Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

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

John Atkinson wrote:
> 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.

No, thanks. If someone had documented a positive test I would only be
mildly interested in the system tbat allowed such an outcome.

> 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.

There are always exceptions. One should never consider a cable
outside of its application in a system.
The question really comes down to these choices.

Is the system so "good" that one can hear cable differences?
or
Is the system so "flawed" than one can hear cable differences?

ScottW

 

[Guest]

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

NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)

"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."

But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
else in audio. He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice only
to reemerge after a suitable interval.
Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the ABX
obstacle race.
So much for "anyone,ever"

 

[Guest]

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

nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
> "John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:1125410425.277767.18370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > 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.
> >
> No, what you were doing was trying to cast doubt on a well known fact.

How can it be a "well-known fact," Mr. McKelvy, if there are
exceptions?
You made a general but incorrect statement. If you want to change your
claim to "Nobody has ever heard a difference in cables that can't
be distinguished in listening tests," I wouldn't disagree with you.
Except such a self-referential statement is hardly helpful, is it?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Guest]

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

Robert Gault says:


"And not just audio. Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste
comparisons of soda uses DBT"

The only thing medical drug research DBT tests have in common with
audio component comparison is the name.
The medical tests' subjects subjective responses are always compared
with and validated by FACTS: outcome of the disease, laboratory and
Xray results.
Otherwise the positive responses (" I feel better") to a placebo, or
quack mumbo jumbo would have equal validity with objective outcomes.
Compare!
Ludovic Mirabel

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:59:45 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

> 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.

So very true - here I am even discussing this with you.

Busy, George?

d

 

[Guest]

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

Don Pearce said:

>> 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.
>
>So very true - here I am even discussing this with you.

Well, we've cleared that up. You have this desire to brainwash people into
buying the cheapest stuff that will get the job done, and you act out on Usenet.

Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.

 

[Guest]

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

On 30 Aug 2005 07:45:17 -0700, George Middius wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>So very true - here I am even discussing this with you.
>
> Well, we've cleared that up. You have this desire to brainwash people into
> buying the cheapest stuff that will get the job done, and you act out on Usenet.
>
> Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.

I think presenting the option is hardly brainwashing - which I think we can
happily direct to the other side of the argument.

d

 

[Guest]

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

Don Pearce said:

>> Well, we've cleared that up. You have this desire to brainwash
>> people into buying the cheapest stuff that will get the job done,
>> and you act out on Usenet.

>> Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.

>I think presenting the option is hardly brainwashing -

How, exactly, do you "present the option"? If "the option" is engaging in
"tests", it seems quite impractical to me. Krazy Krooger just fatuously
Kroo-klaimed that one can do meaningful DBTs without a comparator and without
spending a great deal of time. Those are patently false assertions. Perhaps you
can shed some light on this subject.

> which I think we can happily direct to the other side of the argument.

You mean my "argument", i.e. that spending many hours and many dollars to decide
which cables to buy is foolish? If anybody doesn't view the issue that way, it's
a good bet they have issues about audio equipment.

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:W5adnbgIz79kOY7eRVn-iA@giganews.com...
>
> "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.
>
When can we expect to see evidence of this competence?

 

[Guest]

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

"George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:devrrk02vle@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
> Oh dear. The Krooborg is rampaging and my raincoat is at the cleaner.
>
Probably needed to get the stains out after your trip to the elementary
school, or was it the NAMBLA meeting?


>>> 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.
>
There is no "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.

Like people repeating 2+2=4. Facts are facts and you don't seem to have
grasped that.

Let's try out some actual facts. It's a fact
> that you, Arnii Krooborg, are frequently compared to turds and overflowing
> toilets.

Why do substitute a made up name for your own? Oh that's right, your name
is made up as well.

 

[Guest]

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

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125358104_155@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:AfOdnZBL36ELs47eRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>
>> George has a grip, its just not on anything that is discussed in polite
>> company.
>>
>
> How nice of you to attend our little tea party.
>
>
EEeeeewwww.

 

[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. You seem to have
> a problem with that.
>
>
No problem with discussing things related to the hobby, it's the outright
fraud that they promote, that's the problem.

 

[Guest]

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

On 30 Aug 2005 08:24:31 -0700, George Middius wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
>>> Well, we've cleared that up. You have this desire to brainwash
>>> people into buying the cheapest stuff that will get the job done,
>>> and you act out on Usenet.
>
>>> Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.
>
>>I think presenting the option is hardly brainwashing -
>
> How, exactly, do you "present the option"? If "the option" is engaging in
> "tests", it seems quite impractical to me. Krazy Krooger just fatuously
> Kroo-klaimed that one can do meaningful DBTs without a comparator and without
> spending a great deal of time. Those are patently false assertions. Perhaps you
> can shed some light on this subject.
>

You just get somebody to plug cables in. You listen. You say "that one has
warmth and speed that the last one didn't have". Or you say, "this one
sounds grainy, so it clearly isn't made with oxygen-free copper".

You do that a couple of dozen times, then you compare your list with the
list the guy plugging in the cables has.

You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
journal you work for), and apologise for all the bullshit you printed in
the past.

Then you go out for beers and a laugh.

>> which I think we can happily direct to the other side of the argument.
>
> You mean my "argument", i.e. that spending many hours and many dollars to decide
> which cables to buy is foolish? If anybody doesn't view the issue that way, it's
> a good bet they have issues about audio equipment.


No I mean the argument that says you can get better sound by spending a
thousand bucks a foot on boutique cables.

d

 

[Guest]

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

Don Pearce said:

>>>> Audio 'borgism can creep up on you.

>>>I think presenting the option is hardly brainwashing -

>> How, exactly, do you "present the option"? If "the option" is engaging in
>> "tests", it seems quite impractical to me. Krazy Krooger just fatuously
>> Kroo-klaimed that one can do meaningful DBTs without a comparator and without
>> spending a great deal of time. Those are patently false assertions. Perhaps
>> you can shed some light on this subject.

>You just get somebody to plug cables in. You listen. You say "that one has
>warmth and speed that the last one didn't have". Or you say, "this one
>sounds grainy, so it clearly isn't made with oxygen-free copper".

That isn't "scientific" though, is it? It's clearly not double-blind. And it
sounds time-consuming. How many switches would you have to do to achieve a
statistically meaningful result?

>You do that a couple of dozen times, then you compare your list with the
>list the guy plugging in the cables has.
>You then publish the results in Stereophile (because that is the august
>journal you work for), and apologise for all the bullshit you printed in
>the past.

Love that scientific mindset. ;-)

>>> which I think we can happily direct to the other side of the argument.

>> You mean my "argument", i.e. that spending many hours and many dollars to
>>decide which cables to buy is foolish? If anybody doesn't view the issue that
>> way, it's a good bet they have issues about audio equipment.

>No I mean the argument that says you can get better sound by spending a
>thousand bucks a foot on boutique cables.

Why do you care who spends their own money on that stuff?

 

[Guest]

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

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125358218_161@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:faHQe.4222$FW1.4055@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You hit the nail on the head!!!!
> DBT is a 'single bias' controlled comparison.
> That's what's wrong with it, it only controls one side of the biases.
>
>
The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't help sales of high end snake
oil.
It is the standard for everyone doing research into subtle audible
difference.
The only people that have a problem with it are those that want things to be
other than real.

 

[Guest]

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

"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1125359219.846285.74940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.
>
Or when you can't keep the lies straight.

> Thanks for the catch, ScottW. And thanks to everyone for increasing
> our website traffic statistics.
>
Still no possibility of an intefrity boost, though.

 

[Guest]

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

"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1125410425.277767.18370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
No, what you were doing was trying to cast doubt on a well known fact.
Nobody has ever heard a difference in cables that were of normal design.

 

[Guest]

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

On 29 Aug 2005 16:43:20 -0700, "John Atkinson"
<Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> 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.

And of course we all know about this because Hunter complained
vociferously? Try again, John, or just admit that you've been nailed
in yet another attempt to blind with science followed by baffling with
bullshit. It didn't work when you were with HFN twenty years ago, and
it sure isn't going to work now. Interesting that in all those twenty
years, no one has been able to supply *observations* to back up
Hawksford's wacky claims.

Not one single 'objectivist' has ever denied that there are
significant *measured* differences among wires - it's just that none
of those are *audible*.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1125358218_161@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
>>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>news:faHQe.4222$FW1.4055@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>You hit the nail on the head!!!!
>>DBT is a 'single bias' controlled comparison.
>>That's what's wrong with it, it only controls one side of the biases.
>>
>>
>
> The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't help sales of high end snake
> oil.
> It is the standard for everyone doing research into subtle audible
> difference.

And not just audio. Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste
comparisons of soda uses DBT.

> The only people that have a problem with it are those that want things to be
> other than real.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Robert Gault said:

>Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste
>comparisons of soda uses DBT.

Do you consider buying audio equipment for use in your home to be a "scientific
pursuit"? If so, go for it -- take some "tests". Then you'll have "proved" that
everything sounds the same. And the Krooborg guarantees you can do it without
spending hundreds on a switchbox and devoting hundreds of hours to reach a
statistically meaningful number of trials. What fun! This is surely why audio
such a popular hobby.