability to logically alter or to decide how it will alter the signal. It will EQ the FR to the inverse of the speakers impedance curve.
Maybe it is just that you MUST defend the RogerR site, come to the aid of a fellow naysayer? How will you make sense out of this gaffe?
Remember, my examples were for a 10 foot run of speaker cable, the RogerR site allows runs up to 50 feet according to his chart, that means 5 times the amounts I note!
If I always took the maximum effect for analysis purposes (which I do not do, I always use a reasonable length or amount of various parameters for my examples), as the naysayers always take the minimum amounts for effects, then it would look a lot worse, and still be perfectly true AS STATED.
However, I don't play those games, despite the fact that other side almost ALWAYS does. Like you do.
Jon Risch |
| The Truth About the Wire links, Part 1B. REPLY | FLZapped
Jul 10, 2002 8:30 AM | | [ You're making the SAME classical mistake again trying to add the resistive losses and inductive losses and then making people think this is what they'll hear. Jon, why do you insist on misleading in this way? ]
No, YOU are the one who is thinking of the loudspeaker as a resistive load, and with real world loudspeakers, which have a varying impedance, the FR DOES vary all across the band, and ther HF inductance WILL add to the FR variations!.]
No Jon, I'm going on what YOU wrote. I know how to differentiate between resistive losses and reactive losses, especially in the example you cited. Of course, you now try to redefine it to make yourself right again, but remember, I know this trick of yours and it won't work. So if your going to cite a more complex example, you'd better give more detail than you have so far to make it valid.
[However, I don't play those games, despite the fact that other side almost ALWAYS does. Like you do.]
Do you want me to start quoting all the places you have distorted what I've said recently, like the antenna/doppler shift thing? That was an outright fabrication on your part, please. You play more damned games than anyone I know. You did it just above.
-Bruce |
| The Truth About the Wire links, Part 1A. | FLZapped
Jul 9, 2002 6:26 AM | | [We don't know what the exact test conditions were, the web site does not tell us. We don't know hardly any of the details of these tests, and so, a reasonable thinking person would have to discard the results from these tests as being of unknown validity or usefulness. Unless of course, you are willing to just take their word for it.]
While true, it's as good as you expecting us to take YOUR word on everything at face value. And when scrutinized, you have failed to present the needed, and requested information. So you really don't have a lot of room to bitch here, Jon.
[Double blind testing is needed for scientific evidence, but is it really necessary for an audiophile wanting to improve their system?
Trust your ears, and don't let the placebo bug-a-boo psyche you out.]
It most certainly is and you know it. The only way to tell if measurements=audibility is to run through this final filter. Trust you ears is not the problem, it's what your brain does afterward...
Here's an example, although visual:
http://members.fortunecity.com/flzapped/illusions.html
-Bruce |
| |
