"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
I've just received my November 2003 copy of Hi-Fi News, and the
Views
section contains a perfectly reasonable challenge by one K Fonseka,
who notes that HFN has reviwed £30,000 speaker cables. He correctly
points out that no one has ever shown audible differences among
cables
with sensible RLC values, under DBT conditions, and challenges HFN
to
measure the RLC parameters of the £30k cable, then buy some cheap
cable of similar resistivity and match any residual LC oddities with
a
few pence worth of lumped components, and compare the two under DBT
conditions.

The reply from the UK's oldest 'audiophile' magazine?

"We feel it's no longer necessary to prove that cables change the
sound of a system, and we stand by our reviews."

I hope somebody asks them when it WAS necessary to prove that cables
change sound. At least we'll know about where to start looking for
the proof.

Norm Strong

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

....The reply from the UK's oldest 'audiophile' magazine?

"We feel it's no longer necessary to prove that cables change the
sound of a system, and we stand by our reviews."

The arrogance and self-interest of this statement are quite
staggering...

Really? If such an editorial policy staggers you so, why not bring your
righteous indignation to the magazine, rather than relieve yourself here?

The most unfortunate part of the policy is that the magazine will
deprive its readers of the sort of fascinating, endless cable debate
that rages on r.a.h-e. You can only wonder what they were thinking.

Would Lord Pinkerton have been happier if the magazine had not printed
the letter and then honestly answered it with its editorial position?

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message

The reply from the UK's oldest 'audiophile' magazine?

"We feel it's no longer necessary to prove that cables change the
sound of a system, and we stand by our reviews."


Certainly some cables could make a speaker sound different. But the
difference would never an improvment in reproduction accuracy. A
speaker cable with coils added, might peak-up or roll-off certain
portions of the audio band. Some people might consider these changes
euphonic, and be willing to pay $30,000. Nevertheless, what these
expensive cables do, could be exactly duplicated with a few dollars
worth of inexpensive cable and some coils.

I think it is obvious to all, not even a small fraction of $30,000
went into the cost of manufacturing. One is paying for the inovatation
of the design. But, if these high-end cable manufactures really had
something inovative, they would have patented it. They have no
patents.

Bob Stanton

On 28 Sep 2003 15:40:26 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
I've just received my November 2003 copy of Hi-Fi News, and the Views
section contains a perfectly reasonable challenge by one K Fonseka,
who notes that HFN has reviwed £30,000 speaker cables. He correctly
points out that no one has ever shown audible differences among cables
with sensible RLC values, under DBT conditions, and challenges HFN to
measure the RLC parameters of the £30k cable, then buy some cheap
cable of similar resistivity and match any residual LC oddities with a
few pence worth of lumped components, and compare the two under DBT
conditions.

The reply from the UK's oldest 'audiophile' magazine?

"We feel it's no longer necessary to prove that cables change the
sound of a system, and we stand by our reviews."

I hope somebody asks them when it WAS necessary to prove that cables
change sound. At least we'll know about where to start looking for
the proof.

AFAIK (and I've read HFN every month since June 1966) they never did
feel that it was necessary to *prove* that any two components sound
different. Very sad.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 28 Sep 2003 15:43:20 GMT, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

....The reply from the UK's oldest 'audiophile' magazine?

"We feel it's no longer necessary to prove that cables change the
sound of a system, and we stand by our reviews."

The arrogance and self-interest of this statement are quite
staggering...

Really? If such an editorial policy staggers you so, why not bring your
righteous indignation to the magazine, rather than relieve yourself here?

I did. My post was also e-mailed to the magazine. It may (or more
likely will not) be published.

The most unfortunate part of the policy is that the magazine will
deprive its readers of the sort of fascinating, endless cable debate
that rages on r.a.h-e. You can only wonder what they were thinking.

No, in referring to the full-page ad for Siltech cables, I removed any
doubt as to what they were thinking...........

Would Lord Pinkerton have been happier if the magazine had not printed
the letter and then honestly answered it with its editorial position?

A fair point. No, I prefer them to have exposed their position,
despicable though it is.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

C. Leeds wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

....The reply from the UK's oldest 'audiophile' magazine?

"We feel it's no longer necessary to prove that cables change the
sound of a system, and we stand by our reviews."

The arrogance and self-interest of this statement are quite
staggering...

Really? If such an editorial policy staggers you so, why not bring your
righteous indignation to the magazine, rather than relieve yourself here?

The most unfortunate part of the policy is that the magazine will
deprive its readers of the sort of fascinating, endless cable debate
that rages on r.a.h-e. You can only wonder what they were thinking.

I suspect they realize that their readership is more partial to fantasy
than to science, as seems common in audiophilia.


--
-S.

"C. Leeds" wrote in message ...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

....The reply from the UK's oldest 'audiophile' magazine?

"We feel it's no longer necessary to prove that cables change the
sound of a system, and we stand by our reviews."

The arrogance and self-interest of this statement are quite
staggering...

Really? If such an editorial policy staggers you so, why not bring your
righteous indignation to the magazine, rather than relieve yourself here?

The most unfortunate part of the policy is that the magazine will
deprive its readers of the sort of fascinating, endless cable debate
that rages on r.a.h-e. You can only wonder what they were thinking.

Would Lord Pinkerton have been happier if the magazine had not printed
the letter and then honestly answered it with its editorial position?

Perhaps you're being too severe on Mr. Pinkerton. Perhaps the
impression he gives that all is fair to win an argument is due to
sincere, charmingly naive conviction that only the wicked could
disagree with him.
He certainly gives a great impersonation of a knight-errant
fighting the windmills, when he grows indignant with a glossy mag.
like Hi Fi News for being a glossy mag. like Hi-Fi News. Perhaps he
buys his cars from the pages of "Car & Driver" and his scent by
studying "Esquire".
If this is so I have a project for him nearer home. As I said
in yesterday's "Science and Perception" posting he's wasting his
indignation on me, a simple copier of the "golden ear" description for
the top performer in an ABX cable test.
It originated with Mr. L. Greenhill, a one time co-writer on
with Arnie Krueger on ABX, and still a writer for the "Stereophile".
Mr. Atkinson, his Editor, asked him here in RAHE, (The
"ABX-the new horizons" June 19, '02) to contribute, He remained
silent- perhaps , wisely, he will not venture into a hornet nest
without asbestos suit.
This is your chance Mr. Pinkerton- challenge him to justify
himself and repent or you will proclaim him a dissident, a heretic, an
apostate to the objectivist cause.
" Cables sound different under ABX"- what next?. Get the
stake ready,executioner.
Ludovic Mirabel

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:38:42 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

"C. Leeds" wrote in message ...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

....The reply from the UK's oldest 'audiophile' magazine?

"We feel it's no longer necessary to prove that cables change the
sound of a system, and we stand by our reviews."

The arrogance and self-interest of this statement are quite
staggering...

Really? If such an editorial policy staggers you so, why not bring your
righteous indignation to the magazine, rather than relieve yourself here?

The most unfortunate part of the policy is that the magazine will
deprive its readers of the sort of fascinating, endless cable debate
that rages on r.a.h-e. You can only wonder what they were thinking.

Would Lord Pinkerton have been happier if the magazine had not printed
the letter and then honestly answered it with its editorial position?

Perhaps you're being too severe on Mr. Pinkerton. Perhaps the
impression he gives that all is fair to win an argument is due to
sincere, charmingly naive conviction that only the wicked could
disagree with him.

No, I don't judge everyone by my opposition in *this* forum.....

I do have a sincere conviction that only the ignorant and/or stupid
could disagree with me, but I leave our gentle readers to be the judge
of the truth of that conviction.

He certainly gives a great impersonation of a knight-errant
fighting the windmills, when he grows indignant with a glossy mag.
like Hi Fi News for being a glossy mag. like Hi-Fi News. Perhaps he
buys his cars from the pages of "Car & Driver" and his scent by
studying "Esquire".

No, I grow indignant with a magazine which includes many technical
tests but doesn't wish its big advertisers to be exposed as snake-oil
merchants by adding one very useful test. Perhaps, as you say, naive.

And I never read Car & Driver or Esquire. Autocar and Hi-Fi News,
certainly!

If this is so I have a project for him nearer home. As I said
in yesterday's "Science and Perception" posting he's wasting his
indignation on me, a simple copier of the "golden ear" description for
the top performer in an ABX cable test.
It originated with Mr. L. Greenhill, a one time co-writer on
with Arnie Krueger on ABX, and still a writer for the "Stereophile".
Mr. Atkinson, his Editor, asked him here in RAHE, (The
"ABX-the new horizons" June 19, '02) to contribute, He remained
silent- perhaps , wisely, he will not venture into a hornet nest
without asbestos suit.
This is your chance Mr. Pinkerton- challenge him to justify
himself and repent or you will proclaim him a dissident, a heretic, an
apostate to the objectivist cause.
" Cables sound different under ABX"- what next?. Get the
stake ready,executioner.

In the context of honest debate, I'm fascinated that you keep banging
on about this one quote by Greenhill from one test series, you insist
that Greenhill should have gone on to futher testing of this 'Golden
Ear', and yet you completely ignore the TAG McLaren test, where those
who did well in one test *were* tested again, and they didn't do well
in the second test (and vice versa). Of course, *that* result doesn't
suit your prejudices, so you just ignore it.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I've endlessly tried tweaking away sonic differences in cables by making
them electrically the same. Adding lumped parts only served to make the
sound worse. What I do know is that price and sound quality don't relate in
any statistically meaningful way.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
I've just received my November 2003 copy of Hi-Fi News, and the Views
section contains a perfectly reasonable challenge by one K Fonseka,
who notes that HFN has reviwed £30,000 speaker cables. He correctly
points out that no one has ever shown audible differences among cables
with sensible RLC values, under DBT conditions, and challenges HFN to
measure the RLC parameters of the £30k cable, then buy some cheap
cable of similar resistivity and match any residual LC oddities with a
few pence worth of lumped components, and compare the two under DBT
conditions.

The reply from the UK's oldest 'audiophile' magazine?

"We feel it's no longer necessary to prove that cables change the
sound of a system, and we stand by our reviews."

The arrogance and self-interest of this statement are quite
staggering, and reveal the current incumbents to be no more than
writers of the purple prose, with no *real* interest in what is
audible, and what is not. They are of course interested in advertising
revenue, and I note that there's a full-page Siltech advert...........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart is right, of course, with respect to his coments regarding "cable
sound" within a properly operating audio system.

The differences that people believe they hear invariably disappear when they no
longer know which cable is being heard.

John Dunlavy