Mallette Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Rane's cool. As no one has done so, probably not a bad thing to let PWK himself weigh in on the topic. Dave Dope_780300-1_v17n1.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Case closed. Edited February 4, 2014 by Sancho Panza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I use 18AWG for 10ft runs. Works great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) . Edited February 4, 2014 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The charts in the document show and refer to only one condition, frequency response. No other attributes are considered. Then what do you think is causing the differences you said you have heard between cables? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I know the answer to Don's question. It's in Mark's imagination! A little blurb from one who Mark has mentioned as a pioneer of the 'subjectivist' school of thought, as appeared in the Nov. 2007 edition of Stereophile: Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Or "ear shattering levels" -- the really important stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerwoodKhorns Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Note: The above is not a criticism of PWK, who did exactly what any engineer, inventor, CEO in the objectivist camp would have done. Measure, report, close the case. And then put Monster Cable on the outside of K Horns in the 1980s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 ahhhh.....to be able to add a little "this " or "that" to your sound and to pan from "here" to "there" and back again. Those were the days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 PWK's paper here is the perfect objectivist response. PWK made it clear that measurements were only useful in trying to determine why what a person heard didn't sound right. If you want me to hunt up the quote, fine. PWK was totally a subjectivist. He made it clear that if it measured good and sounded bad, it was crap. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minermark Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 A little entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UQDTZcpsDE&feature=player_embedded Oh my friggin GOD, that was the greatest thing iv seen this year! (of course the year is still young) but still Hitler speaks for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/894awsi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Then how did you know Joni Mitchell was playing a guitar when you listened to her album, or that it was really Joni that you were listening to? Or that the cable you swapped actually sounded different from the first one? In either case you would have to have done an A to B comparison. Edited February 5, 2014 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatever55 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Just some more information....... http://www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 There's no subjectivism in the paper you presented. None at all. In the text he says that the "essential quality of a speaker wire is ohmic resistance" and then goes on to measure it and describe his results objectively. Sorry, that's what's in the paper. I didn't suggest there was. PWK was a scientist, and a fine one. However, he was also a realist. His tests were done to see if they were missing anything because neither they, nor anyone they'd demo'd for from Moscow to Kokomo was hearing any problems that might be traced to the sudden furor created by the wire purveyors about the impact of fine copper rubbed on the breasts of blonde virgins vs. lamp cord. The objective tests simply conformed to what they were hearing...nothing. As to any changes in practice in the 80s, you are correct about "hedging your bets." PWK would have eventually said "Hell, if a few bucks worth of fancy cable sells more K'horns, knock yourselves out." But I remain assured he never changed his mind. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) He had too much integrity for that kind of thinking. Heck, the wire he had been using was better than that crap and be knew it. Isn't that about the time he sold the company to Fred, and he wasn't really all that involved (if at all) in the day to day operations of the company? What is really being argued at this point? The Bateman articles I attached deal with these issues, and many of the comments contradict the findings, which were reached using the scientific method. Since when is sticking the head in the sand considered objective and scientific? It sometimes seems as if the objective approach really just ends up being a list of tools and tests that validate the subjective experience: things sound different, there are normally measurable reasons for this, some prefer one thing over another, some of these differences are smaller in magnitude than others, and some notice them while others don't - and of those that notice, these assign various levels of importance to these nuances in the sound. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it has been scientifically proven that wire changes the sound, and that this is supported by both the mathematics and the measurements. Edited February 5, 2014 by DeanG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Let's not lose sight of the fact that it has been scientifically proven that wire changes the sound, and that this is supported by both the mathematics and the measurements. But if a practiced and discriminating listener doesn't hear it, it's irrelevant. And by that, I mean music listener, not one simply detecting differences. I think most of us have learned that, in spite of the denotative sense of the word, there are "shades" of accuracy. A myriad of things can create these shades, but cannot fix inaccuracy in the source material. Hence my love of 80 year old or more recordings that have lots of various kinds of noise and other limitations...but are masterfully recorded. I, and apparently PWK, simply don't think that wire or similar variables have impact on accuracy. Accuracy comes through in spite of any limitations of the playback chain. I learned that in my first audio engineering job. I was asked to clean up the sound of audio cassettes, cheap ones, duplicated at 16:1 in the shells, filtered at 18db/decade below 100hz and no noise reduction. I was able to do it. Top of the line microphones for narration, Crown recorders, a Urei LA3A tube level devil, a Pultec passive high pass filter, and maximum attention to detail. Management was VERY skeptical of spending the money on increasing source quality...but sold on the result. Even on the Wollensak classroom cassette decks the difference was clear and obvious. I've never doubted since that it is all about the source material. I've no doubt that wire, and many other things, can have an audible impact on some people who've trained themselves to hear it. However, I remain equally convinced that it cannot improve anything, only make it different. And, I agree, we aren't likely to get any further with this, nor is there any reason to. I've no intention of going to a fellow audiophiles house and making light of their spending 50 dollars a foot for magic wires or a couple of grand on some matched tubes found in a Colorado cave. I'll simply enjoy and share their bliss. OTOH, I'll be perfectly happy to go home and listen to my system with 12 gauge zip from Home Depot and NOS military EL34 tubes and never be a bit envious. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 "For my part, I'm still using ears as measuring tools. The earsays it is right or wrong; the X‐Y recorder may aid in showingwhy." Paul W. Klipsch, 12 February, 1963 Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 That's not the conclusion of the paper you posted by PWK. He definitively showed that wire choice affects accuracy of playback. So, he speaks with forked tongue? Where in that paper did he say anything like "...we definitely found one wire more accurate than another..." or anything similar? All I saw was .04db. So I'll turn it up a bit and save some money. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 What is really being argued at this point? The Bateman articles I attached deal with these issues, and many of the comments contradict the findings, which were reached using the scientific method. Since when is sticking the head in the sand considered objective and scientific? It sometimes seems as if the objective approach really just ends up being a list of tools and tests that validate the subjective experience: things sound different, there are normally measurable reasons for this, some prefer one thing over another, some of these differences are smaller in magnitude than others, and some notice them while others don't - and of those that notice, these assign various levels of importance to these nuances in the sound. What the articles tell me is that the amplifier and the load at the ends of the wire have more effect on the measurements than the wire does. Put a resistive load on the wire and you see a much different test result. Also, the reactance caused by a passive crossover in combination with the different drivers' reactances has the greatest effect of all. Lose the passive and go active and the damage is minimized. Particularly telling regarding the Bateman articles is the revelation that he secured a patent as a result of his research, and the company making cables per the patent has an advertisement below one of the articles. BTW, those cables are a rather high capacitance design and could cause oscillation with some amplifiers if the cable is long enough. I wonder why Bateman didn't follow his own advice and use coaxial cable, which he demonstrated was the best option for speaker cable. Speaking of that, no pun intended, the best speaker cables a person could get if they wanted "the best" would be made of Belden 8514 coax with the appropriate connectors on the ends. That would cost $2/foot or less for the coax plus whatever the connectors cost. A person would have a tough time spending more than $150 for two 20 foot runs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.