Hello All, I would like some help in chosing a new set of very detailed speaker cables. I want something that is I guess on the bright side. I have used so far... AZ satoris,AZ holograms, Nordost red dawns, AQ bedrocks, kimber 4tc just to name a few. So please help in my search based on your experience with speaker cables. Thanks
What a crazy, off-topic thread. Poor HarnellT asked a simple question and ended up with politics. Reminds me of the Bill Maur show. This dilemma is very simple; try/buy some cables that appear to improve the sound of your system and be happy.
A full grown man bouncing up and down on the bed while listening to "kiddie records". Nice mental image there Tvad. Good enough to cause me to laugh out loud : ) Sean >
Tvad: How do you keep the noise from the low grade idler drive motor from interferring with your musical enjoyment? Are you coupling, isolating or doing both to the chassis of this "classic" piece of audiophilia??? : ) Sean >
12 gauge zip versus 16 gauge zip at 6 foot lengths. Same nominal impedances with less than .1 Ohm difference in series resistance on the round trip. According to even your own reference materials, these cables at these lengths are electrically equivalent. According to my ear / brain interface, there was both an audible and repeatable difference under even less than ideal listening conditions.
Post what you want after this. I said that i would have taken the tests that you proposed. The only thing that you did after that was chastise me while running away from all of the other info that i referenced and the in-home cable demo that i asked of you. I did more than meet you half-way, i went way out of my way to offer you the materials to conduct such tests of your own at my expense. I'll not bother responding back to you from this point forward. You are nothing less than a troll spreading manure with no willingness to put their own theories to test. GOODnight and GOODbye for real. Sean >
>>i was able to discern the audible differences between two different gauges of zip cord in a blind test.<<
Wow. Between two different GAUGES?
I have already written that diggerent GAUGES can sound DIFFERENT.
More diversion.
>>If both of these cables measure well below the thresholds of audibility...how is it that i was able to do what i did in a matter of seconds<<
1) Because it is easy to make bogus claims on the internet, like claiming one can hear .088 down at 20Khz.
2) This is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with your claim that you can hear inaudible amounts of attenuation. This is a non-sequiter. It is like saying, "if two plus two equals four, as you claim, then why are some apples red while others are green?"
Rsbeck: As i've mentioned in other threads, i was able to discern the audible differences between two different gauges of zip cord in a blind test. I did this using very low quality gear, music that i had never heard before and a listening area that all types of potential outside influences in it. Not only could i consistently tell the differences between Cable A and Cable B under such adverse conditons, i was able to specify which cable was the heavier gauge zip cord and which was the lighter gauge zip cord. If both of these cables measure well below the thresholds of audibility, like you claim and your statistics show, and i had all of the "negative factors" mentioned above going against me i.e. lack of familiarity in every conceivable category, how is it that i was able to do what i did in a matter of seconds???
As far as how far i'll go to "save face", am i supposed to have one point of view in one thread and a different point of view in another thread? From what i can tell, i'm the one that is willing to put my claims and listening skills to the test. You won't even listen to some cables at your leisure within the confines of your system with no expectations placed upon you. That doesn't seem to stop your from talking smack though.
As far as Nelson Pass goes, i surely didn't mention him to drop names. I mentioned an article that basically refutes your reference work that happened to be researched and written by Nelson Pass. Even though this article demonstrates the difference in amplifier loading characteristics, transient response, distortion and bandwidth, you still refuse to acknowledge it or comment on it. The fact that i had referenced that article at least a half dozen times prior to ever seeing your name in an Audiogon thread should also tell you something.
Why you keep quoting figures derived from the tests that have now been shown to be less than adequately researched and / or conducted is beyond me. The only thought that comes to mind in that area is that you will go to any lengths to save face. That is, except put your own beliefs and ideologies to the test. Obviously, it is easier to keep spouting the same rhetoric and appear to be consistent in hopes that nobody really realizes just how much dancing you're really doing.
With that in mind, i'll agree with you that you are consistent from thread to thread. Consistent in avoiding the issues and promoting an ideology that you're not willing to put to the test.
On top of being full of hot air, you sidetracked this thread by introducing your "anti-cable" agenda and i responded in return. While i may agree with some of the comments that you made in this thread, don't blame me for making a suggestion that ran contradictory to the specific request for help. You did that, not me. When i called you to task for doing such and pointing out your agenda and unwillingness to actually stand behind your beliefs, that's when the thread went sideways.
I think that anyone with half a brain and a reasonable amount of familiarity with these forums can figure out what the real deal is here. One of us does have their tail between their legs and it's not me. I've accepted your challenge, provided technical rebutall that refutes the data that you've used as a point of reference and all you can do is continue to repeat the same garbage, try to discredit me as an individual rather than respond to the data presented and completely ignore my request to simply listen to some speaker cables.
As such, i'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince you of anything. You've done a fine job yourself of convincing everyone exactly what you do / don't know and what you are / aren't capable of. The fact that you had the easier side of the bargain and refuse to even attempt to carry that out says more than i could ever type in a lifetime. Goodnight and goodbye. Sean >
Highdudgeon, If you can believe it, a friend of mine has the Destriero Scafusia in rose gold. Now there's a Picasso for your wrist! And I say, whatever makes you happy is a good thing. I only wish that Top Ramen was a viable substitute for my sushi cravings. It would save me a lot of $$$.
Rsbeck, It will be fun. I'll leave the caliber of wine up to you. Everyone have a good weekend, Howard
I bet his hearing is even better than that...at over 20khz!
Boa2 -- good call on the Aquatimer, that movement is a beast. You're right, there is something to the lux goods thing. Still, I'm pretty damn happy with my cheapo cord...!
Rsbeck, Your point two is incorrect. My listening partner can hear the difference between flat and .088 db down @ 20Khz. Click on my system and scroll down to the last tweak for a look at my listening partner. He also works cheap!
Nick Drake on the stereo right now...MAN, it sounds amazing!
Highdudgeon, my favorite is an IWC Aquatimer SS (classic version), and coincidentally I chose that movement NOT for its time-keeping abilities--could've bought a Casio for that--but instead for much the same reason I go with silver speaker cables over the Home Depot variety. It's all about the feel, baby! What else can you expect from a musician?
Rsbeck, how 'bout a Chianti for the pasta? See you soon, I hope! Sean, I know it's a long drive, but I expect you to show up as well. My Scala's need modding, Yoda.
I think we should lock them in the Octagon for some ho-holds-barred fun and games. No kicking a downed opponent, no fishooking, no groin strikes, and no small joint manipulation.
>>Having said that, where would you recommend that i perform a blind listening test with others there to witness and confirm not only the results, but also that the tests were conducted fairly and honestly?<<
I have three answers.
1) If I were you and I wanted to have the best chance of passing, I would take the test in an anechoic chamber with perfectly flat frequency response, the most expensive speakers I could afford, and a friend who would tip me off to when I was listening to FLAT and when I was listening to 12 gauge Zip Cord.
2) If I were you, I would just drop this and move on because you cannot hear the difference between flat and .088 db down at 20Khz. Don't feel bad. No one can. You could multiply that by 10 times and you still couldn't hear .88 down at 20Khz.
3) I am getting a kick out of how far you are willing to take this rather than concede. Because you really only have three choices; Drop this and move on, concede the point, or dig in and try to stave off the inevitable somehow.
And that's what we were talking about -- how to figure out what the guy needs to get the sound he wants.
The record shows that in the middle of this discussion, Sean showed up and posted a link to another thread and a different argument.
Hi-jacked the thread.
Also, what am I supposed to do -- have different beliefs in different threads?
LOL.
Is anyone else under this requirement, or only me?
Doesn't it make sense to you that I sound the same in various threads?
Have similar ideas in various threads?
Think about this for a minute.
Do you *really* expect otherwise?
I don't think you do -- I think you are the victim of your own unrealistic and wishful thinking, which is causing you to be frustrated beyond your own tolerance level. Sort of like cutting your own finger, pouring salt on it and then cursing the ocean.
>>zip cord DOES roll off the treble response and it is audible.<<
ROFL. Yeah. Good thing YOU are not stubborn, huh?
>>Not only in amplitude, but also in terms of transient response.<<
You might as well say Zip Cord makes apples come out of your speakers, drop some jargon, mention Nelson Pass, and you'd be just as convincing.
>>Remember, i'm comparing this to a wide bandwidth, low inductance design.<<
More jargon. Zip Cord is either audibly rolled off or it isn't. And it isn't. There's no more debate about that. Anyone who has the facts and still wants to believe this just wants to believe it, no matter what.
It is hilarious that you keep spinning around trying to save face rather than just admit you made a little mistake, went off about a "roll-off" without doing any research, fibbed about what you can hear to try to cover it, and got your tail caught in a crack. Some people would have just said, "wow -- thanks for the correct, I guess I was thinking about something else." Or, "Man -- I guess I must have looked at the frequency response charts before I had my coffee." Or, something.
You can drop Nelson Pass and as much jargon into the conversation as you want and it won't make the "roll-off" audible, won't give you the super human hearing you'd need to hear it. In fact, dropping irrelevant names is just more evidence that you're spinning.
An honest argument wouldn't need such stuff.
In legal circles, they refer to such behavior as "cognizance of guilt."
I wouldn't go that far, I would just call it throwing stuff at the wall to see what might stick.
I would add this -- which is really just summarizing some of the above thoughts.
First of all, Nelson Pass's article is well worth reading.
Second, if you can't measure qualities within *significant* audible parameters between two cables (see Rsbeck's comments above -- he is read right about audibility), then you will not be able to hear any difference. It's really that simple. There are a lot of products out there, some of which are outrageously priced and some of which are reasonably priced, many of which are constructed quite differently but that all do pretty much the same thing.
There's a bit of a "Timex" factor in all this. Now, I happen to have a "thing" for watches and have a few very nice pieces in my collection -- a Patek, a couple Rolexes, IWCs, etc. I love the theory and construction of automatic and wind-up movements. However, my Timex Ironman, bless its heart, is absolutely the most accurate of the bunch and, as extensive travel and sports activities have proven, it can take the proverbial beating and keep on ticking.
What's dressier and more fun to wear? An IWC Fliegerchronograph -- my favorite. What does the same thing -- tell time -- except better, and does so for almost 1/100th (!) the price? The Timex.
I have no illusions about that. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy the fancy stuff -- I do. It's much the same in audio cables -- with the exception that there are high profit-margin operations out there that would claim that a Flieger IS more accurate than a Timex.
It's a funny thing, because in the world of mechanical time pieces, it's all about the accuracy within the genre...and not absolute accuracy.
Granted, my reaction may be juvinile, but it is accurate. Rsbeck does not care what the facts are, he only cares to make his point. Look him up and you will find similar responses. The man asked for "detailed speaker cables" not a monolog on why he and anyone that does not think like Rsbeck is a moron. The points on equipment quality over cables are obviously correct. Key word obvious. What the gentleman wants is to not lose signal integrity. First he has quality gear. Second he wants our opinion based on our experience on how to maintain the detail of the analog signal. Rsbeck doesn't care what the gentleman wants or asked for. He is out to make his point which is fallacious. There is no denying that anything in the signal path can change the result of the sound we hear. Harnellt, good luck trying good things out there. It is one of the really fun things about this hobby. Try and buy let's all have fun just litening to great music.
Trelja: I think we share common vantage points and similar experiences. As such, i can understand why you agree with my last post to a large degree. Thanks for taking the time to acknowledge what i shared and the fact that you are of like mind. Many times, we only post alternative viewpoints when we should be supporting what we agree with. I'll keep that in mind and try to apply it to my own posts.
Like most others with an electronics background, i couldn't believe that anything less than a poorly constructed under-designed cable could alter the sonic performance of a system. After a few ear opening experiences, i had to open my eyes and mind to other factors that i had never taken into consideration.
After doing further research and testing on my own, i found that what i had based most of my previous assumptions on were true. That is, if everything in the system was "perfect" i.e. impedance matched and non-reactive in nature. As soon as one part of the system equation isn't impedance matched and / or reactance enters into the equation, all of those prior assumptions go out the window.
As i've stated many times before, cables act as impedance transformers when used between components of dis-similar impedances. In some situations, cables can improve these electrical interfaces and in other situations, cables can degrade these electrical interfaces. In some instances, the electrical interface remains unfazed, making little to do difference in either audible or electrical performance. The interface may remain consistent regardless of cabling used unless cabling that is highly reactive within itself is introduced into the system.
Until someone can understand all of the variables involved with cable selection, they can either sit on the sidelines and watch others or they can get into the game and learn along the way as they get beat up and bruised. I don't have a problem with either choice as i can understand someone wanting to do research before jumping in. At the same time, i can understand someone wanting to share and experience what others speak of, hence the desire to jump in with both feet. Having said that, there has to be a happy medium. That's why i've posted what i have about cabling in the past and tried to explain the how's & why's of impedance interactions, various electrical measurements and what to look for or avoid in specific situations. I think that anyone that has read a good quantity of my posts concerning cabling would come to realize that i don't recommend cables as a band aid so much as i recommend very specific cables as a means to potentially achieve a higher level of neutrality when interfaced with components of high quality. At the same time, i've also commented on various cables and explained why i would avoid them and what their sonic impact could be to a system or given component to component interface.
Tvad: What am i not acknowledging or willing to concede? I've always tried to promote "accurate musicality", but at the same time, i've always said that one should buy and use what they like. I've never been a fan of using cabling to flavour a system and have never recommended that. There are better ways that are both more effective and cost efficient to achieve effects that are more dramatic, more predictable and more versatile. In this respect, Rsbeck and i agree.
Rsbeck: Not all zip cord is built to the same specs. Not all zip cord has the same impedance. Not all zip cord uses the same types and grades of materials. Basing all of your argument on one set of measured responses is both foolish and anything but conclusive.
As i've stated above and you never refuted, the tests that you're basing your comments on are far from comprehensive in nature and anything but ill-informed at best. The fact that they went so far out of their way to belittle a manufacturer that produced the most neutral / widest bandwidth / most proper nominal impedance cable of the bunch because the cable "could potentially" cause ringing at or above several MHz in very specific types of amplifiers is silly at best.
Rather than berate the manufacturers of such amps for not building in proper ultrasonic protection, they use this against the cable manufacturer as if optimized design was a bad thing. By doing so, they only demonstrated their agenda. By tearing down those at the top of the heap and publicly chastising them, this psychologically conditions the uninformed reader to accept that all of the cables perform in a relatively even fashion and that the "fancy cables" have "flaws" that the cheaper cables don't. In doing so, they achieve their goals to prove their point of view i.e. the agenda that they had prior to even taking any measurements.
Other than that, you've never tried to refute let alone acknowledge the work that Nelson Pass did in this area. That could be because you have an agenda and paying any creedence to the opposing point of view that you can't refute would acknowledge that you could be wrong. The fact that you refuse to even do something that is so basic as actually listen and compare your cables tells me how closed minded you are on the subject.
As to blind listening test under controlled listening conditions, i don't have a problem with that. That is, so long as one is allowed ample time to familiarize themselves with both the system and the recording(s) that were to be used for the tests. Once other variables, such as an ABX box and / or additional cabling & connections are entered into the equation, blind listening tests actually lose their validity as far as i'm concerned. If you want to know why, read my above post about ABX boxes & associated cabling introducing their unwanted and unaccounted electrical characteristics into the equation. How can one compare the effects of impedance and loading characteristics when a device that alters the impedance and loading characteristics is used as a baseline for the tests being performed???
As far as "high frequency roll-off" goes, zip cord DOES roll off the treble response and it is audible. Not only in amplitude, but also in terms of transient response. Remember, i'm comparing this to a wide bandwidth, low inductance design.
Having said that, where would you recommend that i perform a blind listening test with others there to witness and confirm not only the results, but also that the tests were conducted fairly and honestly? I would prefer doing this someplace neutral i.e. in an unfamiliar listening room with unfamiliar equipment. I did this in a Best Buy using two different gauges of zip cord and an unfamiliar recording, so i should be able to do it someplace else just as well. That is, so long as i'm able to select the recording that i want to use AND am given ample time to familiarize myself with what the system sounds like with each the cable of my preference in the system.
If this is what it takes to get you to perform even a sighted listening test for your own edification, i'll do it. All i ask is that you post your honest opinion after listening to and comparing the two cables during normal listening sessions within the confines of your system.
Given the complexity of the test that you asked of me, i was willing to accept the simplicity of the test that i asked of you. Given that you refuse to perform such a task and refuse to answer why, my only guess is that you're not really interested in the outcome. You've made up your mind based on the extremely limited data that you're provided and aren't about to open your mind and / or ears to anything that could disturb that vantage point.
None the less, i extend to you one more time the offer to send you some Nordost cabling to compare to your zip cord. In all honesty, i'm not doing this to be a smart ass or to stick it in your face. I simply want you to hear the difference for yourself, which i'm hoping, will make you question what you've read and been preaching to others as fact. Sean >
I agree that one can effect *change* with a speaker cable.
This has never been in contention.
Sean claimed he could hear a "roll-off" with 12 gauge Zip Cord.
Of course, after repeating this a number of times without specifying the amount of the "roll-off" -- I did some searching.
Sure, it is with a simulated 4 Ohm load, but still -- it is better than being vague with no specific info at all, but in the simulation, with a 10 foot length of 12 gauge Zip cord into a 4 ohm load, the "roll-off" is .088 db.
Do I believe Sean can hear that?
Nope. Nada. Null and void.
Now, the rest of this, IMO, is to distract from his claim.
He cannot back it up. Never can, never will.
I predict we will see nothing but diversion and non-sequiters.
IMO, it could have been no biggie if Sean had done the minimum that one does to protect one's credibility.
He could have included the numbers the next time he followed me to a thread and made the same claim about the "roll-off" and he could have at least indicated that there is some doubt about whether or not anyone could hear it.
Instead, he made comments about how people with really good ears can hear such things.
Then, I posted the reference about how 3.05 db attentuation at 16Khz is the minimum threshold for detection and he switched the topic to Nordost cables and cooked up this test to see if the two cables sound *DIFFERENT.*
This isn't MY issue. I believe cables can sound rolled-off and they can sound bumped in the high end, or they can be robbed of detail if there sin't sufficient guage.
So, trying to argue me into acknowledging that speaker cables can sound different is a non-sequiter. It doesn't address the original claim -- that one can hear the "roll-off."
I claim this "roll-off" is a bogus issue.
It is way below the threshold of audibility.
The counter this claim, one has to prove one can hear it.
Logically, you would compare it to *FLAT* not to an *UNKNOWN.*
It would not be the leat bit difficult to set up a test where Sean could listen to FLAT versus .1db down at 20 Khz in his own listening room, with the cables in his system.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why one wouldn't want to take such a test -- because no one could pass it.
So, the choices are: Concede the point, or distract and divert.
I already know the answer, this "roll-off" is inaudible -- it is a non-issue.
So, I would suggest moving on to some other issue.
Sean, your detail filled post is probably the finest of the year. I doubt it will be equalled by any of us in 2005.
As you pointed out, Rsbeck has no interest in having his perspective altered. What I have continued to see in his cable postings, here included, is a simply a see saw "Does Not!", "Does Too!", "Does Not!", "Does Too!", "Does Not!, "Does Too!" war of attrition ad infinitum develop. He makes gives no ground, and makes a lot of points along the way, but in the end, he is simply not willing to do what this hobby is all about. It's NOT about measurements. It's not about theories. It's not about being right or wrong. It's about listening. Listening to music, through our systems. Not much else matters, to me, at least.
I have my own beliefs regarding cable. I was once as big a cable skeptic as there was, the same is true of two close friends of mine. Over time, we heard different things coming from our systems when cables were switched out, and came to accept that cable makes a difference. I am still of the opinion that the hysteria, hype, and markups of cable are beyond obscene for the most part. But, also that a dedicated, open minded audiophile can benefit by the judicious choice of cabling in their system.
I believe that one who has not experimented with cabling has simply not maximized the performance of their system. Period. No matter what they say.
I also believe that for those who choose not to believe or don't want to experiment, that's also fine. We all get off of this hobby somewhere, be it with amplification, speakers, front ends, cabling, isolation and room treatments, source material, listening chairs, getting their ear hair trimmed, you name it.
But, in the end, I always go back to the sage Kondo San of Audio Note's mantra, "Nothing is unimportant."
This will be my one and only statement in this thread. It has already been nasty enough without having this idiot get himself involved in the fracus further.
Audio is one of my escapes, and I'm quite content to dabble in the voodoo and black magic aspect of it. I'm finding good arguments on both sides here, but by in large I won't let the science of playback limit my experimentation.
I agree with Rsbeck that many root problems in audio can be solved by changing components, but I also believe some problems can be solved by changing cables as well. Changing a component isn't always practical nor always desired. Sometimes one might be completely enamored with a component except for one small characteristic. I've found that as a final tuning device a cable change can sometimes take care of that.
I know some people don't agree that a cable should be used as a tuning device, that one should choose cables that pass along as much of the signal as possible and buy a warmer sounding amp if that's the direction you'd like to tune your system.
But for me, I find that approach limiting, since ultimate resolution is not my goal. I am impressed by detail, but I'd rather be seduced by the music. Besides, how can we determine at what point a cable crosses over from being veiled to artificially detailed?
We all have different tastes and priorities in music and audio presentation. We're all searching for the sonic balance that pleases us most. Some place detail and transparency over an organic nature, or vice versa. Just as in audio, I'd choose the dark eyed belly dancer over the blonde fitness trainer. They're both beautiful, but I prefer my music with hips.
I reserve most of my skepticism for religion and politics.
Gregm: You're playing Rsbeck's game and will never win. You will only allow him to keep repeating the same techno-muck that he has been convinced is correct. In doing so, it only strengthens his beliefs and will make it harder to get through to him in the long run. Please refrain from doing so, as feeding a troll only makes them bigger and stronger : ) Sean >
I provided a link to a well referenced and more thorough test than anything that you've provided. These tests were conducted by Nelson Pass, an industry legend who doesn't nor has he ever marketed cables. They were independently confirmed by Matt Polk, another industry legend as they both came to similar conclusions. While Matt Polk did offer cabling to the public for sale, his research was conducted because the product that he was offering was causing a negative reaction with specific amplifier designs, which other cabling did not. This in itself should tell you that there is a difference in how an amplifier responds to different electrical stimuli in the form of a speaker cable and / or a loudspeaker / cable combination. After all, if you change the electrical characteristics of a loudspeaker, you would expect and ( even you ) probably accept that it could change the sonics of what you hear. Why is it so hard to believe that changing that same circuit elsewhere in that same signal path ( speaker cabling ) could achieve similar results?
The referenced article that was published 27 years ago demonstrates that as different speaker cables are connected between an amplifier and a speaker, the transient capacity and power delivery characteristics of the amplifier change too. Since transient response is directly related to both amplitude linearity and bandwidth, a cable chance can and should be both measurable and audible. In many cases, this is easily measurable ( as evidenced by that article ) and in some cases, the outcome is quite audible. There are many variables here that could effect the audibility of the specific situation i.e. the stability of the amp under load, the specific cables being used, the quantifiable differences in electrical characteristics of the cables themselves that are being compared, the combination of the cable / speaker and their individual electrical summing, the listening skills of the participants, etc...
In some cases, the difference between the amp being able to sustain high power into a reactive speaker load boils down to what speaker cable is used i.e. the speaker cable is used as an impedance transformer or "buffer". Not only is this effect measurable and audible, it is physically provable in the fact that the amplifier will turn itself off. This is mentioned in the same article as posted by Nelson Pass some 27 years ago. Using anything but a cable that was both high in series resistance, high in nominal impedance and limited in bandwidth would cause the amplifier to shut down into a specific loudspeaker load. While this was not the best sonic combination according to Nelson Pass, it was the only electrical solution with that given amplifier / speaker interface.
The problem here is that you've refused to listen to any form of logic, denied the existence of such repeatable testing in the referenced article as conducted by a well respected industry professional and keep referring to some inadequate test results as a point of reference. Bare in mind that these test results were done using a simulated loudspeaker load that maintains consistent electrical characteristics regardless of the amplitude, duration or bandwidth of the signal i.e. not a real loudspeaker that changes electrical characteristics as frequency, duration and amplitude are varied.
Since i've already provided links to demonstrate that cables can change the dynamics ( electrical operating parameters ) of an amplifier and you've refused to acknowledge this, what makes you think that i should go out of my way to perform any other testing. This is especially true when you won't even take the time to enjoy some music in the confines of your home using your familiar system and some different speaker cabling that i provide for your temporary use free of charge?
Even if i were to perform such tests, what would it take to lend my test results more credibility than the test results as made publicly available by Nelson Pass some 27 years ago? It is my belief and theory that not only would you refuse to acknowledge any test results that i would submit, regardless of how thorough and exhaustive the results were, but you would also continue to refuse to compare speaker cabling within your system.
As such, the bottom line comes down to this. I can't win this "debate" no matter what i do. The only thing that i could hope to do would be to have you experience enough of a difference in the sonics of a system with a speaker cable change that it would pique your curiosity. In doing so, it may cause a desire within you to make YOU want to do your own research and open your mind to other alternative theories to that of what you already cling to. You are the only one that is limiting both your own knowledge and level of experience in this matter.
Given that i'm willing to provide you with the resources to further your experience, which hopefully will further your knowledge base at the same time, i can only arrive at one logical point of conclusion. That is, i have to ask you this one question. If you can answer this question with a reasonable response, i'll be glad to drop any further interaction with you on this given subject.
What are you afraid of and / or the barriers that exist in terms of you listening to some different speaker cabling within the confines of your system at no expense to you? Sean >
Dunno really. One thing one could do is spectrum analyse what is on the source matl, what exits the final amplification stage, and compare to measurement of what's coming out of the spkrs, I suppose.
I guess most people would probably just sit & listen, hoping that the perceived acoustic differences (if any) would be significant and repeatable. The problem (and I agree with an earlier comment of yours) is that many speakers inside a room are notorious distorters anyway...
Empirically however, it's quite easy to effect some change just by changing the type of wire connection in the amp-spkr circuit... now, if the resulting amplitude response (and power response, I guess) seems to favour certain frequencies that were lacking before, it's perceived as more "revealing" (although, all that usually means is strengthening of upper end frequencies + some bass...).
That's a logical leap worthy of its own Olympic event.
You haven't proven that.
You've just claimed you can --- on the internet.
Your claim, like your claim that you can hear inaudible amounts of attenuation, is worth the ether it is printed on.
This is a classic "Emperor's New Clothes" test.
Before you can test to see if someone can hear something, you've got to have proof there is something to hear.
You don't have that.
You want to "blow my mind" with an Analyzer? Then, why don't you measure the Nordost cables so you have some idea about what you are comparing?
Do some investigation for Pete's sake.
You don't know if you are *really* hearing any difference because you've rigged your own tests, insisting on sighted tests. If you are hearing a difference, you don't know if you are imagining it because you've done nothing to eliminate the possibility of the "placebo effect." Do I believe you are above such influences? Nope. You are human. And, let's not forget you've already been caught making bogus claims about your hearing ability.
It gets worse, even if you could prove to reliably hear a difference in a double-blind test, you wouldn't know if you are *really* getting more *detail,* or whether you are just getting a slight bump in the high frequencies, which you are interpreting as more detail. Then making a Herculean jump to the wrong conclusion -- that the audibly flat cables are losing detail.
So, even if you could pass the first threshold, proving you can really hear a difference, you cannot pass the second, proving that it isn't just " different" -- it is actually more "detailed."
Anyone with a graphic equalizer can bump the high end and make a system sound more detailed. Does that mean it is losing signal when the high end isn't bumped? Come on, use some logic.
You cannot quantify detail.
Don't you realize this?
It is just amazing to me how you can talk about Network Analyzers and such, and then exhibit such scientific naivete.
I also find it rather ironic that some folks here have railed against trying to "recruit" -- yet you are the one who keeps trying to get my address so you can send me stuff.
Finally, by your comments, you don't even believe the Nordost cables CREATE detail, so it seems to me you should concede that cables cannot create detail and correct the cable enthusiasts.
Just like you should have conceded from the start that you cannot possibly hear the difference between flat and .1db down at 20Khz.
That one blew up like a joke shop cigar.
But, you're right about one thing -- this isn't the way to get through to me.
"A speaker cable cannot deliver more detail than what it is given -- it cannot CREATE detail / to think otherwise is magical thinking. "
This is EXACTLY why i want Rsbeck to listen and compare some Nordost to his reference i.e. heavy gauge zip cord within the relaxed confines of his own system, that he's highly familiar with. If he can hear more detail with the Nordost than with the zip cord, that would mean that the zip cord was LOSING detail by his own definition. If it was losing detail, that would mean that the measurements that he keeps referencing either weren't accurate to begin with and / or weren't telling the whole story.
Then again, and as Yoda would say, "talking to a brick wall, i am". He'll talk the talk but he refuses to walk the walk. Sean >
Rsbeck's last post was spot-on: cables cannot add detail or, for that matter, character to what flows through them. Yes, you need to be aware of impedence, etc., but that's it. By all means, use nice and appropriate cables. However, more careful attention to other components -- primarily the amp and speakers -- will have a far greater impact.
And, yes, having said that, please re-read "bryanhod"'s comments -- aside from the juvenlie invective, it is based on absolutely nothing factual. He claims to have listened to hundreds and hundreds of cables. That's fine. This is a hobby for some people, and some people really get into it, there's a pride of ownership factor, and, of course, a significant placebo effect.
I know quite a EE's, have a graduate degree in physics, and know several amp designers, sound systems designers, producers, etc., quite well. I don't know of one who buys into 99% of this stuff or, for that matter, who spends good money on "high-end" cables. Unfortunately, the "trust your ears" dictum is very misleading, precisely due to issues of suggestion, pride, enthusiasm, etc. Psych 101.
I highly applaud manufacturers who stand up for what's right in this matter -- and this means some of the biggest guns in the business, such as ARC, Mac, etc.
Maybe. REG would say you (we) are, though he probably wouldn't use that term. If you blindly trust only what you hear and you don't also THINK and QUESTION, then I would have to agree.
Exactly what I am saying. Look at the entire chain. A speaker cable cannot deliver more detail than what it is given -- it cannot CREATE detail, so I recommend looking at upstream components. To think otherwise is magical thinking. A Speaker is far more likely to LOSE detail, fail to resolve it, or introduce distortion than a speaker cable and most listening rooms have similar problems. So, I recommend looking at the entire chain. That this should be controversial only shows me that people get riled up awfully easily when discussing cables -- which is part of the cable phneomenon.
Let's try to interpret (rather than be sick). What Rsbeck seems to be claiming is that a connecting wire, in and of itself, cannot be "detailed" or otherwise because a wire passively connects components and only carries a signal (I'd also add the connections there). So the effects (detailed, etc) shouldn't be attributed to the wire but, rather, the components around the wire. Also, whatever the measured deviations in the signal transfer, they are so small that they couldn't be perceptible. What Sean is saying is that, I agree the wire is passively connecting components, but, you sould look at the case as a network. In the case of speakers, for example, the load seen by the source (amp) is the wire+ x-over + drive units. In this respect, the wire can impact on the load and therefore effect the AF response perceived through the spkrs -- and, you CAN measure differences (if you like).
Rsbeck's incredulity comes from applying logic to confirm or disconfirm a claimed material event ("I perceive a difference"), while Sean is trying to focus on the claimed material event ("I perceive a difference") and confirm or disconfirm it using electrical circuits...
At the end of the day, EEs know their electrical circuits well -- so this shouldn't be such a contentious issue. Unfortunately, few EEs are interested in thoroughly researching AF it seems -- hence the endless discussions and zero definitive conclusions! (Although I remember that Aball is researching s/thing similar -- but again, NOT in the AF range)
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
