|   Every bit the auditory "goodness" of JR's | Duttweiler
Jun 13, 2003 10:11 AM | | ...at more than half off. Check out http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=249-086&orefer=dotd061203 |
| And you get a free wire stripper. Cool :)-nt | Tony_Montana
Jun 13, 2003 5:23 PM | | |
| Is that a CLAIM? | Jon
Jun 15, 2003 8:15 PM | | Are you saying, without the usual qualifying weasel words, that this 12 ga. zip cord is sonically the equivalent of my DIY design, the Cross-Connected Belden 89259 speaker cable?
I do think that this would require some sort of valid (agreed upon by all to be valid) DBT evidence or some other LISTENING related kind of data, specifically comparing some 12 ga. zip cord to the CC89259 cable..
All that has ever been bandied about here is the very basic LCR parameters from Audioholics, and they couldn't even get those right the first two or three times. They still don't seem to understand the very basic issue of equivalent DCR to arrive at a valid comparison of the other two of the three LCR parameters.
So are you merely going on about this based on some measured specifications, or are you citing listening test research in order to make your claims? I am sure we ALL eagerly await the listening test data you will provide.
Otherwise, I can not see why you have not been asked for the evidence, asked where are your DBT tests by the others that regularly post here, just as you did for Musicator in this post:
<a href="/crforum?14@@.ef9bfea/17">Duttweiler "Who else has built JRs DIY cables?" 6/14/03 6:50am</a>
He merely posted an opinion about what he heard, yet you are making direct claims. So are you not held to the same standards, the same requirements to provide evidence? It either applies to everyone, or not at all.
Are you a flaming hypocrite?
Jon Risch |
| No, I'd say it's an opinion... | Monstrous Mike
Jun 15, 2003 8:51 PM | | An opinion is a statement that it is likely most cables have the same "auditory goodness"
A claim is a statement that wires have different "auditory goodnesses".
Got it? |
| Is that a CLAIM? | mtrycrafts
Jun 15, 2003 11:07 PM | | Did he make a mistake? Are there audible differences between that 12 ga and your cable? Really?
b All that has ever been bandied about here is the very basic LCR parameters
But Jon, you nor anyone else have yet demonstrated that any of your other darling parameters are audible. Got any proof? No, you just speculate: may, could might, etc. LOL.
b and they couldn't even get those right the first two or three times.
How does that go about living in a glass house? Have you ever corrected any of your flaws yet?
b I am sure we ALL eagerly await the listening test data you will provide.
Yes, Jon, we are eager to see your test data about one of your claims, let alone all of them. When? |
| No Mike, | pctower
Jun 16, 2003 3:16 AM | | it is far more of a claim that the mere reports of sighted auditions that are rotinely bashed on this site.
You are willing to defend unsubstantiated "authoritative" statements that support your viewpoint, while routinely challenging the ones that don't.
The solution is not to stop challenging the unsubstantiated claims of yeasayers. The solution is to develop some consistency, which adds to credibility, and also challenge unsubstantiated statements of naysayers which venture beyond the realm of healthy and rational skepticism into the land of unsubstantiated claims. |
| What exactly is the definition of "auditory goodness"? | Resident Loser
Jun 16, 2003 5:30 AM | | ...One could argue it is the opposite of "auditory badness"...which to me, means bad sound or an outright defect...
There was no specific characterization of the sound offered by either specimen, only the classification of both being capable of " auditory not-badness". Does the redoubtable Mr. Risch take offense to the concept that his recipe is not a "bad" recipe?
BTW, the poster didn't make any direct comparison, he merely said both had this elusively defined quality "AG". JR is the one who made a specific comparison to any recipe whatsoever. Why was that? Once again, something that was never said is said to have been, with specifics no less i.e. Belden cross connect vs. the ol' generic zipperoo.
Is it gettin' smokey in here or is it just me?
Since there have been no definitive proofs that any recipes sound superior to the generic stuff(I invoke the right not to list all the qualifiers to that statement, but do kindly consider them in full effect), and since on many ocassions Mr. Risch's offerings have been characterized as just about as good as any, I personally see no justification for any offense that may have been taken.
jimHJJ(...so there!...) |
| No Mike, | Monstrous Mike
Jun 16, 2003 10:15 AM | | <b>You are willing to defend unsubstantiated "authoritative" statements ...</b>
I didn't "defend" anything. I simply countered Jon's statement that it was a claim. I feel it is an opinion. And I base this on the fact that I saw nothing that could be verified. No numbers, no quantitative measurements, no equations, etc., only a subjective description.
Subjective descriptions cannot be verified, therefore they are not claims. Now I could have questioned how he arrived at that particular opinion, but since it is my own opinion as well (and we probably arrived at it the same manner), what would the point of that be?
<b>...while routinely challenging the ones that don't. </b>
Challenging is a harsh word here. Questioning is more in line with what I usually attempt. I'm not sure why you are surprised here. I don't usually question people who hold the same opinion that I do while I am certainly curious of people who hold a different opinion, especially when that opinion is closely related to scientific fact. (For example, opinions on social issues like capital punishment are not related to science whereas opinions on how the universe was created are.)
There are very few claims made here by either side. Most posts are just opinions and observations. I tend to enquire about the development of opinions and the methods of collecting observerations. We rarely talk about claims although it appears every time somebody says something, we all call it a claim. Look up the dictionary definition for "claim". It doesn't happen here often.
"wires sound different"
Is that a claim? Is it an observation? Is it an opinion? |
| Well, PC... | Duttweiler
Jun 16, 2003 11:33 AM | | ...there <b>have been</b> DBTs done that show that even the golden eared can't tell the difference between cables, wires and even electronics. The basic science does <b>not</b> support the idea of audible differences. So, until someone demonstrates in controlled listening tests that there <b>are</b> audible differences, I will continue to believe it is justifiable to assert that there are not.
Until Jon offers some DBTs to the contrary, my claim is just as valid as his! |
| Well, PC... | pctower
Jun 17, 2003 11:49 AM | | b ...there have been DBTs done that show that even the golden eared can't tell the difference between cables, wires and even electronics.
Please refer me to such test results that would satisfy the following standard: Conducted in accordance with (I) a protocol that would be acceptable in a college level science course, (II) a protocol that would qualify such test for publication in a recognized scholarly science or technical journal, or (III) a protocol that would satisfy the standards of a major, recognized national science lab.
The fact that audio tests almost never are conducted by any of the above is not the point. I'm merely asking you to back up your claim by pointing to tests that would qualify under the very reasonable standard I have proposed.
Remember, you have said these tests "show that even the golden eared can't tell the difference..." They certainly could not have shown that conclusion reliably if they were not conducted under proper protocol. You have made a claim. Can you back it up? |
| Well, PC... | Duttweiler
Jun 17, 2003 12:39 PM | | Well, since I don't know what the protocols that would satisfy any of those would be I can't answer that. However, I still haven't been able to glean what was wrong with the tests conducted by Stereo Review in the 80s.
Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, (Aug 1983)
Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
I know high-enders and cable cultists pooh-pooh these, but I still haven't had any knowledgeble person really explain why. |
| There goes that phobia again!! | Duttweiler
Jun 16, 2003 10:45 AM | | Darn, JR, you caught me, I'm a flaming...er...what?!!
No really, you and your objectiphobia really need some help.
Since you have a tendency to say black is white and up is down, I won't try to re-hash where the burden of proof lies. However, suffice it to say that I am convinced based on DBTs that properly designed cables working with normal amplifiers, do <b>not</b> impose any type of "sonic signature" on the the signal.
Any time you wish to present peer reviewed research to the contrary (or even some that is not blatanly biased), you're welcome to do so. Oh, please don't simply post links to your BS articles. |
| Another Jon Risch Red Herring | Suppers_Ready
Jun 17, 2003 12:56 PM | | Jon's latest amusing quote:
"They still don't seem to understand the very basic issue of equivalent DCR to arrive at a valid comparison of the other two of the three LCR parameters. "
Anyone who knows better understands that normalizing cable resistance to compare cables is pure hogwash. It is an attempt for the cable soothsayer (borrowed from AH) to justify the added cable resistance of their lousy design.
Cable resistance is in fact one of the primary concerns in a valid cable design. The reality of a high resistance cable connected to a loudspeaker that has rising impedance with frequency will be increased frequency variation across the audio band. Lets say for the moment that a high resistance cable such as Jons cross coax, produces a .5dB insertion loss at low frequencies down to DC, if the loudspeaker is a high Z at high frequencies, then the insertion loss becomes far less prominent and now you no longer have a flat frequency response (disregarding the RC losses).
The correct method of comparing cables should actually be to compare them to nothing and see how far each cable deviates the signal from nothing. Your argument of normalizing cable resistances holds no water and any competent engineer or audio designer knows this. I suggest you post this propaganda at your cable assylum as it will not go unchallenged here. Hey, why not post it over at AH or audiocircle.com and see what type of responses you may get.
Bottom line Jon, is more and more people are realizing through education and not your propaganda, that speaker cables are really not that critical, and anything beyone 10-12AWG is usually not needed, and often does more harm than good. Hey I got an idea, how about putting a battery on your cross coax, maybe it will improve your soundstage? LOL. |
| Nope. Science. | Jon
Jun 19, 2003 10:05 AM | | The concept of matcing the DCR in order to properly cmpare other cale characterisitics springs from the very same concern that you express for the influence of the DCR on the performance of the cable with a real world loudspeaker load.
Let's take the Cross-Conected 89259 out of the discussion for a moment.
If we look at the DCR of a 12 ga. zip cord, and an 18 ga. zip cord, it should come as no surprise that the 12 ga. has lower DCR than the 18 ga. However, this is the nature of the beast, the larger 12 ga. wires have less DCR, because there is more copper. It also has slightly different L and C parameters too.
When staying within the same brand of zip cord, as the ga. changes, and the L and the C tends to change as well. Overall capacitance tends to trend upward, and the L goes down at first, and then may trend upwards again.
(Although, for SOME instances of available zip cords, there does seem to be SOME tendency toward a minimial change in L due to the spacings used between the two conductors, and so as the ga. goes down, the L does not increase as much, and the C does not change very much. This is not necessarily true of all zip cords, and it may only occur when mixing brands.)
To take the 18 ga. zip cord to task over the higher DCR, or the different L and C, would be silly. They are what they are due to the physical geometry and sizes involved. It would also be silly to say somethng like "The 18 ga. zip cord's DCR is too high, because it is higher than the 12 ga. zip cord."
It is KNOWN that the DCR of 18 ga. zip is higher than 12 ga. zip, and the reasons for this are well known.
For zip cords, if you want a lower DCR, then the L and the C you get are going to fall out in a certain range, due to the zip cord geometry. You do not have a lot of choice in the matter.
However, if that SAME amount of copper was reconfigured, and placed in a different geometry, a different physical arrangement, then one CAN alter the L and the C, relative to the DCR (or just R). Note that by using the same amount of copper, having the same basic DCR, we can examine what the geometry is doing to the L and C, independant of any effects due to more or less R.
This is a fundamental principle of science, and a pretty obvious scientific method: change one variable at a time. By using the same amount of copper, and JUST changng the geometry, we can then ascertain what the change in geometery actually did, without other factors influencing the outcome.
One method of altering the geometry, would be to flatten out the two 12 ga. zip core wires, into a flat sheet or ribbon, and space them apart only as far as a decent insulation would reguire. Keeping the same amount of copper, this would dramatically lower the L, and at the same time dramatically increase the C. We can see just how much in relation to the orginal 12 ga. zip cord, wihtout any complicating factors, by keeping the amount of copper, or the DCR, the same. If we only used half the ribbon width with all other factors remaining the same as the 12 ga. equivalent ribbon, the DCR would now be twice what it was before, but the C would (nearly) halve, and the L would (nearly) double. Obviously, the change in DCR also drasticaly affected the other parameters.
The opposite extreme, where the L and C parameters would hardly be affected, are when the two condutors were very far apart, and there was very little mutual inductance between them (very little coupling). You could change the wire from a round one, to a flat ribbon, and the capacitance between the two would hardly change. With the mutual coupling betwee the two conductors all but gone, the mutual inductane would not be changed much either,it is hardly there. But the self-inductance would be altered, as the thin flat ribbon would have less of it's own flux cutting across itself, and the self-inductance would go down some.
I hope that by now, I have made my point, that in order to evaluate a giv |
| Nope. Science. P2 | Jon
Jun 19, 2003 10:06 AM | | Part 2
I hope that by now, I have made my point, that in order to evaluate a given speaker cable geometry, the DCR should be equivalent, or you are not just looking at the L and C in isolation.
For the CC89259, the equivalent ga. is approx. 13 1/2 ga.
This was initially compared to 10 ga, zip cord (actually, it now appears that it was not zip cord, but a twisted pair, one with a very thin insualtion sheath over the 10 ga. wires, and therefore an atypical 10 ga. two-wire cable), and the CC89259 taken to taks for having a higher DCR. Dooh!
It is what it is. I note that the commercial coax that is the basis for the CC89259 is what it is, it has XX amount of copper in it. Other coaxial cables do not have the combination of materials that the 89259 does, and are not as well suited for Cross-Conection in my experience.
However, if the actual goal was to compare geometries, then a Star-Quad Cross-Connected 89259 speaker cable would be equivalent to about 10 1/2 ga., and would not be that far off the DCR of the 10 ga. cable, what most here would call an insiginficant difference any other time.
Yet, if the L and the C were now examined, the L would be WAY down, and the C would still not be as high as the flat ribbon cables, or the braided CAT5 variants. It would still be reasonable enough to not be a problem with most amps and reasonable lengths of speaker cables. This nearly equivalent gauge would show the advantage of the Cross-Connect, and would "outperform" 12 ga. in resistance, not to mention the huge disparity in L.
The other approach to this would have been to examine 14 ga. zip cord (as the closest readily available zip cord with similar DCR), and compare the L and the C between that and the CC89259 design.
So I stand by my statement that the methods and criticisms of the AH articles, and certain comments here, are without merit, and not a scientific way of examining the differences in geometry between the two cables.
Just as it is ludicrous to take a larger ga. zip cord to task over it's higher DCR compared to 12 ga. or 10. ga., it is just as ludicrous to compare geometries without an equal DCR footing to work from.
I note that none of the hard core naysayers on the news groups, such as Arny, Fred, or the others, disregard the DCR equivalency issue, in fact, it is one of the things they insist on when comparing zip cords to other more esoteric cables. They do make a lot of noise about being scientifically proper, and so, they can not afford to ignore this aspect, or they would be called on the carpet over it. There does not seem to be very much concern over being scientifically proper here or at AH, and when these kinds of issues are blown off, it just furthers that impression.
Jon Risch |
| Nope. Science. P2 | Suppers_Ready
Jun 19, 2003 3:06 PM | | Jon;
The bottom line is any credible audio engineer or loudspeaker designer knows that DCR is the primary parameter, follwed by inductance, for a good cable design. If your argument held any water, than we could take a cable that had nearly zero inductance/capacitance, but say 8 ohms of resistance and compare it to a cable with reasonable inductance/capacitance, but with no resistance and normalize half the power loss due to the high resistance cable to do the comparison. That is ludicrous. You still fail to realize that excessive resistance in a cable can lead to frequency variation when coupled with a reactive load such as a loudspeaker.
In any event, if it bothers you that much regarding the non normalized resistances of the AH cable articles, why not just email Gene and tell him. I am sure he will add an addendum with that comparison to make you/others happy, just like he made revisions in the past based on yours/others feedback.
BTW, the AH articles clearly show that inductance does NOT rise with frequency, in fact skin effect causes reduced inductance beyond the audio range. |
| |
