End of cable debate - snake oil

This thread just sums up how dumb some things have really got. It is like shaving of a gram on a 911 and trying to see if it makes a different on the top gear track.
 
One thing is certain; Michael Fremer is an extremely unpleasant individual. Here's another example of him in action
Click to expand...
While I can't disagree with that particular example, the Mr. Salvatore who operates that website has himself behaved in very invidious ways, too, w.r.t others. For example - there was a long and (initially) pruriently- interesting thread on the audioasylum started recently by Charles Hansen (Mr. Ayre Acoustics) regarding the way the entire site serves the vested interests of a certain 'friend and guest reviewer'... a hifi dealer IOW. This provoked some really unprofessional nastiness from Mr. Salvatore, until Hansen publicly, and very politely, called his bluff on the threat of legal action. Upon which the whole sorry tale vanished magically and you now read a glowing 'review' of the Ayre CD player. Meanwhile, trust your own ears etc...


A shame the Randi/Fremer faceoff seems off the cards, it would be entertaining.








{true only for sufficiently-small values of 'entertainment'}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you Felix.

In Tones's article Mr Fremer comes across (to me, in my opinion) like a child throwing all of his toys out of the pram, and Mr Salvatore responds with a hissy fit.

Frankly, I wouldn't care to go to the pub with either of them..
 
It's all a bit of a bunkum job.

MF no doubt would like to use his gear and just have Randi come in and swap cables, Randi would like to weight everything in his favour, his gear, his location, etc etc.

None of which reflects how we listen to gear or the circumstances in which we appreciate music.

I think it's very telling of the type of man that Randi is, that it is him who's already thinking about something being secreted in the wires.

let him use Valhalla, that'll sort it..

I find there are similarities between Randi and our own SM, both 'poacher' turned gamekeeper...
 
Out of interest Paul, what ranges of L (in uH) C (in pF) and R (in mOhms) do you consider would cover the definition of 'electrically equivalent' per metre of cable?

Would you also consider leakage between the two conductors (in mOhm) to be significant?
 
What cable?

And 'per metre' isn't relevant, what matters is the totals. So you have much more flexibility with a short cable than with a long one.

Secondly a small hf rolloff due to excessive 'C' for instance may be audible in AB testing, but doesn't fit the popular descriptions of cable sound. It's not the effect that we're looking for. The 'electrically equivalent' criterion is simply to remove such false positives.

So being able to hear a small change in frequency response is merely quite interesting, being able to hear the difference between copper and silver is very interesting indeed.

Paul
 
interesting - which thread?

felix said:
While I can't disagree with that particular example, the Mr. Salvatore who operates that website has himself behaved in very invidious ways, too, w.r.t others. For example - there was a long and (initially) pruriently- interesting thread on the audioasylum started recently by Charles Hansen (Mr. Ayre Acoustics) regarding the way the entire site serves the vested interests of a certain 'friend and guest reviewer'... a hifi dealer IOW. This provoked some really unprofessional nastiness from Mr. Salvatore, until Hansen publicly, and very politely, called his bluff on the threat of legal action. Upon which the whole sorry tale vanished magically and you now read a glowing 'review' of the Ayre CD player. Meanwhile, trust your own ears etc...


A shame the Randi/Fremer faceoff seems off the cards, it would be entertaining.








{true only for sufficiently-small values of 'entertainment'}
Click to expand...
 
Ok Paul,

let's say a 5m length of speaker cable. What ranges of inductance, capacitance and resistance would you say were required for a piece of speaker cable to be fit for the purpose of being connected to an 8 ohm loudspeaker?

Sadly, I don't think the Great Randi is examining the type of conductor in his particular 'challenge'. I believe the Monster Cable, and the Pear cable he'd like to be used are both made from copper.
 
I don't have figures at my fingertips, in essence 'don't care', 'low' and 'low'.

But let's turn it round. What are the variations in the characteristics of a multi-thousand pound loudspeaker cable compared to loosely twisted reasonably fat copper bought off the reel at Farnell or RS at a pound or less per meter?

What do you find sounds different?

Paul
 
I'm surprised Paul, I keep reading that any changes people might hear are all down to variations in LCR away from some norm. I assumed that you might know what those all important parameters that shouldn't be deviated from might actually be. Perhaps someone else knows. I do hope someone at the JREF knows so they can establish precisely what is and isn't electrically equivalent.
 
Valhalla will sort it that is correct. As it wont sound different to his other cables and will leave him with no doubt whatsoever he is correct.
 
I keep reading that any changes people might hear are all down to variations in LCR away from some norm.
Click to expand...
The changes people hear are generally in their minds. LCR has to get extreme to be audible, but to do science we have have eliminate the known.

The cables most people use are 'electrically equivalent'. These are the cables that do magic to the sound in reports on fora and which I think probably all sound the same. These are what it would be interesting to test.

Is anybody prepared to state 'these two interconnects sound different' and let me (or anybody else) measure the cables in situ? I don't care about the actual LCR but whether the cables transfer the signal from one end to the other to better than audible inaccuracy.

Then of course you get to listen to them...

Paul
 
Unfortunately, I think the Great Randi is insisting it has to be the Monster cable and the Pear Audio stuff.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see this is how Rhandi's stacked the deck, i.e. he insists on using cables that he has previously carefully vetted. The cynic in me suspects he has already carried out extensive listening tests on these cables and found them to be similar. Any diversion seems to involve the $1m vanishing from the table, i.e. it is not $1m for anyone who can tell the difference between audio cables, it is $1m for someone who can tell the difference between a couple of very carefully vetted ones.

I find this interesting as I have been able to tell the difference between certain cables in blind test conditions with 100% accuracy, but not between others - this is not a mystical power of mine, it is no doubt due to measurable parameters on the ones I can tell apart (I have in the past for instance been able to tell Deltec Black Slink, Naim Aro and Kimber PBJ, and not just tell them apart but identify which is which, same goes with A5, 8TC and some Audioquest stuff the name of which I forget).

Both parties here are clearly trying to stack the test in their favour, hence the tantrums. Pear must have cottoned on that it's a fixed game as Rhandi has clearly found a cheap Monster lead he thinks can't be identified from their premium product so they've pulled out for obvious reasons. Fremer wanted to throw his choice of cable in the ring as he thinks he can spot it. It really is that simple, and that childish.

Tony.
 
Of course he has compared the cables and found them to sound the same - he wouldn't be making the bet else. As all cables sound the same it should hardly come as a surprise. Any two cables he selected would have sounded the same.
 
The cynic in me suspects he has already carried out extensive listening tests on these cables and found them to be similar.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt Randi's done this.

But that makes the point that the Pear marketing spiel and associated $8000 price tag are prime examples of snake oil, accepted as such by 'cable believers' and therefore not appropriate for a Randi test. You can't have it both ways...

Paul
 
Regarding the Randi challenge, I repeat what I've said before: it is good science to calibrate a test apparatus before a test is attempted. I'd expect a pre-cable trial run, therefor, in which it is demonstrated that the test set-up is good enough to allow reliable detection of small sound differences which should be audible according to accepted wisdom. Sadly, I see no mention of this in the Randi "challenge".

Fwiw I think the Randi challenge should be held in a controlled environment run by a reliable third party, where neither Mr Randi nor the participant have control of the set-up. The Canadian sound research body (I forget the name) or perhaps the Harman test room come to mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul,

Here are the LCR values for 3 types of popular speaker cable.
(5m length)

Would you regard these as electrically equivalent?

a. L, 2.15 uH, C, 699.5 pF R, 47.8 mOhm

b. L, 8.3 uH, C,44.8 pF R, 408 mOhm

c. L, 4.4uH, C,99.5 pF R, 48.8 mOhm

How much does one of these parameters have to vary for its effect to become significant?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top