The most detailed speaker cable??

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.

>>it's quite easy to effect some change<<

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.

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
>