Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
posted today at <A
HREF="http/www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable</A>.
Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict
the opposite.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
>
<snipped>
>
>
> > Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
> > for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
> > might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics
> > predict the opposite.
>
>
> Publishing such an unecessarily math-intensive article in a
> consumer publication has an obvious subtext - "It's all so
> complex that you can't possibly understand it, so believe
> whatever we say".
>
>
That seems to be the plan: the article will "dazzle 'em with science",
than Atkinson, his minions and the snake oil merchants will swoop in
and "baffle 'em with bullshit". IOW, a typical $tereopile ploy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

<Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1125315999.689227.164780@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory
> is posted today at <A
> HREF="http/www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable</A>.

That's just raw HTML from a web page. The correct URL is:

http/www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/

> Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
> for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
> might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics
> predict the opposite.


Publishing such an unecessarily math-intensive article in a
consumer publication has an obvious subtext - "It's all so
complex that you can't possibly understand it, so believe
whatever we say".

If you want to read a series of articles that is compentetly
written from a teaching/learning viewpoint, please check out
Jim Lesurf's:

http/www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/part6/page1.html


http/www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/part7/page1.html

and

http/www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page1.html


As I said in the HE2005 debate, one place where high end
audio journalism falls flat on its face is quantification.
the Hawksford article is obviously designed to raise a lot
of concerns without proceeding far enough along the line of
quantification. Had Hawksford carried the ideas he presented
to a reasonable, properly-quantified conclusion, he would
have had to print very un-Stereophile-like conclusion such
as:

"In practice it is questionable whether delays of the
magnitudes shown would ever be audible. If so, the general
advice would seem to be to choose reasonable large diameter
wires with a close spacing in order to minimise the effects
of resistance and inductance."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:qn3iush2g4pa.1kga5a9z1knu5$.dlg@40tude.net
> > On 29 Aug 2005 07:44:08 -0700, George Middius wrote:
> >
> >> Don Pearce said:
> >>
> >>> DBT anybody?
>
> >> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in
> >> spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing
> >> hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20
> >> cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.
>
<snipped>
>
>
> > Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
> > cables.
>
> George has a grip, its just not on anything that is
> discussed in polite company.
>
>
Pud pullers are Atkinson's favorite demographic; "George" is a natural.
;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com wrote:
> Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
> posted today at <A
> HREF="http/www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable</A>.
> Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
> for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
> might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict
> the opposite.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile


I'm still trying to get past the claim that the speed of light is 100
times greater
than typically stated.
Where's an editor when you need one .

ScottW

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

ScottW wrote:
> Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com wrote:
> > Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
> > posted today at <A
> > HREF="http/www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable</A>.
> > Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
> > for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
> > might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict
> > the opposite.
> >
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
>
>
> I'm still trying to get past the claim that the speed of light is 100
> times greater
> than typically stated.
> Where's an editor when you need one .
>
>
Selling advertising contracts to the snake oil merchants by promising
them a place on the RCL..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Hello Arny,

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
news:Z7mdnZ2dnZ1QM2ugnZ2dnadnj96dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com:
....
> "In practice it is questionable whether delays of the
> magnitudes shown would ever be audible. If so, the general
> advice would seem to be to choose reasonable large diameter
> wires with a close spacing in order to minimise the effects
> of resistance and inductance."

I agree. What that otherwise interesting article still misses is the
answer to the question: will the differences introduced by a
"suboptimal" cable be audible with respect to an optimal one? So far the
science answer to this question has been basicly a simple no.

Bye,

P.S. May I suggest that you spend less time explaining again and again
things like this and spend instead sometime organizing a bit better your
otherwise excellent pcabx web site? That site is a wonderful source of
many useful informations, but sometimes they are a bit difficult to find.
For example I searched for a long time for some data about the safety
limits for frequency response deviations audibility, and found only
recently that your web site has a nice graph reporting all that is
needed. BTW many thanks for writing and maintaining that site, even in
its current "not so friendly" form.

P.P.S. Another little question: do you know of a similar graph with the
limit of audibility of pre-echo (ore pre-ringing, or whathever it is
called)? Something like limit of audibility with respect to pre-delay vs
level and/or frequency? I searched for this kind of information for a
long time too, may be it is available in some "hidden" page of your site.

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http/www.infotecna.it

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Denis Sbragion" <d.sbragion@infotecna.it> wrote in message
news:Xns96C19C7A4148Cdsbragioninfotecnait@193.43.96.1

> P.P.S. Another little question: do you know of a similar
> graph with the limit of audibility of pre-echo (ore
> pre-ringing, or whathever it is called)? Something like
> limit of audibility with respect to pre-delay vs level
> and/or frequency?

I believe that the phrase you are looking for is "temporal
masking".

Here's a fairly classic item about it:

http/www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~bosse/proj/node21.html

More specifics:

http/www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/T/Te/Temporal_masking.htm

http/www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=23467

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 29 Aug 2005 04:46:39 -0700, Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com wrote:

> Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
> posted today at <A
> HREF="http/www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable</A>.
> Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
> for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
> might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict
> the opposite.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Well, I have always stated that differences in cables exist at all
frequencies, and they are easily measurable. That article bears out my
thoughts, although it contains paragraphs thjat will be seen as heresy by
many here - and especially those over on r.a.p, namely relfections at
impedance discontinuities, which many have assured me are strictly an RF
phenomenon (nonsense, of course).

But if you actually cary the theoretical maths through to real, practical
cases, it is easy to see that provided you use a cable that is at least
competent in any situation, there can be no audible benefit from going to
high-end "boutique" cables, which when you look at them very clearly don't
have their design grounded anywhere near Maxwell's equations. That is what
the discussion is about, not whether a hundred yards of telephone wire is
different from 10 feet of twelve gauge for connecting speakers.

So, we are no further forwards here. Audibility of differences between
cables can only be ascertained by ear - nothing else will do.

DBT anybody?

d

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Don Pearce said:

>DBT anybody?

No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more
on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying
$20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Hello Arny,

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:uuGdnTWLk87SjI7eRVn-
pQ@comcast.com:
> I believe that the phrase you are looking for is "temporal
> masking".

yep, that's it! I'm more interested into pre-masking, but that's the name.

> Here's a fairly classic item about it:

Many thanks, that's already really useful. I wonder if there's also some
further information about the dependence of temporal masking with
frequency. I found some data about post-masking, and a general hint telling
that pre-masking is about 1/10 of post-masking in an unrelated paper, but
no detailed data about pre-masking vs frequency.
Just as a side note it's quite common to find inconsistent data
between different papers. For example the Stanford paper report 20/200 ms
for pre/post masking, and the Absolute Astronomy web site instead report
10/50, but probably it's just a matter of different "reference" levels.
Probably the most reliable reference is the ITU-R BS.1387 cited in the
Hydrogenaudio thread, which is completely new to me and which I'm going to
download ASAP.

Many thanks!

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http/www.infotecna.it

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 29 Aug 2005 07:44:08 -0700, George Middius wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
>>DBT anybody?
>
> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more
> on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying
> $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.

OK, who's talking about:

a) investing ANY money in a comparator
b) taking hundreds of hours, or
c) buying cables

Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables.

d

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:qn3iush2g4pa.1kga5a9z1knu5$.dlg@40tude.net
> On 29 Aug 2005 07:44:08 -0700, George Middius wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce said:
>>
>>> DBT anybody?

>> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in
>> spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing
>> hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20
>> cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.

Thus George reveals several tenets of the anti-scientific,
anti-intellectual religion he's been preaching on RAO for
years:

George Middius religious belief (1): To benefit from DBTs
you have to do the tests yourself.
George Middius religious belief (2): To do a DBT you have to
buy a switchbox.
George Middius religious belief (3): To do a DBT you have to
invest 100's of hours.
George Middius religious belief (4): The lowest cost usable
cables cost at least $20.
George Middius religious belief (5): The highest cost cables
cost no more than $60.

George has about 4 converts - Art Sackman,

We can quickly conclude that despite George's spirited
defense of Stereophile and John Atkinson, he never reads it.

> OK, who's talking about:

> a) investing ANY money in a comparator

George Middius

> b) taking hundreds of hours, or

George Middius

> c) buying cables

George Middius

> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
> cables.

George has a grip, its just not on anything that is
discussed in polite company.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Don Pearce said:

> > No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more
> > on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying
> > $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.
>
> OK, who's talking about:
>
> a) investing ANY money in a comparator
> b) taking hundreds of hours, or
> c) buying cables
>
> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables.

Oh, you wanna be a audio enjuhnear? Why dint ya say so. Want some help
applying for a job? I know several headhunters. Only thing is, junior
cable wonk jobs don't pay much. Just so you know what you're getting into.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

The Krooborg is trying to muck up humanity again.

>>> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in
>>> spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing
>>> hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20
>>> cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.

>George Middius religious belief (1): To benefit from DBTs
>you have to do the tests yourself.
>George Middius religious belief (2): To do a DBT you have to
>buy a switchbox.
>George Middius religious belief (3): To do a DBT you have to
>invest 100's[sic] of hours.
>George Middius religious belief (4): The lowest cost usable
>cables cost at least $20.
>George Middius religious belief (5): The highest cost cables
>cost no more than $60.

Arnii, are you attempting to argue audio with me? The last time you tried this,
they had to cart you off to a rest home for a few weeks. You might do better
with your mental problems if you didn't let your buttons get pushed so easily.


>George has a grip, its just not on anything that is
>discussed in polite company.

Phallic obsession noted. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in
message news:devllg02bbd@drn.newsguy.com
>
>>>> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom
>>>> in spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing
>>>> hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20
>>>> cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.
>
>> George Middius religious belief (1): To benefit from DBTs
>> you have to do the tests yourself.
>> George Middius religious belief (2): To do a DBT you
>> have to buy a switchbox.
>> George Middius religious belief (3): To do a DBT you
>> have to invest 100's[sic] of hours.
>> George Middius religious belief (4): The lowest cost
>> usable cables cost at least $20.
>> George Middius religious belief (5): The highest cost
>> cables cost no more than $60.
>
> Arnii, are you attempting to argue audio with me? The
> last time you tried this, they had to cart you off to a
> rest home for a few weeks.

Externalizing again, Middius?

> You might do better with your
> mental problems if you didn't let your buttons get pushed
> so easily.

Middus, what about all the buttons of yours that got pushed,
causing you to rise out of bed and make that
self-destructive OP?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Oh dear. The Krooborg is rampaging and my raincoat is at the cleaner.

>> Arnii, are you attempting to argue audio with me? The
>> last time you tried this, they had to cart you off to a
>> rest home for a few weeks.

>Externalizing again, Middius?

I notice you're still ducking the questionnaire about your public declarations
of dissolution. When they come for you, you can't say I didn't warn you.

>> You might do better with your
>> mental problems if you didn't let your buttons get pushed
>> so easily.

>Middus, what about all the buttons of yours that got pushed,
>causing you to rise out of bed and make that
>self-destructive OP?

Hey, you scored another Kroopologist today. He actually parroted that "facts"
nonsense you spout all the time. Let's try out some actual facts. It's a fact
that you, Arnii Krooborg, are frequently compared to turds and overflowing
toilets. Coincidence? Hardly(tm). You are, after all, 98% pure feces. That's
probably a record, even for a 'borg. As Dr. Kroomacher once said with some
pride, "Zey haff not yet made a rrroll of toilet pepper zat I kannot overcome!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
> <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:1125315999.689227.164780@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
> > posted today at www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable.
> > Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
> > for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
> > might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict
> > the opposite.
> >
> But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison
> of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal
> cables. In short wire is wire.

Actually, at the time Dan Dugan of the AES was doing cable tests
at the 1991 AES Convention, he subjected John Hunter of Sumiko
to a series of bias-controlled tests comparing the cables
distributed by Sumiko to others. John identified the cables to
a statistically significant degree. When Dan wrote up his 1991
cable tests for the JAES, he omitted Hunter's results.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

ScottW wrote:
> I'm still trying to get past the claim that the speed of light is 100
> times greater than typically stated. Where's an editor when you need one .

If that's true, I'll correct it. Errors can creep in when you are
transcoding from an ASCII text file to HMTL.

Thanks for the catch, ScottW. And thanks to everyone for increasing
our website traffic statistics.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

<Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1125315999.689227.164780@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
> posted today at <A
> HREF="http/www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable</A>.
> Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
> for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
> might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict
> the opposite.
>
But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables
where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire
is wire.