Speaker Cable v. Lamp Cord

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

lcw999 wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:06:49 +0000, Michael Dombrowski wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>> Is there any difference between (same gauge) speaker cable and lamp
>> cord? I cannot see any reason why there would be, especially if bannana
>> plugs are soldered on to both ends. If there are differences, why? I
>> can't for the life of me think why speaker cable would be better than
>> standard wire.
>>
>> Mike
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Mike..
>
> If one believes there is no difference in audio cable and that lamp
> cord is sufficient...then, so be it. However, should one happen to go
> into a room where the audio setup is rather foolishly setup with some
> "audio cable"...and, the setup is "audio-wise" superior to anything
> heard prior to that...well, we all know it is not the cable..is it?
> Could it be the amplifier...but, we hear they all are the same...maybe
> just the source and speakers and the ambiance of the room..maybe? But,
> others with excellent sounding systems think not!!


How about starting with the obvious? Maybe it's the speakers? Maybe it's
the acoustical properties of the room? Maybe the listener has a
preconception that the new system should sound different, if not better?
Why do you overlook the likely reasons?


skip
>
> Much fodder will be created for this Newsgroup with this much
> repeated question..nothing will be resolved!

Nothing will be resolved if there is no attempt to resolve it...

>
>
> Leonard...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7 Nov 2004 16:34:57 GMT, "Pena" <eitoimi@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Well here is an excample
>http/www.taralabs.com/catalog/catalog_product.asp?ID=F600953181024E3C97E9BEBB2C2F4B88
>
>A pair of these cables cost here 15,000,00 $
>Absurd or not?

Absurd.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"goFab.com" tplqqq@aol.com wrote:

>On 29 Oct 2004 23:06:49 GMT, in article <cluie902n9i@news1.newsguy.com>,
>Michael
>Dombrowski stated:
>>
>>Hello All,
>>Is there any difference between (same gauge) speaker cable and lamp
>>cord? I cannot see any reason why there would be, especially if bannana
>>plugs are soldered on to both ends. If there are differences, why? I
>>can't for the life of me think why speaker cable would be better than
>>standard wire.
>>
>>Mike
>
>It's not, but lamp cord is really ugly, and some speaker cable looks really
>cool!
>
>If it makes u feel better and it appeals to your sense of aesthetics, by all
>means buy some expensive cable. There is not likely to be any audible
>difference.

In my opinion most zip cord is much superior to most high-end wire in
aesthetics because it has an easily identifiable polarity construction, it
usually has enough strands to be quite flexible, it has a small jacket that is
easier to make less visually apparent and you can buy some real "art", such as
the kind you hang on the wall or some that is called recorded or live music,
with the difference in price.

For example I have used clear jacket 14 gauge zip cord with a copper and a
silver interlaced copper conductors, a nice bendable feel along with Pamona
dual banana plugs which sounded exactly like a set of Tara Labs RSC 8-foot
cables that had a MSRP of $990.

The difference in cost covers my current year price for 2 tickets (Row H seats
11, 13 ) of a 7 concert series of Saturday evening performances of the DSO at
Orchestra Hall in Detroit with $279 left over for dinner and/or hotel.

IMO the cost difference completely covers the increase in art available to me
by using zip cord (in this case I bought a hundred feet for $18.)

It is true that I'm mixing prices from the mid-90s when I bought the zip cord
and tested the high-end cable (which was loaned to me) and the price of my
current Concert series but I'm thinking the concept is clearly apparent.

BTW I think the zip cord is aesthetically equal, and often superior, to any
high-end cable I've ever used or seen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk wrote:


>On 7 Nov 2004 16:34:57 GMT, "Pena" <eitoimi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Well here is an excample
>
>>http/www.taralabs.com/catalog/catalog_product.asp?ID=F600953181024E3C9
7E9BEBB2C2F4B88
>>
>>A pair of these cables cost here 15,000,00 $
>>Absurd or not?
>
>Absurd.
>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Absurdly absurd. Beyond the horizon.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cm0rb30293v@news4.newsguy.com>...
> On 30 Oct 2004 15:04:51 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >On 10/29/04 11:54 PM, in article clv3ai0ie@news2.newsguy.com, "John C."
> ><john_c@pcperspective.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 29 Oct 2004 23:06:49 GMT, Michael Dombrowski
> >> <legodudenein@hammycorp.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello All,
> >>> Is there any difference between (same gauge) speaker cable and lamp
> >>> cord? I cannot see any reason why there would be, especially if bannana
> >>> plugs are soldered on to both ends. If there are differences, why? I
> >>> can't for the life of me think why speaker cable would be better than
> >>> standard wire.
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >> Same stuff, just different price. Lamp cord is even marked for
> >> polarity, usually by either a ribbed or hex-shaped insulation over one
> >> of the conductors.
> >
> >There *are* some fancier speaker cables that are a good deal more
> >complex/engineered than lamp cord. Whether it is worth the extra money
> >charged for that or dedicated speaker cables depends upon system and taste.

Stewart said:
>
> I beg to differ. Whether it is worth the extra money depends on
> whether it *sounds* any better - or even different. As of this date,
> not one single person has been able to demonstrate an ability to hear
> *any* difference between basic 'zipcord' and the most 'advanced' and
> 'engineered' speaker cables.
>
> Indeed, even the legendary John Dunlavy, who manufacures one of the
> most technically perfect speaker cables available, states quite
> unequivocally that in almost all systems, there will be no *audible*
> difference between his cable and zipcord.


First of all I want to make it clear that I am in substantial
agreement with you on this issue. But to say that there are no audible
differences among cables might be too absolute of a position based on
what you have previously stated. On September 1, 2004 we had the
following exchange:

I said,

>There are dozens and dozens of different speaker cables out there.
>Some of them "look" quite complicated or "exotic" with transformer
>like boxes, etc.
>Are some of them *designed* to change the sound when compared to a
>simple cable, whereas you may be able to pick one out in a dbt (I
>realize this topic, per say, is off limits)?

You said:

"Some of them certainly roll off the treble. It's interesting that
you'll pay $50,000 or more for a pair of ultra high end speakers with
Beryllium or ceramic tweeters which extend the response past 30kHz,
and then your friendly dealer will charge you several thousands more
to have that treble rolled off by MIT, Transparent, Tara etc. "

You also said:

"p.s. If you *like* the droopy sound of those 'exotic' cables with
little boxes attached, Naim NACA 5 will give you identical sound for a
lot less money and no connecting hassle! Basic engineering, as opposed
to snake-oil....................."

As far as I'm concerned this does not compromise your position. It
only shows that there are exceptions, even if those exceptions may be
misguided. But there are some "high-end" manufacturers that purposely
change or "voice" their products. I have spoken to some that happily
will admit to doing that.

Also in referencing John Dunleavy you quote or paraphrase him as
having said "states quite> unequivocally that in almost all systems,
there will be no *audible* > difference between his cable and
zipcord". The word "almost" can leave a lot of wiggle room, especially
among audiophiles that pride themselves in building systems that are
the "exception".

Robert C. Lang

--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cm15mq01lq5@news4.newsguy.com>...

>
> I draw no *definite* conclusion from that particular quarter, I simply
> state the *fact* that no one has been able to demonstrate an ability
> to *hear* any differences.

Actually, according to your previous post it is most definitely NOT A
FACT that "no one has been able to demonstrate an ability to *hear*
any differences". Rather, according to you, "not one single person has
even *attempted* to claim this money." Ergo, the only FACT one can
glean from your data is that no one has yet demonstrated an ability to
hear any differences. It's a subtle distinction, but one worth
pointing out, especially if one is going to go on about "Facts".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 9 Nov 2004 00:55:07 GMT, mr_furious@mail.com (Buster Mudd) wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cm15mq01lq5@news4.newsguy.com>...
>
>> I draw no *definite* conclusion from that particular quarter, I simply
>> state the *fact* that no one has been able to demonstrate an ability
>> to *hear* any differences.
>
>Actually, according to your previous post it is most definitely NOT A
>FACT that "no one has been able to demonstrate an ability to *hear*
>any differences".

Yes, it is.

> Rather, according to you, "not one single person has
>even *attempted* to claim this money." Ergo, the only FACT one can
>glean from your data is that no one has yet demonstrated an ability to
>hear any differences. It's a subtle distinction, but one worth
>pointing out, especially if one is going to go on about "Facts".

Firstly, my statement that no one *has been* able to demonstrate an
ability to hear any differences is couched in the past tense, and
therefore is exactly the same as your supposed modification that no
one has *yet* demonstrated such an ability. I do not claim to be able
to predict the future, otherwise I'd be much richer!

Despite the lack of challengers for the money pot, and also despite
many 'night and day' *claims* by several posters, there have indeed
been a number of actual tests, including one well-reported in the
audio newsgroups, involving Greg Singh aka Trotsky. In no case has
anyone demonstrated an ability to hear 'cable sound'. Hence, my quoted
fact stands, and is not affected by a lack of trousers to accompany
mouths.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 9 Nov 2004 00:49:02 GMT, langvid@pacbell.net (Robert C. Lang)
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cm0rb30293v@news4.newsguy.com>...
>> On 30 Oct 2004 15:04:51 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 10/29/04 11:54 PM, in article clv3ai0ie@news2.newsguy.com, "John C."
>> ><john_c@pcperspective.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 29 Oct 2004 23:06:49 GMT, Michael Dombrowski
>> >> <legodudenein@hammycorp.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hello All,
>> >>> Is there any difference between (same gauge) speaker cable and lamp
>> >>> cord? I cannot see any reason why there would be, especially if bannana
>> >>> plugs are soldered on to both ends. If there are differences, why? I
>> >>> can't for the life of me think why speaker cable would be better than
>> >>> standard wire.
>> >>>
>> >>> Mike
>> >> Same stuff, just different price. Lamp cord is even marked for
>> >> polarity, usually by either a ribbed or hex-shaped insulation over one
>> >> of the conductors.
>> >
>> >There *are* some fancier speaker cables that are a good deal more
>> >complex/engineered than lamp cord. Whether it is worth the extra money
>> >charged for that or dedicated speaker cables depends upon system and taste.
>
>Stewart said:
>>
>> I beg to differ. Whether it is worth the extra money depends on
>> whether it *sounds* any better - or even different. As of this date,
>> not one single person has been able to demonstrate an ability to hear
>> *any* difference between basic 'zipcord' and the most 'advanced' and
>> 'engineered' speaker cables.
>>
>> Indeed, even the legendary John Dunlavy, who manufacures one of the
>> most technically perfect speaker cables available, states quite
>> unequivocally that in almost all systems, there will be no *audible*
>> difference between his cable and zipcord.
>
>
>First of all I want to make it clear that I am in substantial
>agreement with you on this issue. But to say that there are no audible
>differences among cables might be too absolute of a position based on
>what you have previously stated.

Not if you include the usual precondition of level matching at 20kHz,
it isn't!

>On September 1, 2004 we had the
>following exchange:
>
>I said,
>
>>There are dozens and dozens of different speaker cables out there.
>>Some of them "look" quite complicated or "exotic" with transformer
>>like boxes, etc.
>>Are some of them *designed* to change the sound when compared to a
>>simple cable, whereas you may be able to pick one out in a dbt (I
>>realize this topic, per say, is off limits)?
>
>You said:
>
>"Some of them certainly roll off the treble. It's interesting that
>you'll pay $50,000 or more for a pair of ultra high end speakers with
>Beryllium or ceramic tweeters which extend the response past 30kHz,
>and then your friendly dealer will charge you several thousands more
>to have that treble rolled off by MIT, Transparent, Tara etc. "

Indeed so, and such cables will produce an easily *measurable*
difference which would immediately exclude them from any listening
comparison. There are *much* cheaper ways of reducing your treble by 1
or 2 dB at 20kHz, than by spending $10,000 on speaker cables!

>You also said:
>
>"p.s. If you *like* the droopy sound of those 'exotic' cables with
>little boxes attached, Naim NACA 5 will give you identical sound for a
>lot less money and no connecting hassle! Basic engineering, as opposed
>to snake-oil....................."
>
>As far as I'm concerned this does not compromise your position. It
>only shows that there are exceptions, even if those exceptions may be
>misguided. But there are some "high-end" manufacturers that purposely
>change or "voice" their products. I have spoken to some that happily
>will admit to doing that.

Nol contendere, and such cables have always been excluded from
listening comparisons, although I'd be happy to match their FR with a
few cents worth of components to achieve a level-match, if anyone
thinks this is somehow cheating.

>Also in referencing John Dunleavy you quote or paraphrase him as
>having said "states quite> unequivocally that in almost all systems,
>there will be no *audible* > difference between his cable and
>zipcord". The word "almost" can leave a lot of wiggle room, especially
>among audiophiles that pride themselves in building systems that are
>the "exception".

It's simply not a problem, as it's possible to match the performance
of *any* 'exotic' cable in *any* system, for just a few dollars.
Whatever ludicrously incompetent system those 'exceptional'
audiophiles produce, I'll match *any* of their cabling at virtually no
cost. The only reason for the existence of the above caveats is that
not *all* cables will instantly produce a good level-match in *all*
systems - but you can easily produce a low-cost alternative that
*will* provide a good match.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cmrpjb01bhb@news2.newsguy.com>...

> >You also said:
> >
> >"p.s. If you *like* the droopy sound of those 'exotic' cables with
> >little boxes attached, Naim NACA 5 will give you identical sound for a
> >lot less money and no connecting hassle! Basic engineering, as opposed
> >to snake-oil....................."
> >
> >As far as I'm concerned this does not compromise your position. It
> >only shows that there are exceptions, even if those exceptions may be
> >misguided. But there are some "high-end" manufacturers that purposely
> >change or "voice" their products. I have spoken to some that happily
> >will admit to doing that.
>
> Nol contendere, and such cables have always been excluded from
> listening comparisons, although I'd be happy to match their FR with a
> few cents worth of components to achieve a level-match, if anyone
> thinks this is somehow cheating.

This is good information. Specifically, what brand or model cables
would be excluded from listening comparisons? But also would listening
comparisons (blind) still be valuable in a case where there are subtle
differences if only to determine which cable the listener *really*
likes the best?


Robert C. Lang

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On 29 Oct 2004 23:06:49 GMT, Michael Dombrowski
> <legodudenein@hammycorp.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hello All,
>>Is there any difference between (same gauge) speaker cable and lamp
>>cord? I cannot see any reason why there would be, especially if bannana
>>plugs are soldered on to both ends. If there are differences, why? I
>>can't for the life of me think why speaker cable would be better than
>>standard wire.
>
>
> There has been for about five or six years now, a pool of around
> $5,000 for anyone who can tell the difference between basic zipcord
> (lamp cord, if you will) and the most exotic 'audiophile' speaker
> cable (which can run up to more than $1,000 a *foot*!), under
> level-matched double blind conditions. i.e. when they don't actually
> *know* what's connected. In all that time, and despite many claims of
> 'obvious', 'night and day', and 'pretty amazing' differences, not one
> single person has even *attempted* to claim this money.
>
> That should indicate to you that 'wire is wire', certainly no one has
> been able to demonstrate an ability to *hear* any differences,
> whatever they may *claim* on this or any other newsgroup. I find it
> fascinating that the more vocal claimants tend to appear in places
> such as Audio Asylum (a well-named group if ever there was one!),
> where discussion of blind testing is effectively banned by the
> moderators/censors. A more cynical person might think that they don't
> *want* to know the truth...................

In addition to Audio Asylum, I have read a number of reviews of speaker
cables in Stereophile Review. Various adjectives describing the
(clearly audible) qualities of such cables, and, in some cases, their
"break-in" characteristics, are included in many such reviews. Since I
would assume that John Atkinson is at least partially responsible for
the editorial policies at Stereophile, and since he apparently follows
these discussions, having posted a comment on the ng on 10/29, one might
assume that he is at least aware of this discussion. So, I'm curious as
to why SR isn't involved in this exchange, which in some respects
reflects on the intellectual honesty of SR's editorial policies.

Any explanations will be appreciated. - Maybe I'm just confused about
the whole issue.

Jim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

langvid@pacbell.net (Robert C. Lang) wrote in message news:<cmuc7s01asv@news2.newsguy.com>...
> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cmrpjb01bhb@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
> > >You also said:
> > >
> > >"p.s. If you *like* the droopy sound of those 'exotic' cables with
> > >little boxes attached, Naim NACA 5 will give you identical sound for a
> > >lot less money and no connecting hassle! Basic engineering, as opposed
> > >to snake-oil....................."
> > >
> > >As far as I'm concerned this does not compromise your position. It
> > >only shows that there are exceptions, even if those exceptions may be
> > >misguided. But there are some "high-end" manufacturers that purposely
> > >change or "voice" their products. I have spoken to some that happily
> > >will admit to doing that.

Almost all of them *claim* to do that, don't they? Many don't actually
do it, however; they're just selling dressed-up commodity cable at a
huge markup, and relying on marketing hype and psychoacoustic illusion
to make their products seem different.
> >
> > Nol contendere, and such cables have always been excluded from
> > listening comparisons, although I'd be happy to match their FR with a
> > few cents worth of components to achieve a level-match, if anyone
> > thinks this is somehow cheating.
>
> This is good information. Specifically, what brand or model cables
> would be excluded from listening comparisons?

Well, none, if you'll allow Stewart to tinker with his generic cables
(which means, I suspect, adding a resistor or two along the way, or
some such thing). Otherwise, anything with a box on it at least has
the potential to sound different. I'd guess you could match the sound
of almost anything without a box simply by choosing a similar gauge
cable for comparison. You might have to go a gauge lower if the
high-end cable in question is silver rather than copper.

> But also would listening
> comparisons (blind) still be valuable in a case where there are subtle
> differences if only to determine which cable the listener *really*
> likes the best?
>
Assuming you've chosen something that's really designed to sound
different, you're free to judge it any way you want. The virtue of a
blind comparison in that case would be that you wouldn't be tempted to
favor the expensive one (or the cheaper one, or the cooler looking
one, or...).

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

1. The name of the publication is Stereophile, not Stereophile
Review.

2. Each review is the opinion of the writer of the review, not of the
editor. John Atkinson sets editorial policy but he does not write all
the reviews.

Kal


policy On 12 Nov 2004 00:17:52 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On 29 Oct 2004 23:06:49 GMT, Michael Dombrowski
>> <legodudenein@hammycorp.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hello All,
>>>Is there any difference between (same gauge) speaker cable and lamp
>>>cord? I cannot see any reason why there would be, especially if bannana
>>>plugs are soldered on to both ends. If there are differences, why? I
>>>can't for the life of me think why speaker cable would be better than
>>>standard wire.
>>
>>
>> There has been for about five or six years now, a pool of around
>> $5,000 for anyone who can tell the difference between basic zipcord
>> (lamp cord, if you will) and the most exotic 'audiophile' speaker
>> cable (which can run up to more than $1,000 a *foot*!), under
>> level-matched double blind conditions. i.e. when they don't actually
>> *know* what's connected. In all that time, and despite many claims of
>> 'obvious', 'night and day', and 'pretty amazing' differences, not one
>> single person has even *attempted* to claim this money.
>>
>> That should indicate to you that 'wire is wire', certainly no one has
>> been able to demonstrate an ability to *hear* any differences,
>> whatever they may *claim* on this or any other newsgroup. I find it
>> fascinating that the more vocal claimants tend to appear in places
>> such as Audio Asylum (a well-named group if ever there was one!),
>> where discussion of blind testing is effectively banned by the
>> moderators/censors. A more cynical person might think that they don't
>> *want* to know the truth...................
>
>In addition to Audio Asylum, I have read a number of reviews of speaker
>cables in Stereophile Review. Various adjectives describing the
>(clearly audible) qualities of such cables, and, in some cases, their
>"break-in" characteristics, are included in many such reviews. Since I
>would assume that John Atkinson is at least partially responsible for
>the editorial policies at Stereophile, and since he apparently follows
>these discussions, having posted a comment on the ng on 10/29, one might
>assume that he is at least aware of this discussion. So, I'm curious as
>to why SR isn't involved in this exchange, which in some respects
>reflects on the intellectual honesty of SR's editorial policies.
>
>Any explanations will be appreciated. - Maybe I'm just confused about
>the whole issue.
>
>Jim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 11/11/04 7:17 PM, in article cn0vfg0di0@news3.newsguy.com, "Jim Cate"
<jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:

> So, I'm curious as
> to why SR isn't involved in this exchange, which in some respects
> reflects on the intellectual honesty of SR's editorial policies.

I might venture a guess - this is such a devisive topic amongst audiophiles
and others, that there is nothing that couple possibly be gained by his
participation.

TAS also reviewed cables as well last year in 2 issues, including using Home
Depot power cord as a cable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Jim Cate" <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:cn0vfg0di0@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> Any explanations will be appreciated. - Maybe I'm just confused about the
> whole issue.
>

People (1) get to play with these toys free of charge, (2) pay their bills
(wholly or in part) by their writings, and (3) attend conventions and
meetings to party around at reader's expense. Not bad at all if you can
swing it and manage a straight face.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Kalman Rubinson kr4@nyu.edu wrote:

1. The name of the publication is Stereophile, not Stereophile
>Review.
>
>2. Each review is the opinion of the writer of the review, not of the
>editor. John Atkinson sets editorial policy but he does not write all
>the reviews.
>
>Kal
>
>policy On 12 Nov 2004 00:17:52 GMT, Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Oct 2004 23:06:49 GMT, Michael Dombrowski
>>> <legodudenein@hammycorp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello All,
>>>>Is there any difference between (same gauge) speaker cable and lamp
>>>>cord? I cannot see any reason why there would be, especially if bannana
>>>>plugs are soldered on to both ends. If there are differences, why? I
>>>>can't for the life of me think why speaker cable would be better than
>>>>standard wire.
>>>
>>>
>>> There has been for about five or six years now, a pool of around
>>> $5,000 for anyone who can tell the difference between basic zipcord
>>> (lamp cord, if you will) and the most exotic 'audiophile' speaker
>>> cable (which can run up to more than $1,000 a *foot*!), under
>>> level-matched double blind conditions. i.e. when they don't actually
>>> *know* what's connected. In all that time, and despite many claims of
>>> 'obvious', 'night and day', and 'pretty amazing' differences, not one
>>> single person has even *attempted* to claim this money.
>>>
>>> That should indicate to you that 'wire is wire', certainly no one has
>>> been able to demonstrate an ability to *hear* any differences,
>>> whatever they may *claim* on this or any other newsgroup. I find it
>>> fascinating that the more vocal claimants tend to appear in places
>>> such as Audio Asylum (a well-named group if ever there was one!),
>>> where discussion of blind testing is effectively banned by the
>>> moderators/censors. A more cynical person might think that they don't
>>> *want* to know the truth...................
>>
>>In addition to Audio Asylum, I have read a number of reviews of speaker
>>cables in Stereophile Review. Various adjectives describing the
>>(clearly audible) qualities of such cables, and, in some cases, their
>>"break-in" characteristics, are included in many such reviews. Since I
>>would assume that John Atkinson is at least partially responsible for
>>the editorial policies at Stereophile, and since he apparently follows
>>these discussions, having posted a comment on the ng on 10/29, one might
>>assume that he is at least aware of this discussion. So, I'm curious as
>>to why SR isn't involved in this exchange, which in some respects
>>reflects on the intellectual honesty of SR's editorial policies.
>>
>>Any explanations will be appreciated. - Maybe I'm just confused about
>>the whole issue.
>>
>>Jim

In my opinion John Atkinson is fully aware of all the biased controlled
listening tests on wire sound (no one has ever been able to demonstrate an
ability to "hear" wire when even moderate bias controls are implemented) and he
simply chooses to ignore it.

As far as his "policy" goes he seems to accept anything his writers 'say' even
when it it likely a product of personal bias.

As far as I can see; nearly every product that gets 'reviewed' in the magazine
appears on the Recommended Products List. Mr Atkinson has argued that they
carefullyselect products that are likely to sound good.

I'd buy that but where exactly do they screen products? At product shows where
the demo rooms are complained about in the Show coverage? In their
homes.....before being selected for review?

Back to the original question. Exactly why does cabling (interconnects and
speaker wire) appear on the RCL when no individual or group of subjects has
EVER demonstrated an ability to discriminate between junk-box interconnects and
specialty speaker cables in bias-controlled listening tests?


Just asking!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 11/12/04 2:04 PM, in article cn31f102va3@news3.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:

> "Jim Cate" <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:cn0vfg0di0@news3.newsguy.com...
>>
>> Any explanations will be appreciated. - Maybe I'm just confused about the
>> whole issue.
>>
>
> People (1) get to play with these toys free of charge, (2) pay their bills
> (wholly or in part) by their writings, and (3) attend conventions and
> meetings to party around at reader's expense. Not bad at all if you can
> swing it and manage a straight face.

Hey - they have the subscribers to do it. I wouldn't blast them as they
offer value to their subscribers otherwise there wouldn't be any
subscribers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim Cate wrote:

> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On 29 Oct 2004 23:06:49 GMT, Michael Dombrowski
>> <legodudenein@hammycorp.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello All,
>>> Is there any difference between (same gauge) speaker cable and lamp
>>> cord? I cannot see any reason why there would be, especially if
>>> bannana plugs are soldered on to both ends. If there are differences,
>>> why? I can't for the life of me think why speaker cable would be
>>> better than standard wire.
>>
>>
>>
>> There has been for about five or six years now, a pool of around
>> $5,000 for anyone who can tell the difference between basic zipcord
>> (lamp cord, if you will) and the most exotic 'audiophile' speaker
>> cable (which can run up to more than $1,000 a *foot*!), under
>> level-matched double blind conditions. i.e. when they don't actually
>> *know* what's connected. In all that time, and despite many claims of
>> 'obvious', 'night and day', and 'pretty amazing' differences, not one
>> single person has even *attempted* to claim this money.
>> That should indicate to you that 'wire is wire', certainly no one has
>> been able to demonstrate an ability to *hear* any differences,
>> whatever they may *claim* on this or any other newsgroup. I find it
>> fascinating that the more vocal claimants tend to appear in places
>> such as Audio Asylum (a well-named group if ever there was one!),
>> where discussion of blind testing is effectively banned by the
>> moderators/censors. A more cynical person might think that they don't
>> *want* to know the truth...................
>
>
> In addition to Audio Asylum, I have read a number of reviews of speaker
> cables in Stereophile Review. Various adjectives describing the
> (clearly audible) qualities of such cables, and, in some cases, their
> "break-in" characteristics, are included in many such reviews. Since I
> would assume that John Atkinson is at least partially responsible for
> the editorial policies at Stereophile, and since he apparently follows
> these discussions, having posted a comment on the ng on 10/29, one might
> assume that he is at least aware of this discussion. So, I'm curious as
> to why SR isn't involved in this exchange, which in some respects
> reflects on the intellectual honesty of SR's editorial policies.

He has no techincal basis to refute the assertion that wire is wire.
Now, oxygen-free wire can measure different under immensely bad loads
and long runs, but going even one gauge higher with common non-ofc wire
is more than enough to compensate. Even then, it's a fraction of a db
difference - way too small for our ears to hear.

My advice is forget about the fancy wires - if your ultra-wires are
14 gauge, get 12 gauge common wire and laugh at the money you saved.
It's something like $25 a roll for electrical wire - enough to make
250ft, or a full HT setup. Add in good connectors and a crimping
tool and you're at maybe $100($40-$50 of that for the tool).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:cn3oeb02f5h@news1.newsguy.com...
> On 11/12/04 2:04 PM, in article cn31f102va3@news3.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
> Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "Jim Cate" <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote in message
>> news:cn0vfg0di0@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> Any explanations will be appreciated. - Maybe I'm just confused about
>>> the
>>> whole issue.
>>>
>>
>> People (1) get to play with these toys free of charge, (2) pay their
>> bills
>> (wholly or in part) by their writings, and (3) attend conventions and
>> meetings to party around at reader's expense. Not bad at all if you can
>> swing it and manage a straight face.
>
> Hey - they have the subscribers to do it. I wouldn't blast them as they
> offer value to their subscribers otherwise there wouldn't be any
> subscribers.

Hey - the question *is* whether or not speaker cable is better than lamp
cord. IF it is not better, they are robbing their subscribers BLIND, not by
a $14.97/year subscription, but by leading gullible readers to financially
support dealers and cable manufacturers. I believe the original poster
(sincerely ??) inquired about the basis for the entire hullabaloo if all
cable of similar gauge sounded the same, and if so, what is the basis for
the "whole issue"? Unfortunately the basis for the issue, like far too many
others, is $$$. Their *value* to subscribers might be entertainment, but
that entertainment subsides when you come to the realization that you are
contributing to their life style and wasting valuable serious listening
hours reading fantasies. And it's most unfortunate should anyone go spend
their hard earned dollars buying wire or equipment based upon writers and
editors life styles.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 11/13/04 1:06 PM, in article cn5ied014hh@news2.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:

>>> People (1) get to play with these toys free of charge, (2) pay their
>>> bills
>>> (wholly or in part) by their writings, and (3) attend conventions and
>>> meetings to party around at reader's expense. Not bad at all if you can
>>> swing it and manage a straight face.
>>
>> Hey - they have the subscribers to do it. I wouldn't blast them as they
>> offer value to their subscribers otherwise there wouldn't be any
>> subscribers.
>
> Hey - the question *is* whether or not speaker cable is better than lamp
> cord. IF it is not better, they are robbing their subscribers BLIND, not by
> a $14.97/year subscription, but by leading gullible readers to financially
> support dealers and cable manufacturers.

Without getting into a large philosophical argument, since 'phile and TAS
are both successful magazines - with large-ish readership. There is no
shame in #1, #2, #3 above, and if you do not agree with their reviews, and
your experience shows that you feel they are wrong, it does not diminish
their validity as a magazine that specializes in audio entertainment. Only
failure as a magazine would do that.

And if they get *all* of their cable reviews wrong, it is not a cable review
magazine, either. Last time I checked they had music reviews, source
component reviews, speaker reviews, preamp, integrated amps, power amp
reviews, and so on. Since I purchase more in music that I do components,
music reviews mean as much to me as the other stuff (since recorded music is
such a minefield as far as recording quality)

And, I am assuming you are NOT a subscriber, nor do you purchase the
magazine on the newsstand - so why the heck should they take heed? You
aren't their constituency, and they aren't trying to satisfy non
subscribers. Especially ones that are conflicted about the validity of "high
end" itself.

I like a variety of magazines, even ones that disagree with my experiences,
why should there be such condemnation?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<cn5ied014hh@news2.newsguy.com>...
> "B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:cn3oeb02f5h@news1.newsguy.com...
> > On 11/12/04 2:04 PM, in article cn31f102va3@news3.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
> > Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jim Cate" <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote in message
> >> news:cn0vfg0di0@news3.newsguy.com...
> >>>
> >>> Any explanations will be appreciated. - Maybe I'm just confused about
> >>> the
> >>> whole issue.
> >>>
> >>
> >> People (1) get to play with these toys free of charge, (2) pay their
> >> bills
> >> (wholly or in part) by their writings, and (3) attend conventions and
> >> meetings to party around at reader's expense. Not bad at all if you can
> >> swing it and manage a straight face.
> >
> > Hey - they have the subscribers to do it. I wouldn't blast them as they
> > offer value to their subscribers otherwise there wouldn't be any
> > subscribers.
>
> Hey - the question *is* whether or not speaker cable is better than lamp
> cord. IF it is not better, they are robbing their subscribers BLIND, not by
> a $14.97/year subscription, but by leading gullible readers to financially
> support dealers and cable manufacturers. I believe the original poster
> (sincerely ??) inquired about the basis for the entire hullabaloo if all
> cable of similar gauge sounded the same, and if so, what is the basis for
> the "whole issue"? Unfortunately the basis for the issue, like far too many
> others, is $$$. Their *value* to subscribers might be entertainment, but
> that entertainment subsides when you come to the realization that you are
> contributing to their life style and wasting valuable serious listening
> hours reading fantasies. And it's most unfortunate should anyone go spend
> their hard earned dollars buying wire or equipment based upon writers and
> editors life styles.

This assumes that Stereophile readers believe cables make a difference
because Stereophile tells them so. But it's just as likely that they
read Stereophile *because they already believe* that cables make a
difference. In which case, the magazine is giving its readers exactly
what they want.

bob