Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

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

The Bug Eater argues for Kroothanasia.

> In short Arnii is feces and should be flushed.

Would you like to do the honors, Mickey?

 

[Guest]

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

John Atkinson wrote:
> 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.
>
>
You wouldn't happen to have any evidence to support this allegation,
would you, slimeball? :-D

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:37:55 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

> 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.

Never mind, George. Better luck next time, huh?

d

 

[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.

> >> 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.
>
> Never mind, George.

So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.

> Better luck next time, huh?

Please spare us the details.

 

[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...
>
>
> 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.
>
>
Why would anybody argue audio with you, you don't know anything.

 

[Guest]

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

"George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:devlo702bl3@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
> The Bug Eater argues for Kroothanasia.
>
>> In short Arnii is feces and should be flushed.
>
> Would you like to do the honors, Mickey?
>
Yes George, I'd like to flush you, you are after all RAO's biggest turd.

 

[Guest]

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Z7mdnZ2dnZ1QM2ugnZ2dnadnj96dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
> <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/re
ference/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

No, I don't know what the hell "compentely" is, and I don't want to find
out. Competent is good enough for me.

 

[Guest]

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

"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1125358999.997016.174630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.

What kind of cables? Interconnects or speaker?
What were the sources and loads?
Any MIT like networks in the cables?

There are lots of ways to make cables sound different.
Do any of them represent good audio engineering?

ScottW

 

[Guest]

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

George "Minus" Middius a écrit :

>...Want some help applying for a job? I know several headhunters...

In fact George knows only dickhunters so if you are looking
for blowjobs... ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

George "Minus" Middius a écrit :

>...Want some help applying for a job? I know several headhunters...

In fact George knows only dickhunters so if you are looking
for blowjobs... ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:49:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:


>George has about 4 converts - Art Sackman,

And? I'm still waiting for my name to be taken in vain again.

 

[Guest]

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

ScottW wrote:
> "John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:1125358999.997016.174630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > 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.
>
> What kind of cables? Interconnects or speaker?
> What were the sources and loads?
> Any MIT like networks in the cables?

This was 15 years ago, ScottW. I am afraid I can't recall the details,
but I did discuss these tests with both Hunter and Dugan at the time.
But as Sumiko doesn't and didn't distribute cables with "MIT-like
networks" it is unlikely that the tests I mentioned used those.
It is probable that the tests involved Sumiko's OCOS cables, but
I cannot swear to that.

If you are sincerely interested, I can put you in touch with
the parties involved. All I was doing was pointing out to
Mike McKelvy that once again he made a sweeping, unqualified
statement that was based more on faith and his lack of knowledge
than on facts.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Guest]

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

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125358027_153@spool6-east.superfeed.net
> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:qn3iush2g4pa.1kga5a9z1knu5$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
>> cables.
>
> Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.

It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying,
mindless posts, Art stumbles into cogency.

 

[Guest]

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

"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote
in message
news:1125358999.997016.174630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> 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.

.....leaving the above anecdote unconfirmable.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:38:44 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

> 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.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Never mind, George.
>
> So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
> cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.
>

Well, please enjoy that George. I don't buy cables - I have (like I'm
pretty sure everybody else here has) a box of cables collected over the
years that have accompanied various equipment purchasesas freebies. I use
them because I know they are perfect for my needs. I know that no other
cables at any price can sound any better.

I will leave the mental masturbation to you and anybody else who believes
otherwise.

>> Better luck next time, huh?
>
> Please spare us the details.

Glad to.

d

 

[Guest]

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

Don Pearce said:

> > So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
> > cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.

> Well, please enjoy that George.

An IKYABWAI from you, Don? I'm disappointed.

> I know that no other cables at any price can sound any better.

So you're not shopping for cables, you're not interesting in designing and
selling cables, and you know everything there is to know about cables.

What is there to "discuss" then?

> I will leave the mental masturbation to you and anybody else who believes
> otherwise.

Oh, of course.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 04:50:01 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
>>> So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
>>> cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.
>
>> Well, please enjoy that George.
>
> An IKYABWAI from you, Don? I'm disappointed.
>

You set 'em up - I'll knock 'em down.

>> I know that no other cables at any price can sound any better.
>
> So you're not shopping for cables, you're not interesting in designing and
> selling cables, and you know everything there is to know about cables.
>

Shame on you George, for taking my limited proposition and attempting to
refute it by claiming I have made a general proposition. I may be stupid -
but you aren't catching me with that old chestnut of a debating trick.

> What is there to "discuss" then?
>
Certainly not my cable purchasing habits - but maybe a little helpful
education can guide others along a more sensible path than throwing their
money at fraudsters. I guess I'm just nice that way.

>> I will leave the mental masturbation to you and anybody else who believes
>> otherwise.
>
> Oh, of course.

d

 

[Guest]

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

Don Pearce said:

> but maybe a little helpful
> education can guide others along a more sensible path than throwing their
> money at fraudsters. I guess I'm just nice that way.

So this is your prime directive? And you implement it by prattling on
about "tests"?

I'm reluctant to resort to a cliche, but you have too much time on your
hands.

 

[Guest]

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

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125410609_379@spool6-east.superfeed.net
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:4eadnR32hYohoYneRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125358027_153@spool6-east.superfeed.net
>>> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qn3iush2g4pa.1kga5a9z1knu5$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
>>>> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
>>>> cables.
>>>
>>> Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables.
>>
>> It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of
>> lying, mindless posts, Art stumbles into cogency.
>>
>
> Duh, what else is is a consumer magazine for and about,
> buying things related to the hobby.

How about a magazine that will help you get more enjoyment
out of what you bought, not less?

> u seem to have a problem with that.

I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting
commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner.

 

[Guest]

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

Another Kroonundrum looms. Will this one be more or less horrific than the
earlier ones about "lying" and "hypocrisy"? (That's "hypocracy" in Krooglish,
Arnii.)

>I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting
>commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner.

Arnii, are you presenting yourself as an arbiter of ethics? That's laughable. In
case you've forgotten, you're nuts. As in whacko, bananas, not all there.

But do expound on the Krooger version of "ethical" publishing. Will it be
farther from reality than Don's is? We're waiting eagerly for the rules of
Kroo-ethics.