Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-Fi News and Cable Sound
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-Fi News and Cable Sound
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-Fi News and Cable Sound
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-Fi News and Cable Sound
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-Fi News and Cable Sound
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-Fi News and Cable Sound
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-Fi News and Cable Sound
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-Fi News and Cable Sound
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-Fi News and Cable Sound
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hi-Fi News and Cable Sound
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Digital Audio Cable Question(s) | High End Audio | |||
TOSLINK cables | High End Audio | |||
Comment about speaker cables/interconnects | High End Audio | |||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something) | High End Audio | |||
The sound of speaker cables | High End Audio |