[Rockinghorse Winner[_3_]]

Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!

*R* *H*
--
The 19th-century clown Joseph Grimaldi, when old and incurably depressed,
visited a doctor. The physician advised him to cheer himself up by seeing
the great comedian Grimaldi. Whereupon his patient told him: Doctor, I am
Grimaldi.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):

Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!

*R* *H*


Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It
should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the
same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in
computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad
enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio
can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros?
Gimme a break!

[Walker]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):

Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double
blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's?
What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!

*R* *H*


Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It
should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound
the
same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in
computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad
enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog
audio
can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros?
Gimme a break!

I met Kimber in SLC in 1979 and thought that he was a nut case.

I was as much as skeptic as anyone until a few months ago when a friend sent
me two pairs of Panther interconnects and one pair of Panther speaker cables
with a $600.00 price tag. He wouldn't accept a dime if I didn't see an
appreciable difference and I had to run them for at least 100 hours before
deciding. He had persuaded me to build a system he designed that is
outstanding and I trust his opinion. I had nothing to lose but I was also
intrigued and had wanted to try them. However, I wasn't convinced and was
still ready to debunk them. The last thing that I wanted to do was spend
$600 on a few cables.

I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to my old cables
expecting to hear nothing different. I had heard new things in some
recordings and the overall bass seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed
it to more intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I was
surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable difference with the old cables
and the terms of 'open sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant
with the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
worth the money.

I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and the
TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is
less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and the
money can be better spent on upgrading the components.

Bob Walker

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):

Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double
blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's?
What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!

*R* *H*


Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It
should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound
the
same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in
computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad
enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog
audio
can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros?
Gimme a break!

I met Kimber in SLC in 1979 and thought that he was a nut case.

I know Ray. He does believe that cables have a "major affect on the sound of
one's system" but, on the other hand, he did invent the IsoMike system and
that's certainly no myth.

I was as much as skeptic as anyone until a few months ago when a friend sent
me two pairs of Panther interconnects and one pair of Panther speaker cables
with a $600.00 price tag. He wouldn't accept a dime if I didn't see an
appreciable difference and I had to run them for at least 100 hours before
deciding. He had persuaded me to build a system he designed that is
outstanding and I trust his opinion. I had nothing to lose but I was also
intrigued and had wanted to try them. However, I wasn't convinced and was
still ready to debunk them. The last thing that I wanted to do was spend
$600 on a few cables.

I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to my old cables
expecting to hear nothing different. I had heard new things in some
recordings and the overall bass seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed
it to more intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I was
surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable difference with the old cables
and the terms of 'open sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant
with the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
worth the money.

I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and the
TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is
less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and the
money can be better spent on upgrading the components.

Bob Walker

A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. But believe me if
you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a double-blind
evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other. No one
ever has been able to it. You see, the properties of wire are well known.
Have been for decades. Between DC and about 100KHz, there is nothing that you
can do to Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less than 25
ft long without external components added to them that would affect the sound
in any way.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
wrote (in article ):

Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking
the huge mass of bull**** in high-end. The rag I
subscribe to is one ecstatic review after another,
thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil.
Double blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to
fund it? The audio press? Not if the sales dept has
anything to say about it. The mfg's? What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the
reviews of speaker cables: completely opened up the
soundstage and revealed levels of detail I'd never
heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!

*R* *H*

Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster
the cable "myth". It should be common knowledge by now
that cables and interconnects all sound the
same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that
USB cables (used in computer audio playback) have a
"sound" and all are different! It's bad enough that
these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying
analog audio can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables
carrying ones and zeros? Gimme a break!

I met Kimber in SLC in 1979 and thought that he was a
nut case.

I know Ray. He does believe that cables have a "major
affect on the sound of one's system"

Actually, one knows not what he believes versus what he advertises.

but, on the other
hand, he did invent the IsoMike system and that's
certainly no myth.

Isomike is no myth but it is not really a new idea.

I was as much as skeptic as anyone until a few months
ago when a friend sent me two pairs of Panther
interconnects and one pair of Panther speaker cables
with a $600.00 price tag. He wouldn't accept a dime if I
didn't see an appreciable difference and I had to run
them for at least 100 hours before deciding. He had
persuaded me to build a system he designed that is
outstanding and I trust his opinion. I had nothing to
lose but I was also intrigued and had wanted to try
them. However, I wasn't convinced and was still ready to
debunk them. The last thing that I wanted to do was
spend $600 on a few cables.

So then Mr. Walker you did electrical measurements and blind listening
tests, and what did you find?

I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to
my old cables expecting to hear nothing different. I had
heard new things in some recordings and the overall bass
seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed it to more
intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I
was surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable
difference with the old cables and the terms of 'open
sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant with
the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if
you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my
head it's an improved sound and worth the money.

Sighted evaluations, no electrical measurements, the usual unsupported
opinion song-and-dance.

A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not
alone.

It is not a delusion, it is an illusion. Delusion is a pathology, but
illusion is normal human behavior. Mr. Walker's perceptions are in the range
of normal human behavior, given that his evaluation methodology lacks a
great deal.

But believe me if you were to switch between your
old cables and the new ones in a double-blind evaluation,
you would not be able to tell one cable from the other.

Agreed.

No one ever has been able to it. You see, the properties
of wire are well known. Have been for decades. Between DC
and about 100KHz, there is nothing that you can do to
Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less
than 25 ft long without external components added to them
that would affect the sound in any way.

If his old speaker cables were 24 gauge so-called "speaker cable", then he
might have even heard an actual difference.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_3_]]

While browsing rec.audio.high-end I came across this interesting post by Arny Krueger )
(Possibly *snipped* for brevity):

So then Mr. Walker you did electrical measurements and blind listening
tests, and what did you find?

I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to
my old cables expecting to hear nothing different. I had
heard new things in some recordings and the overall bass
seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed it to more
intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I
was surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable
difference with the old cables and the terms of 'open
sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant with
the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if
you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my
head it's an improved sound and worth the money.

Sighted evaluations, no electrical measurements, the usual unsupported
opinion song-and-dance.

Right. A scientific study with a sample of 1, a biased experimenter, no
control sample, unreproducible results, and no environmental controls.
IOW, an anecdote.

*R* *H*
--
The 19th-century clown Joseph Grimaldi, when old and incurably depressed,
visited a doctor. The physician advised him to cheer himself up by seeing
the great comedian Grimaldi. Whereupon his patient told him: Doctor, I am
Grimaldi.

[Walker]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):


A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. But believe me
if
you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a
double-blind
evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other. No one
ever has been able to it. You see, the properties of wire are well known.
Have been for decades. Between DC and about 100KHz, there is nothing that
you
can do to Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less than
25
ft long without external components added to them that would affect the
sound
in any way.


Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply going
by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks good
on paper?

It's a point of refining what is already highly refined and the difference
is very subtle but obvious when you know your system. It's not going to make
any difference with a Radio Shack system but it blends in with the upgraded
parts of a high end system and doesn't become the weak link in the chain.
There's nothing wrong with decent lamp cord and interconnects slightly
better than those that come with stereos but neither are the OEM connectors,
transformers, tubes, capacitors, resistors and coils etc on high end gear
yet some of us can't wait to upgrade them. Why not the cables that connect
them all?

It's similar to a top level wine from the same vineyard and winery but a
year apart. Any of us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that
particular wine, will think that both wines are identical and so will the
guy writing for the food magazine but those used to that wine will recognize
the difference immediately.

If a couple of you are interested and have enough experience with audiophile
systems to report back on it here I'll agree to participate in a test at my
house with my system and the recordings of my choice. I'll have the
components outside the stand with easy access to the interconnects and the
speaker wires are all on banana plugs. It's all tube gear and can't be
turned off and on rapidly but this can't be a rapid test and will take time
between changes. It may be weird and I'll only do it a few times but if I
can't convince you with 80% accuracy from 10 changes over a couple of hours
I'll buy you lunch. However, if I do hit 8/10 you'll buy me lunch and suffer
my ridicule. Who knows; it might be over quickly with three wrong choices
but even on blind guessing I'll probably hit 50% and not crap out before six
tries. Worse thing that can happen to you, aside from buying lunch, is that
you'll enjoy a couple of hours with a kick ass system and you might even say
"Screw the test and I'm buying lunch but I just want to listen to music".

I'm in Las Vegas and some of you will be coming here because that's what a
lot of people do. Email me and we'll trade phone numbers and maybe set up
something. If you don't have a car I'll come and get you and take you back
to your hotel.

There are only three options; I can tell the difference, I can't tell the
difference or I just like going out to lunch.

Bob Walker

[Dick Pierce]

On Jul 9, 2:58*pm, "Walker" wrote:
It's similar to a top level wine from the same
vineyard and winery but a year apart.

And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines
is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not
accepted in the high end audio realm?

Any of
us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that
particular wine, will think that both wines are
identical and so will the guy writing for the food
magazine but those used to that wine will recognize
the difference immediately.

And are more than willing to submit themselves to
properly controlled blind testing.

Your preconceived notions are showing. You might
want to see to that.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:58:44 -0700, Walker wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):


A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. But believe me
if
you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a
double-blind
evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other. No one
ever has been able to it. You see, the properties of wire are well known.
Have been for decades. Between DC and about 100KHz, there is nothing that
you
can do to Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less than
25
ft long without external components added to them that would affect the
sound
in any way.


Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply going
by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks good
on paper?

No, I have not actually tried a set of these expensive cables lately, but on
the other hand, I haven't flapped my arms while I jump off a roof either,
but I know that doing so will NOT result in my flying. Just as I know that
nothing that one can do with wire and a set of connectors will have any
affect on an audio signal, and for the same reason. The laws of physics says
that wire is wire from DC to at least 50 KHz. I have, in the past, however
been privy to a number of double-blind listening tests of highly touted and
expensive cables vs the cheap molded variety, and nobody on a panel of audio
experts, including some rather famous ones, could detect any difference
whatsoever between the two.

It's a point of refining what is already highly refined and the difference
is very subtle but obvious when you know your system. It's not going to make
any difference with a Radio Shack system but it blends in with the upgraded
parts of a high end system and doesn't become the weak link in the chain.

I do advocate the use of good interconnects which are well made. In fact, I
recommend the use "quasi-balanced" interconnects (where the shield is not
part of the cable, carries no current, and is just an electromagnetic and
electrostatic shield. Good connections, kept clean and as air-tight as
possible are important. It is also important for the wire used in the cables
to be well soldered to the connectors and not just crimped. This is in the
name of reliability and a low noise floor, however, not in the name of one
cable sounding better than another.

There's nothing wrong with decent lamp cord and interconnects slightly
better than those that come with stereos but neither are the OEM connectors,
transformers, tubes, capacitors, resistors and coils etc on high end gear
yet some of us can't wait to upgrade them. Why not the cables that connect
them all?

As long as you understand that simple cables will neither enhance or detract
from your system's performance as long the above criteria are met, there is
nothing wrong with upgrading one's cables. Just don't expect a $1000 pair of
say, speaker cables, to sound any "better" than the same length of 14 gauge
lamp cord.

It's similar to a top level wine from the same vineyard and winery but a
year apart. Any of us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that
particular wine, will think that both wines are identical and so will the
guy writing for the food magazine but those used to that wine will recognize
the difference immediately.

No, it's not similar at all. Wine is the result of a long process filled with
variables, many of which are NOT under the wine maker's direct control.
Weather, rainfall, soil conditions vary from one growing season to the next,
the wine maker cannot control these and they make a big difference in the
quality of the final product. Wire. OTOH, is wire. as long as it's copper,
connected firmly to the connectors at each end and the connectors themselves
make decent contact, there are no variables. Now different cable
manufacturers will tell you that the way they orient the cable strands in
their products or the type of insulation they use make them sound "better"
and may spew-out marketing mumbo-jumbo about suppressing spurious outside
magnetic fields, etc., but this is all stuff and nonsense AT AUDIO
FREQUENCIES. Now, at 100 MHz, it is every bit possible that these things
might make a difference, but from DC to 50 or even 100 KHz in runs for
speaker cable of less than 50 Ft from the amplifier and in interconnects less
than 20 ft from component to component, these things simply do not apply in
any audible way.

If a couple of you are interested and have enough experience with audiophile
systems to report back on it here I'll agree to participate in a test at my
house with my system and the recordings of my choice. I'll have the
components outside the stand with easy access to the interconnects and the
speaker wires are all on banana plugs. It's all tube gear and can't be
turned off and on rapidly but this can't be a rapid test and will take time
between changes. It may be weird and I'll only do it a few times but if I
can't convince you with 80% accuracy from 10 changes over a couple of hours
I'll buy you lunch. However, if I do hit 8/10 you'll buy me lunch and suffer
my ridicule. Who knows; it might be over quickly with three wrong choices
but even on blind guessing I'll probably hit 50% and not crap out before six
tries. Worse thing that can happen to you, aside from buying lunch, is that
you'll enjoy a couple of hours with a kick ass system and you might even say
"Screw the test and I'm buying lunch but I just want to listen to music".

Could be That I would enjoy your system immensely, but OTOH, WRT your test,
been there, done that. and there is no difference. There can't be. It's as
impossible as jumping off a roof, flapping your arms and flying. Physics says
that both are impossible and so they are.

I'm in Las Vegas and some of you will be coming here because that's what a
lot of people do. Email me and we'll trade phone numbers and maybe set up
something. If you don't have a car I'll come and get you and take you back
to your hotel.

There are only three options; I can tell the difference, I can't tell the
difference or I just like going out to lunch.

Bob Walker


Will do next time I'm heading out to Vegas.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 10:40*pm, Sonnova wrote:

A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. But believe me if
you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a double-blind
evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other.

Don't leap to conclusions. It is entirely possible that his previous
cables have deteriorated physically such that there is some actual
interference with the sound. Especially with cheap (not necessarily
inexpensive) shielded cables the core wire can become corroded at the
connector(s). I had a set once that had enough copper-salts that it
rectified CB noise on occasion from passing trucks. Wild!

I will replace my cables every so often and clean the jacks for this
reason - but, again, with inexpensive but well-made cables, not
boutique stuff. Every-so-often is mostly based on the insulation
getting stiff, so 15+ years anyway, at least.

NOTE: This is a physical/electrical decay issue - NOT an oxygen-free
copper rolled on the thighs of virgins on Walpurges Night issue.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:00:14 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 7, 10:40*pm, Sonnova wrote:

A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. But believe me if
you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a
double-blind
evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other.

Don't leap to conclusions. It is entirely possible that his previous
cables have deteriorated physically such that there is some actual
interference with the sound. Especially with cheap (not necessarily
inexpensive) shielded cables the core wire can become corroded at the
connector(s). I had a set once that had enough copper-salts that it
rectified CB noise on occasion from passing trucks. Wild!

That's not exactly what I meant. I think that you understand that.

I will replace my cables every so often and clean the jacks for this
reason - but, again, with inexpensive but well-made cables, not
boutique stuff. Every-so-often is mostly based on the insulation
getting stiff, so 15+ years anyway, at least.

Absolutely. It pays to buy decently built cables as well. And don't forget to
use Stabilant 22A (Tweek) on all your connections. This stuff is available
through Quest Auto stores in the USA under the part number SL-5, From NAPA
car parts as CE1, and from Big A Car parts as 40-6. It is also available from
Motorola's Test Equipment and Shop Supplies Catalogue as Part Number
11-80369E78. Order it by calling:

1-800-422-4210

All of these sources sell Stabilant 22 in the 15 mL bottles which is enough
to last anyone at least 10 years (Tweek was sold by Dayton-Wright back when
in 15cc bottles for about $20 a bottle). Be prepared to pay about $60 for 10X
the amount as one got from Dayton-Wright when stereo shops sold the stuff as
Tweek.

What I do is use a good connector cleaner like Deoxit to clean both mating
surfaces from phono cartridge terminals and leads all the way to the speaker
connections. Then I apply Stabillant 22A to the mating surfaces. I do this
every time I break or make a connection. Clean airtight contacts will insure
a good, reliable connection. I'm not saying that this procedure improves the
sound. With fresh connections it won't and can't. But it will keep the
connection from deteriorating over time due to corrosion and air-born dirt
such as home cooking grease and smoke and will clean off any corrosion and
dirt present when applied to previously untreated connections.

Lest you think that Stabillant 22A is "mousemilk" the same way that
$4000/meter interconnects are a fraud, let me enlighten you. Stabillant 22A
has a Mil-SPEC number, a US Air Force number and a NASA part number. It also
has GM, Ford, and Chrysler part numbers. It is used in every missile, and
space craft and satellite launched. It is also used in the assembly of
practically every automobile made. Its advantages as a contact enhancer are
REAL.

NOTE: This is a physical/electrical decay issue - NOT an oxygen-free
copper rolled on the thighs of virgins on Walpurges Night issue.

Oh. I agree.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Walker" wrote in message
...

You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
worth the money.

I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and
the
TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is
less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and
the
money can be better spent on upgrading the components.

Huh? First you say it is worth the money, then you say spending $500 on
cabling is crazy. Can you parse that out for me?

Gary Eickmeier

[Walker]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"Walker" wrote in message
...

You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
worth the money.

I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and
the
TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is
less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and
the
money can be better spent on upgrading the components.

Huh? First you say it is worth the money, then you say spending $500 on
cabling is crazy. Can you parse that out for me?

Gary Eickmeier

What I said was that the $600 was less than 10% of the value of my system
and justifiable to the extent of being a minor part of it and that spending
$500.00 is overkill on an over the counter system with $20.00 worth of
Chinese parts. A gravel road with a small stretch of smooth pavement in the
middle is still considered a gravel road.

I spent over $500.00 for coils and caps alone upgrading my crossovers and if
nothing else the quality of the cables are a much better match than lamp
cord and off of the wall interconnects. I have a TV surround system with $6K
worth of vintage Altec and JBL speakers. The receiver is a Sony ES and all
of the stuff I use is connected either optical or DA and there's not a
single analog interconnect. I'll upgrade their respective crossovers with
the 1/2 the money of premium speaker cables and after that I'll add separate
amps and get the drivers remagnetized. By that time the system will be worth
around $20K and then I might consider new $2K speaker cables; again around
10% of the value of the system.

Bob W

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Jul 7, 8:07*am, "Walker" wrote:
new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
worth the money.

Bob Walker

Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
can hear such differences under blind conditions. Such a test should
be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
million dollars?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 8, 3:06*am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:07*am, "Walker" wrote:
*new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince

me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
worth the money.
Bob Walker

Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
can hear such differences under blind conditions. *Such a test should
be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
million dollars?

That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
laws of physics. The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the
paranormal. Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves
something to be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would
quantum physics have qualified for the JREF challenge before
physicists figured it out? I mean really, particles that are not
really there until they are looked at? sounds pretty "magical" to me.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Jul 8, 10:33*am, Scott wrote:
:
Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
can hear such differences under blind conditions. *Such a test should
be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
million dollars?

That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
running a shell game with their so called challenge.

Well then surely it is your duty to turn them in to the police for
fraud, and we will shortly read about their conviction for a criminal
offense.

Any real
demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
laws of physics.

Yet JREF is indeed offering the money for anyone who can distinguish
between two cables that, according to the laws of physics, sound
different.

The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the
paranormal. Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves
something to be true it ceases to be "paranormal."

Really, you are only displaying your own misunderstanding of their
offer. That is all taken care of in the rules.

But it's fascinating to see how quickly the excuses come out.

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott wrote:
On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote:
?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince

me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
worth the money.
Bob Walker

Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should
be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
million dollars?

That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
laws of physics.

Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of
devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible
difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching
for output devices, of course). There is also of course the whole
realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest
(or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the
first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that
category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs,
the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers,
cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like.

So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or
treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance
does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the
challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there
would be no known physical cause.

Last I heard, though, the challenge is being phased out, mainly
because no one has ever managed to even pass the preliminary tests,
and the 'big guns' of the flimflam world -- the Uri Gellers and the
Sylvia Browns -- are far too canny to submit themselves to certain
exposure as frauds. The JREF (whose money it is, not Randi's
personally) wants to use it more actively.

The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal.

Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara
cables dustup.

Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a
phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation
within scientific reasoning.

Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of
low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory
test, would fall within this usage.

Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as
paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even
create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special
category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]".

Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for
sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance,
resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on
frequency response. Effective shielding (or not) can and does affect
measurable noise spectra due to the intrusion (or not) or RFI/EMI.

The word "excellent" is meaningless IMO.

In addition, as I described to you in my email, the 1/3 octave
equalizer example indicates that hearing something that.s not measured
does not indicate "paranormal" activity, ESP or any such thing. It
indicates something scientifically verifiable but not at the time the
observation is made and checked against available measurable
standards. The word "paranormal" is loaded. I don.t like it. If I pass
this test I will be declared to have "paranormal" abilities, which I
deny. It will be like the "lucky coin" business with the amplifiers."

And Randi replied:

"Sir, I assure you that I'm quite familiar with such things as
inductance, resistance, and capacitance as possible factors in
performance. Well, let's leave out the designation "paranormal", then,
since it seems that it intrudes on your sensitivity standards.....look
forward to discussing the parameters, location, and time for a test.
With great enthusiasm!""

In the end, the cable challenge disintegrated because Pear Audio -- a
ridiculous review of whose cables (they were declared 'danceable',
don't you know) sparked the dust-up --wouldn't lend Fremer a pair of
their cables. So Fremer (who hadn't been the reviewer of the Pears in
the first place) wanted to use his own Tara Labs cables. As of March
2008 Randi was still asking his readers if someone could lend them
some Pear Cables to test.

Randi has also called out challengers to claim the prize for
demonstrating audible effects of LP demagnetizing. AFAIk Fremer hasn't
taken him up on that one.

Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to
be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics
have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it
out?

You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles
tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by
multiple scientists doing careful experiments?

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Guenter Scholz]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):

Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!

*R* *H*


Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It
should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the
same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in
computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad
enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio
can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros?
Gimme a break!

..... well, they did not quite all sound the same by a considerable margin.
These 'audiophile' cables more often than not tended to be either highly
inductive or capacitive and consequently did affect the sound you heard.
Consequently these cables sounded 'different' and different was often thought
as better. Of course none of them worked as well as zip-cord. I'll never
forget the first time I saw the frequency response of a pair of Appogee
Duettas (or some such) you could have gone sking on the response curve it
decreased that much to the high frequencies... they sure sounded 'different
all right.

cheers

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 03:05:43 -0700, Guenter Scholz wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):

Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!

*R* *H*


Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It
should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound
the
same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in
computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad
enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog
audio
can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros?
Gimme a break!

.... well, they did not quite all sound the same by a considerable margin.
These 'audiophile' cables more often than not tended to be either highly
inductive or capacitive and consequently did affect the sound you heard.
Consequently these cables sounded 'different' and different was often thought
as better. Of course none of them worked as well as zip-cord. I'll never
forget the first time I saw the frequency response of a pair of Appogee
Duettas (or some such) you could have gone sking on the response curve it
decreased that much to the high frequencies... they sure sounded 'different
all right.

cheers


The only way that "audiophile' cables can sound "different" is for the
manufacturer to add external components to the cables in the form of chokes,
capacitors, and resistors. These either peak the response somewhere in the
audible spectrum or roll it off. There is simply nothing you can do to a
couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of
speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies. Maybe
that's what those big blocks are on the ends of some "high-end" speaker
cables - housing for large caps and inductors. Maybe those cables that are
sold as powered, "active cables" actually have active filters in them. 8^)

[Guenter Scholz]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 03:05:43 -0700, Guenter Scholz wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):

Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!

*R* *H*


Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It
should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound
the
same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in
computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad
enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog
audio
can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros?
Gimme a break!

.... well, they did not quite all sound the same by a considerable margin.
These 'audiophile' cables more often than not tended to be either highly
inductive or capacitive and consequently did affect the sound you heard.
Consequently these cables sounded 'different' and different was often thought
as better. Of course none of them worked as well as zip-cord. I'll never
forget the first time I saw the frequency response of a pair of Appogee
Duettas (or some such) you could have gone sking on the response curve it
decreased that much to the high frequencies... they sure sounded 'different
all right.

cheers


The only way that "audiophile' cables can sound "different" is for the
manufacturer to add external components to the cables in the form of chokes,
capacitors, and resistors. These either peak the response somewhere in the
audible spectrum or roll it off. There is simply nothing you can do to a
couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of
speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies. Maybe
that's what those big blocks are on the ends of some "high-end" speaker
cables - housing for large caps and inductors. Maybe those cables that are
sold as powered, "active cables" actually have active filters in them. 8^)

..... I'd agree depending on what you call reasoanble. In many situations
cable runs of 10's of feet is used. an inductor is a coil of wire. Heck,
you can buy wire would resistors that are non-inductive and they are not
very long.... Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire to keep it from
oscillating into difficult ie capacitive loads. Wasn't Kimber cable braided
flat so it could fit into carpets... many parallel strands of wire make a
good capacitor. So, depending on the amp you could get noticable effects.
We certainly noticed doing ABX texting. But most critical we found was
level matching across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved next to
impossible to do. it was not extremely difficult to identify a component
when the, say, highs were off by as little as a few dB over a few octaves.

cheers

[Arny Krueger]

"Guenter Scholz" wrote in
message

.... I'd agree depending on what you call reasoanble. In
many situations cable runs of 10's of feet is used.

So what?

an inductor is a coil of wire.

An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly little in common with a
cable. In fact, cables minimize their inductance by simply having two
conductors that are close to each other and have current flowing in them in
opposite directions.

Heck, you can buy wire would
resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very
long....

????

Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire
to keep it from oscillating into difficult ie capacitive
loads.

That is known as an amplifier that is very poorly designed.

Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit
into carpets...

Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber.

many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor.

Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel strands of wire, and
few if any of them are very good capacitors.

So, depending on the amp you could get
noticable effects.

Only true of the very few amplifiers that are badly designed. Rare
pathological exceptions are a poor basis for making up a rule.

We certainly noticed doing ABX texting.

ABX texting? Are you talking about cell phones????

But most critical we found was level matching
across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved
next to impossible to do.

Sounds like a very pathological setup.

it was not extremely difficult
to identify a component when the, say, highs were off by
as little as a few dB over a few octaves.

No, its very easy to ear a few dBs over many octaves. But how do you hook up
normal audio components in a normal audio system and obtain such incredibly
large differences that are simply due to reasonable speaker cable, and
nothing else?

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 20:03:38 -0700, Guenter Scholz wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 03:05:43 -0700, Guenter Scholz wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):

Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double
blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's?
What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!

*R* *H*


Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It
should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound
the
same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in
computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad
enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog
audio
can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and
zeros?
Gimme a break!

.... well, they did not quite all sound the same by a considerable margin.
These 'audiophile' cables more often than not tended to be either highly
inductive or capacitive and consequently did affect the sound you heard.
Consequently these cables sounded 'different' and different was often
thought
as better. Of course none of them worked as well as zip-cord. I'll never
forget the first time I saw the frequency response of a pair of Appogee
Duettas (or some such) you could have gone sking on the response curve it
decreased that much to the high frequencies... they sure sounded 'different
all right.

cheers


The only way that "audiophile' cables can sound "different" is for the
manufacturer to add external components to the cables in the form of
chokes,
capacitors, and resistors. These either peak the response somewhere in the
audible spectrum or roll it off. There is simply nothing you can do to a
couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of
speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies. Maybe
that's what those big blocks are on the ends of some "high-end" speaker
cables - housing for large caps and inductors. Maybe those cables that are
sold as powered, "active cables" actually have active filters in them. 8^)

.... I'd agree depending on what you call reasoanble.

2 meters for coaxial interconnects, 5 meters for speaker runs.

In many situations
cable runs of 10's of feet is used. an inductor is a coil of wire. Heck,
you can buy wire would resistors that are non-inductive and they are not
very long.... Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire to keep it from
oscillating into difficult ie capacitive loads. Wasn't Kimber cable braided.

Still, if you measure the cables characteristics per foot, multiply them by
the length of the run and do the math for say, 100 Hz and 20 KHz, you'll find
that you would have run most interconnects for more than 20 ft before you'd
see even a 1 dB drop at 20 KHz. You're going to hear that? No.

flat so it could fit into carpets... many parallel strands of wire make a
good capacitor. So, depending on the amp you could get noticable effects.

In some early solid state amps, some braided cables caused the output stages
to become so unstable that they went into ultrasonic oscillation causing the
amp in question (an Acoustat, if memory serves) to self destruct. The
listeners in the room heard nothing untoward up until the very instant that
thermal runaway made the amp go poof!

We certainly noticed doing ABX texting. But most critical we found was
level matching across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved next to
impossible to do. it was not extremely difficult to identify a component
when the, say, highs were off by as little as a few dB over a few octaves.

cheers

[Walt]

Sonnova wrote:

There is simply nothing you can do to a
couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of
speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies.

You could take a pair of wire cutters and snip one of the conductors.
That would have an audible effect (i.e. the speakers would be silent).

You could strip the insulation and make a short circuit. You'd hear that
as the amp frying (or blowing a fuse if you're lucky)

You could separate the two conductors and make a bunch of loops to
create an inductor. That would have an audible effect.

You could attach connectors with cold solder joints that are non-linear,
and this would induce distortion.

There are many things one can do to the wire to make things sound worse.
Of course, what you meant is that there's nothing you can do to
*improve* the signal transfer at audio frequencies. I can't disagree
with you there.

//Walt

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:37:41 -0700, Walt wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There is simply nothing you can do to a
couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of
speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies.

You could take a pair of wire cutters and snip one of the conductors.
That would have an audible effect (i.e. the speakers would be silent).

Smartass! But you're right.

You could strip the insulation and make a short circuit. You'd hear that
as the amp frying (or blowing a fuse if you're lucky)

You could separate the two conductors and make a bunch of loops to
create an inductor. That would have an audible effect.

It would have to be a lot of loops!

You could attach connectors with cold solder joints that are non-linear,
and this would induce distortion.

There are many things one can do to the wire to make things sound worse.
Of course, what you meant is that there's nothing you can do to
*improve* the signal transfer at audio frequencies. I can't disagree
with you there.

Actually, what I meant was that there are no applications of fancy, expensive
materials, no special "strand orientation" no high-tech dielectrics between
cable elements, no super connectors, or any other of the hundred and one
things that cable makers throw at their cable designs to justify the high
prices, that actually would cause them to sound different (better or worse)
than a cheap Radio Shack cable or a length of 14 gauge lamp cord for speaker
cable. I'm not talking here about cables with molded or wood boxes on the
ends filled with inductors, resistors and capacitors and are DESIGNED to
alter the frequency response of the cable, I'm talking about cables made of
nothing but copper wire and connectors - no matter HOW fancy.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 12:18*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ):

Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!

*R* *H*

Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It
should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the
same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in
computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! *It's bad
enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio
can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros?
Gimme a break!

No, you're wrong, it explains why right he

http://www.wireworldcable.com/catego...sb_cables.html

Maybe if I used one with my color printer, I would get brighter colors
and better detail...

Tim

[JWV Miller]

On Jul 18, 6:40*pm, wrote:
snip

same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in
computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! *It's bad
enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio
can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros?
Gimme a break!

No, you're wrong, it explains why right he

http://www.wireworldcable.com/catego...sb_cables.html


Sorry but the claims in the link make absolutely no sense. They are
simply advertising blather to sell snake-oil products. The audio
information is not simply streamed directly from the USB interface to
the DAC. The serial data must be converted into 16 bit (or larger)
words and buffered prior to conversion so jitter would have no affect
on the resulting audio signal.