John Dunlavy On "Cable Nonsense"

Sean, when I said i wanted to try this out "properly", I meant in a blind test, in my room, with my equipment. THAT'S what it will take to convince to 'upgrade' my cable. But that's just me. I would suggest you try a blind comparison also, let us know how it goes.
I can't dispute that cables can be engineered (allowing for in-line passive electronics too) to change the sound you get, but if "lamp cord" is electronicaly transparent where it matters to an audio signal, anything else would be coloration. Of course, who knows; I might just like the colored sound better.
If the effect is purely psychoacoustic, I'd rather upgrade my speakers or buy more music or something.
Re: Dunlavy's cables, the impresion I got is that he doesn't claim a sonic difference, only that he has tweaked and flatened electronic properties that don't have a discernable effect on the sound, pure specsmanship. It looks like he has no moral qualms about exploiting the market that cares about such things. At least he's not lying about it.

Lamp cord is not acoustically transparent. The quality of the copper must have an effect on signal transfer.The cable companies that offer the purest materials seem to garner the best reviews. Harmonic Technology's single crystal wire comes to mind.

... internal processing...

By internal processing I do not mean that familiarity leads to recognition - although there is an element of "ear training" that plays a role in how we all hear. The question is not familliarity as much as how much internal processing you are actually doing to have your mind say "ahhh I know what that is/means."

An example of this *sort* of thing is when you randomly tune your car radio to the middle of a song, one that you hear all the time, and it takes a few seconds to figure out which song it is, as you have tuned into a spot that is perhaps in the middle of a musical phrase, so you don't have the benefit of a "start" point (musically or lyrically) to guide you.

What I am speaking of is similar, but more subtle in that the clues that tell you where/what on a hi-fi system, and really give you the detailed tonal and spatial information are much more minute.

Perhaps one of the reasons that you can "hear" more on your own system is that you have given your brain an "algorithm" with which to quickly process the raw sound into intellegable information.

So, the test then is to be able to walk in "cold" (no pre-programming of your brain, just "natural" sound algorithms) and be able to *instantly* recognize all the sonic clues! Of course, this is not a constant, nor is it (as far as I know) measurable (yet), but if you think about what happens when you are out in the world everyday, or at a non amplified live performance, you don't have to strain or work at all, it all just *IS* <-- kind of a zen thing.

Hope that explains...

_-_-bear

JHunter asked...
- are all the systems used for published DBTs inadequate?

Yes, IMHO, based upon those articles that I have read (which may or may not be all of them) the systems that were used are/were wholly inadquate on a number of levels.

There are also questions about other factors.

No, the tests are not worthless, but they are only valid for the test conditions - I object to these tests being used to draw wide ranging genralized conclusions.

I do not object to the DBT/ABX methodology, as far as it goes. It is certainly a methodology that does *test* something and do it reliably. What it is testing is still a big question! :- )

I personally have not tried Pink Noise in a DBT test. I am certainly willing to do so, and if someone out there wants to ante up a few $$ and some time and effort it can be made to happen... Since I'm short on both time and $$, I can't be an audio philanthropist for this one. If someone reasonably local to the NY/Phila/Boston axis wants to do such tests, I'd be willing to try to participate and lend whatever expertise I might be able to bring to bear.

Again, the differences that at least I am talking about are ones of *clarity* in the sense that information is easier to recognize. Since you *can* already recognize the information with what I will call "less than optimal" equipment/cables, this is a difficult thing to test - since the difference is one of *effort* on the part of the listener's brain!

I think this is really where the problem lies...

_-_-bear (bearlabsUSA.com)

Bmpnyc wrote: "Lamp cord is not acoustically transparent. The quality of the copper must have an effect on signal transfer.The cable companies that offer the purest materials
seem to garner the best reviews. Harmonic Technology's single crystal wire comes to mind."

The largest effects upon subjective results with speaker cable is not the conductor. It is two things: the insulation and the geometry.

Lamp cord copper would work reasonbly well if the insulation was changed and the geometry was changed.

If you doubt that the geometry has a big effect, then try this and report back. Get some runs of lamp cord. Run one set like lamp cord. Take set #2 and separate the two condutors completely, by inches. Listen.

I think you'll hear a difference.

Having said that, I do think that for reasons that no one knows that pure Silver and copper do sound different, and SPC sounds different again... although again, this is more subtle than the difference in insulation and geometry.

_-_-bear (bearlabsUSA.com)