Cable Myths Continued

[oldenough]

I don't have a dog in this debate but after following these discussions for years can't ever remember someone being able to pick their wire apart from others...

Yes, and when it is shown to be so, they put forward the most ridiculous arguments to explain why. I don't get it, if the differences are so significant (to them) why don't they notice when those "improvements" have "disappeared" ?

[Mallette]

[quote name=tkdamerica' timestamp='1390880965' post='1686775] Thebes being God's scientific messenger and Mark arguing the virtues of Capitalism makes me think I've stepped into the Twilight Zone...

Absodamnlutely...submitted for your approval!

Dave

[Mallette]

Basic functionality in loudspeakers come at the grand price of around $200 a pair.

Seems you should better define your idea of "basic functionality." I could not call a speaker "basically functional" that can't reproduce all 10 octaves. I presume you are making a subjective, personal view that 8 or less is "basic" for you. However, that would be totally inadequate for me...and others.

Dave

[Ski Bum]

Mark, you're getting the apples mixed up with the oranges and bananas. Audio reproduction is a reductive exercise in physical science, not some sort of whimsical pseudoscientific magical mystery tour. That's true even for us oddballs who prefer SETs. Basic functionality of a speaker cable is indeed pretty basic; it either passes the signal without audible degradation or it doesn't. You would suggest that there is something more than basic audio signal transmission over wire going on, but empirical reality disagrees with that supposition. Why do you hate reality, and deny it with such vehemence?

[Don Richard]

The only thing wire can do is to degrade the signal that flows through it. Well designed cables damage the signal less than poor designs. We can measure all of the characteristics of a cable that pertain to it's ability to carry the signal that it is designed to carry. A perfect cable would have zero capacitance, zero inductance, zero resistance, zero dielectric absorption and would be constructed so that outside electrical interference would not impact the signal the cable carries. etc. etc. etc.

This is a good example of objectivism or even physicalism. And, it is a very common hypothesis people use for selecting stereo sets. In short, it posits that there are a few known measurements and quantification that can be made, and all one has to do is select a speaker from column A with the flattest response, and a receiver from column B with the lowest THD, and a CDP from column C with the highest S/N ratio, connect with low capacity, low resistance, low inductance wires and you have an ideal system that can not rationally be improved upon. Very popular. Very sort of "Consumer Reports" type approach. Like buying vacuum cleaners.

But, people who take that approach would only need to buy bookshelf speakers. Many bookshelf speakers are made that are nearly ruler flat, or in any case, far flatter than a K-horn, and cost orders of magnitude less. You marry that with a $300 Japanese receiver with the lowest distortion spec, add a $60 CDP with great specs, some low capacity wire, and you are done. That's the rationalist approach. You make your purchase by selecting the best specifications you afford. I don't see people here following that faith at all. I see something radically off that path, and often leaning to the subjective, not objective criteria.

You should really read more than the first paragraph of a post before you respond to it. I wrote a brief summary on cable design and did not say anything about choosing amplifiers, CD players, or speakers; I only mentioned the possible effects of cables between those components. I find your jumping to conclusions confusing considering your prior arguments against straw men, red herrings and the like. I will agree with what you say about buying audio equipment without listening to it first but that has nothing to do with the design engineer's task in the initial phases of a project, the phase where components are chosen that meet the design criteria and objectives.

So, did I make any mistakes in saying that interconnecting wire should have no or minimal effect on the signal that the wire carries or that minimizing LCR is the best way to reach that goal?

Edited January 29, 2014 by Don Richard

[Max2]

Mark, you're getting the apples mixed up with the oranges and bananas. Audio reproduction is a reductive exercise in physical science, not some sort of whimsical pseudoscientific magical mystery tour. That's true even for us oddballs who prefer SETs. Basic functionality of a speaker cable is indeed pretty basic; it either passes the signal without audible degradation or it doesn't. You would suggest that there is something more than basic audio signal transmission over wire going on, but empirical reality disagrees with that supposition. Why do you hate reality, and deny it with such vehemence?

Here's your premise: A cable exists in one of two conditions. It has audible degradation or it does not.

How would you like to test your premise?

Isn't this the $1000 question for everything our ears cant decipher ?

[Islander]

Mark, you're getting the apples mixed up with the oranges and bananas. Audio reproduction is a reductive exercise in physical science, not some sort of whimsical pseudoscientific magical mystery tour. That's true even for us oddballs who prefer SETs. Basic functionality of a speaker cable is indeed pretty basic; it either passes the signal without audible degradation or it doesn't. You would suggest that there is something more than basic audio signal transmission over wire going on, but empirical reality disagrees with that supposition. Why do you hate reality, and deny it with such vehemence?

Here's your premise: A cable exists in one of two conditions. It has audible degradation or it does not.

How would you like to test your premise?

Isn't this the $1000 question for everything our ears cant decipher ?

Since all cables degrade the signal passing through them, there can be no control type of cable without degradation, thus it's impossible to say whether the degradation is audible or not. One can only say that one cable may sound more or less accurate, or be more or less pleasant-sounding than another.

All you can do is pick your favourite poison.

As for existing in two conditions, those conditions are: "conducting the signal" or "not conducting the signal".

[Thaddeus Smith]

[Sancho Panza]

^^^ he asked first

[Ski Bum]

Mark, you're getting the apples mixed up with the oranges and bananas. Audio reproduction is a reductive exercise in physical science, not some sort of whimsical pseudoscientific magical mystery tour. That's true even for us oddballs who prefer SETs. Basic functionality of a speaker cable is indeed pretty basic; it either passes the signal without audible degradation or it doesn't. You would suggest that there is something more than basic audio signal transmission over wire going on, but empirical reality disagrees with that supposition. Why do you hate reality, and deny it with such vehemence?

Here's your premise: A cable exists in one of two conditions. It has audible degradation or it does not.

How would you like to test your premise?

How would you test your premise that cables are "liquidy" or whatever?

There have been plenty of bias controlled tests that indicate what is audible and what is not, but you have already denied their validity, not on any supportable grounds, but simply because they don't support your pet theories.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Ski Bum

[oldenough]

Hmmm....What to choose...plain or buttered popcorn.... ...???

[Ski Bum]

Buttered, of course!

[Ski Bum]

Typical dodge, Mark. I did answer, but as usual you ignore the words I wrote, and read between the lines for stuff that's not there. ABX testing for example will determine if audible differences do in fact exist. It's you that made the unsupported claims of wire properties (liquidity, etc), not I, so I think it's up to you to provide some supporting evidence. No BS sophistry, but actual perceptual tests supporting your claims would be nice.

[Don Richard]

You didn't answer the question, but preferred to fart around with what you think is cute language need to insert an insult. You either have a rational argument you can express or you don't. I don't care. But if you claim to have interest in science and rationality, than it's necessary to answer questions without all the snarky attitude.

I think the pot just called the kettle black, eh?

Edited January 29, 2014 by Don Richard

[Sancho Panza]

Yes

[Ski Bum]

That's just his style.

Mark, I'm not overly concerned with your hurt feelings, although I admit I don't like arguing with you. I think on most things audio, save this wire topic, that we're probably in general agreement, fwiw. I will persist in holding your feet to the fire on the subject of wire, so if you find that insulting, tough toenails.

[Ski Bum]

And when there are several guys diddling instead of just honestly participating, it reduces my incentive to listen to more snarky BS

When I play with my cat using the laser pointer, I get the cat running in circles expending a lot of energy while I just kick back and enjoy. Mark, in this thread, you are the cat.

[Mallette]

Yep. Think I'll join the popcorn crowd on this one...

Dave

[Ski Bum]

I'm still waiting for you to produce any sort of audibility studies showing support for the qualities you want to attribute to speaker cable. Put up or shut up.

[Ski Bum]

You clearly do not understand the ABX methodology if you levy such misinformed criticisms. What it's good for is revealing if differences actually exist or not, and at that task it's quite effective. It also has been unable to show that current theory and measurements are inadequate, much to your dismay. They are sufficient, demonstrated time and time again, with no appeal to novel theories necessary.

I will readily admit that some small percentage of folks may have super abilities and that none have participated in such tests. Perhaps cables influence listeners in ways that blind listening tests cannot record. The existing body of knowledge may suffer from some sort of systemic experimental flaws or statistical bad luck. Remote possibilities, but a scientific approach must be open to any possibilities. But to base your views of wire on such remote possibilities is irrational, and for you to promote such views in this forum is a disservice to the community.