Cable Happy.

I think I fairness, Pete, Mikes suggestion is that a "cable believer" should be tested to establish they can tell the diference between cables.

 

But Zanash it's up to you to prove that you CAN hear a difference under those conditions. Same goes for proving the existence of anything, you can't prove a negative Of course the anti-difference lot are always going to say 'no difference'.

 

I actually don't think Pete has any "obligation" to do so. .....though it might be good if he did.

Neither do I, not with cable Or cones...(but then my production of cones is pretty much zero now in any case....which I'm sure will delight certain people)


as petes has said, different systems are going to raect differently to cones than others.

eg my lightly built arcam stuff reacts pretty well....I often wonder about my brothers heavy musical fidelity x ray kit...

but then of course thats why we send stuff out to try first.

 

LOL

 

As you say Stereo MIC,

Probably, similar, simple, etc etc. Nothing conclusive there.

As I said before, you are claiming with nothing more than hearsay, that others are hearing things.

You are simplifying your arguement by generalising your claims.

1m of DNM cable sounds different and measures differently to 1m of Chord Anthem, are you stating their LCR is similar, and if so how broad is that similarity? Are you stating these will sound identical?

Do you have any way of accessing HiFi News data from the mid 90's on the internet? Or are you saying that if it's not on the net it's not true?

You require a link for evidence to be conclusive?

 

Measure your two cables for us and show us they differ. I've only got your word that they do and even then, nothing to show that the differences would be audible. I'm also sure I could make an electrical equivalent of either that would be audibly indistinguishable from your expensive designer labels for about £15 max all in.

If anyone had produced groundbreaking evidence to settle this contentious issue, don't you think it would be common knowledge ? Not a reference to a copy of a hifi rag from the nineties? If a magazine proved the scientific community wrong, don't you think the work would have been subjected to review by the author's peers? Let's have something remotely credible please.

And it seems like you haven't read a single word of all the cable threads before pointing out the facts and what the position of the scientific community is on the subject. Would you please do that? Going back to basics is really tiresome.

 

...oooh, its that S word again....

 

And yet we have seen nothing in any of the "HiFi Rags" showing that there is conclusive proof that these cables "DO NOT" sound different.

Do you think a cable could suppress dynamics? Would 40db of difference at 10.5khz with a test result of 104.5db and 84db mean anything to the listener?

 

http://www.essex.ac.uk/dces/research/audio_lab/malcolms_publications.html

http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/c4.htm

http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

http://www.qed.co.uk/downloads/qed/brochures/genreprt.pdf

http://www.vandenhul.com/userfiles/docs/Cable_FAQ.pdf

None of the above are probably suitable but none the less what some read.

They do mention to some degree, articles such as,

The Essex Echo, Aug 85, Aug/Oct 86, and Feb 87. Malcom Hawksford.

Ben Duncan, Speaker Cables: Case Proven, 1995.

Fred E Davies, Effects of cable, JAES, June 1991.

Ben Duncan, Black Box, March 96.

The Genesis Report, QED.

And I believe HiFi News Feb 97, and three issues of 1999 which had a series of articles as I said previous.

 

I used to believe cables made differences. Mostly down to what I'd read in mags and forums.

I bought new cables off the back of reviews. Wired them in and oooh that's better!

When MOving the kit a while back I did a very brief cable swopping test. I'd say I was wanting to hear a difference.

I thought there might have been one, but certainly nothing huge.

To me the issue isn't so much if there is/isn't a difference. MOre that if there is is it worth the cost of the cables for what is clearly such a small one if any.

If I should add another source or such to my kit. Yes I'd probably use something other than the flimsy in-the-box one. Not really anything to do with improved sound, MOre that I just prefer something a bit bulkier and well insulated/protected connecting my kit. And yep... you can see some of the cables at the back of my rack.... so I'd prefer something that impresses my mates.

I'm a tit like that

 

Nothing, I'm sure, to do with the advertisong revenue from these companies?

 

So,

Speaker cable A. R 50% (milliohms) 24m; R shunt (Megohms) >200M; C shunt (pF) 1950p; L loop (uH) <<1.0u.
1kHz dynamic error correction -68.5 dB; 10.5kHz dynamic error correction -104.5 dB.

Speaker cable B. R 50% (milliohms) 255m; R shunt (Megohms) 55M; C shunt (pF) 134p; L loop (uH) 7.5u.
1kHz dynamic error correction -49.5 dB; 10.5kHz dynamic error correction 84 dB.

Should there be an audible difference? These are after all, two different cables of the type many hear about hearing differences between. They clearly measure different, so should they sound different!

 

Nothing but hearsay though, no conclusive proof.

And what reason would some magazine like HiFi World have not to?

 

Cost is certainly a touchy issue, and certainly I know of no-one who could say value for money? (unless second hand maybe)

The thing is that anyone with a good thing to say about cable sis labeled, with no re-course. I agree not all cables are worth the money, some are clearly a con, and some cleary are made in a shed, or built with OEM parts out the chinese OEM catalogue.

None of that means that all cable manufacturers are rubbish and not making cables which some find useful, though expensive. Nor that all cables of "similar electrical character", or that there may or may not be compatability or synergy issues with ancillaries.

I am quite sure companies like Achrolink, MIT, Transparent, Cardas etc have quite reasonable people working for them, and that if anything they were stating on their websites was that bad, that we would hear a lot more about it.

 

It's funny how cable soothsayers (aka Black Knights, Forum Cult Hobbyists) cling to the alleged research of Dr. Hawksford. I appreciate the reference. Perhaps you should check your reference in these discussions:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=cables & n=63636 & highlight=malcolm+hawksford

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=cables & n=63801 & highlight=hawksford

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead & n=1373 & highlight=hawksford

Obviously all of the rest of the "reading matter" was advertorials written by manufacturers or those paid by them. Still no proof of any audible differences, just loads of hypothesising and pseudo science. Groundhog Day or what!

 

Thankyou SM,

Most of those were as I said, not probably suitable, but did lead to some mention of the HiFi News articles, which I thought of as good reading and well constructed.

The above atricles were references which were I to believe, what led to the HiFi News Feb 1997 article Wired for Sound, where 11 speaker cables underwent various tests to show that sonic qualities could be related to test measurements.

As for your ending comments, as far as I was aware, thats all we get from both sides, hypothesising and pseudo science, after all I can think of no other opinion on the subject of basing biased views on cables which are of similar construction with anothers opinion of two completely different cables.

 

My own mention of the cable brands was not part of the discussion on my part, nor the cable costs.
My point was and is, that both these cables are completely different in conductor and construction.
Regadrless of cost, they both sound different to my ears, and they do measure differently.

Again what would happen if you stripped and wove the DNM solid core from its spacing outer? Would it measure different?

What detrimental effects do you get if using DNM on long runs? The manufacture recommends short runs of .5m to 1m if I remember correct, no financial benefit there!

Some of my systems will emit an audible thump when a cable succeptable to this is employed, so why should tapping some cables result in this thump more than others if construction methods mattered not?

As you yourself say, you could manufacture a cable to be audibily indestinguishable from any of mine, so they can be manufactured to sound and measure a certain way. Which certainly seems to go against the grain of all cables being the same.

 

This is getting boring - PLEASE read the previous threads. All your questions will be answered Sastusbulbas. There is a fairly simple set of parameters for speaker cable. If one is wildly wide of the mark in meeting those, I would take it back as it would clearly be faulty. You really do need enormous differences in LCR to contemplate audible affects IME. Those differences should not exist in an competently designed product.

 

I think the way certain members post on here is similar to the attitude of some of the cap wearing scum, that society has to endure within their communities. I think it is clear that certain members are losing the plot, let alone their credibility.

 

The cables with the biggest sonic differences are the snake-oil tweaky ones costing the earth that attempt to match incompetently designed electronics together.......

I've been amazed recently how good and consistent the likes of humble Shark and similar cables are (i.e. Maplin or RS specials). They're not expensive to buy (unless you have to buy a drum of Belden or similar from RS) and as long as you can solder some half decent Neutric (or whatever) phono or XLR plugs on the end, the results are as good or better than anything you can pay hundreds for commercially.

I thought most of you guys knew that. It's something some of my customers were doing many years ago......