"Audio Empire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:27:58 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):
>
>> "Bill Noble" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>
>>> I can tell you for sure that a 6 inch length of it (the
>>> bad cable) made a decent CD player sound horrible, and
>>> changing it to pretty much anything else made it better.
>>
>> What is known about the technical properties of this
>> wire?

<no answer from the OP>

>>> Everyone who has listened to this cable (and I've made
>>> reasonably blind tests, not perfect by any means) hears
>>> it as defficient.
>>
>> Thing about blind is that it is like being pregnant in
>> the sense that no test is reasonably blind and valid.
>> It's either completely blind or not valid.

> The only thing that I can figure is that this cable has a
> bad connection. Either a cold solder joint or one (or
> both) of the RCAs (I'm assuming that this notorious cable
> has RCAs rather than XLRs or BNCs or something even more
> exotic) are corroded or extremely dirty.

Seems like a cable would have to be either broken or demon-posessed < ;-) >
to behave as has been said.

If someone is trying to formulate high end cable wisdom from a broken cable,
let us let them play alone!

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:07:36 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On Feb 22, 8:35=A0pm, Audio Empire <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> OK. mea culpa. It wasn't clear to me. For instance: "Well I have no objec=
> tion
>> to anyone making such a claim". What claim?
>
> I don't have any objection to anyone claiming that they can hear a
> difference in sound between different cables, which if I recall
> rightly you said you did have a problem with.

I have a problem with it only from an academic perspective. IOW, I don't care
if someone claims that they see ghosts or even if they claim to have
discussions with God, but I do have a problem with snake-oil salesmen who
sell these deluded individuals special glasses that claim to allow them to
see the ghosts "better" or walkie-talkies with which to better converse with
The Almighty.

> I only begin to have a problem with them when, after making such a
> claim in an open forum they then object to people explaining why they
> almost certainly don't hear those differences.

Of course. If someone wants to purchase expensive cables, and if these cables
make them happier with their systems, more power to them. But from a logical
standpoint, it is virtually impossible for non-defective cables to have any
sonic effect on the audio signal passing through them unless they contain
other components than just wire and connectors. Then of course, they are no
longer cables but are filters.

> I also don't object if people claim they know a leprechaun personally,
> although that would of course be off topic here. But if they object
> to my expressing my belief, in response, that I don't believe
> leprechauns exist, then I have a problem with them because they aren't
> being fair.

The commonality here being that while we cannot PROVE that leprechauns don't
exist (nor ghosts, nor conversations with God) because you cannot prove a
negative, we can prove that the likelihood of their existence is extremely
small. In a similar manner, although we cannot prove that these people do not
hear differences in cable, we can likewise prove that the probability that
they can hear these differences is vanishingly low, by simply applying the
scientific method (a combination of electrical theory, mathematics, and
scientifically designed tests).

Bill Noble <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: you see, those who wish to believe there are no differences are just as
: religious in damming those who have made reasonable experiments to prove
: otherwise.

But did you read the post which showed that this test was irrelevant to
the issue at hand?

: There is nothing anyone could do, there is no possible test
: involving human subjects that will ever be found suitable to the
: non-believers.

Huh? I don;t believe there is any difference between cables (of the sort
under discussion), but a properly done experiment would change my mind.
And I'm sure I'm not alone in that. It would need to be a very well done
experiment, of course.

-- Andy Barss

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:49:20 -0800, Walt wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> Andrew Barss wrote:
>
>>> There is nothing anyone could do, there is no possible test
>>> involving human subjects that will ever be found suitable to the
>>> non-believers.
>>
>> Huh? I don;t believe there is any difference between cables (of the sort
>> under discussion), but a properly done experiment would change my mind.
>> And I'm sure I'm not alone in that.
>
> Well, it would take more than one experiment at this point, but I think
> you're correct that just about everyone on the "our" side would change
> their mind if a series or properly done experiments were to contradict
> the assertion that cables do not make an audible difference.

Absolutely. If you could use the scientific method to prove to me that, for
instance, there is a such thing as "cable sound", it would certainly have me
believing that more research into conductor theory was needed because that
would mean that we don't know everything that needs to be known about the
effects of wire upon a signal passing through it. Since I'm surely not the
only person who feels this way, and since there is no evidence that
government or university-level research into wire properties is being
conducted, I have to assume that any empirical evidence that would lead
researchers to rethink the known properties of wire, simply does not exist.

> That's the main difference between science and non-science - the claim
> is falsifiable. The claim that "There is no audible difference between
> cable A and cable B" is testable, and *could* be shown to be false. The
> fact that many tests have been performed and none have contradicted the
> null hypothesis allows us to say that there is no experimental evidence
> that cables make an audible difference.

If there were, as I alluded to above, there would be ongoing research into
the properties of electrical conductors and connectors by those people most
likely to find the answers: Government labs (such as Sandia,
Lawrence-Livermore, etc.) and universities (MIT, Stanford, etc.). Any
breakthroughs would have been reported in scientific journals and would be
generally available information. The fact is, one can read paper after paper
about conductor theory from the IEEE, the AES, or other sources where such
breakthroughs are apt to alter the way procedures and business are conducted,
and none are forthcoming. AKAIK, basic conductor theory and practice hasn't
changed significantly for more than half a century.

> Of course, this could change with more research, but for now the onus is
> on those who claim that cables make a difference to back up their
> assertion with some evidence; thus far, there is none.

My point is that those who do serious research would have to be convinced
that there is a POINT to additional research. They would have to be satisfied
that such research is warranted. IOW, if it could be proved that audio cables
sound different from one another at such low frequencies as characterize an
audio signal, then what are the implications for conductors at those much
higher frequencies upon which our national security and data infrastructures
rely? The very fact that no problem with properly designed and purposed
conductors has ever been shown in any scientific way is the biggest clue to
this question. If audio is somehow changed by passage through a short length
of coax, would this phenomenon also affect the integrity of other forms of
communication as well? Doesn't the fact that on an electrical basis,
conductors ALWAYS perform as predicted by theory and the mathematics behind
it? Wouldn't someone in other fields than audio have noticed by now that our
knowledge of the behavior of conductors is somehow incomplete? Doesn't the
fact that no government or industrial entity anywhere in the world (other
than audio cable manufacturers, of course, and they don't count) has noticed
raise a whole slew of red flags about this subject?

"Audio Empire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:49:20 -0800, Walt wrote
> (in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):
>
>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>
>>>> There is nothing anyone could do, there is no possible
>>>> test involving human subjects that will ever be found
>>>> suitable to the non-believers.

>>> Huh? I don;t believe there is any difference between
>>> cables (of the sort under discussion), but a properly
>>> done experiment would change my mind. And I'm sure I'm
>>> not alone in that.

Agreed. One experiment would convince me that it was worthwhile to
personally do another experiment to prove that the first wasn't a fluke or a
fraud. This is only because we've seen so much hype and confusion in the
past.

>> Well, it would take more than one experiment at this
>> point, but I think you're correct that just about
>> everyone on the "our" side would change their mind if a
>> series or properly done experiments were to contradict
>> the assertion that cables do not make an audible
>> difference.

There seems to be zero liklihood of anybody from the "pro cable sound" to
actually do a decent experiement. They still think they can haggle, when in
fact they've been bankrupt all these years.

> Absolutely. If you could use the scientific method to
> prove to me that, for instance, there is a such thing as
> "cable sound", it would certainly have me believing that
> more research into conductor theory was needed because
> that would mean that we don't know everything that needs
> to be known about the effects of wire upon a signal
> passing through it.

Right. We could compare the wild assertions of the "pro cable sound" group
to be like swampland in Florida, except the swamp they are selling is in a
continent that hasn't been discovered yet.

> Since I'm surely not the only person
> who feels this way, and since there is no evidence that
> government or university-level research into wire
> properties is being conducted, I have to assume that any
> empirical evidence that would lead researchers to rethink
> the known properties of wire, simply does not exist.

In fact cables operating at audio frequencies are very well understood.

Furthermore, if audio's high end were *so* interested in component
interfacing, why haven't they gone for wall-to-wall balanced I/O with say,
XLR connectors? Balanced I/O at least has reliably observable technical
advantage and a connector system that is the gold standard for professional
audio, not to mention a brilliant track record of success. I daresay that
*every* recording of significance from the last 30 years has passed through
at least one run of balanced cable with XLR connectors on it.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Audio Empire <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If there were, as I alluded to above, there would be ongoing research into
> the properties of electrical conductors and connectors by those people most
> likely to find the answers: Government labs (such as Sandia,
> Lawrence-Livermore, etc.) and universities (MIT, Stanford, etc.).

Those people have to get funding. Since it is generally assumed there
is nothing knew to be learned, additional funding is not likely to be
forthcoming. If it were available there is the additional worry that
following that path might be a career ender.

This sort of thing happens in many areas of scientific research. It is
unfortunate, but it sometimes takes a very long time for a new idea to
catch on.

> My point is that those who do serious research would have to be convinced
> that there is a POINT to additional research. They would have to be satisfied
> that such research is warranted.

In this case, the science is settled and there is general consensus that
nothing new is to be learned.

> Doesn't the
> fact that no government or industrial entity anywhere in the world (other
> than audio cable manufacturers, of course, and they don't count) has noticed
> raise a whole slew of red flags about this subject?

No. Often it is the mavericks, such as those who do not count, who
notice something not quite right and try to figure out why that is.

That being said, I personally agree that the science actually is
settled, but that doesn't mean the lack of research proves it.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:47:34 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Audio Empire <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> If there were, as I alluded to above, there would be ongoing research into
>> the properties of electrical conductors and connectors by those people most
>> likely to find the answers: Government labs (such as Sandia,
>> Lawrence-Livermore, etc.) and universities (MIT, Stanford, etc.).
>
> Those people have to get funding. Since it is generally assumed there
> is nothing knew to be learned, additional funding is not likely to be
> forthcoming. If it were available there is the additional worry that
> following that path might be a career ender.
>
> This sort of thing happens in many areas of scientific research. It is
> unfortunate, but it sometimes takes a very long time for a new idea to
> catch on.
>
>> My point is that those who do serious research would have to be convinced
>> that there is a POINT to additional research. They would have to be
>> satisfied
>> that such research is warranted.
>
> In this case, the science is settled and there is general consensus that
> nothing new is to be learned.
>
>> Doesn't the
>> fact that no government or industrial entity anywhere in the world (other
>> than audio cable manufacturers, of course, and they don't count) has
>> noticed
>> raise a whole slew of red flags about this subject?
>
> No. Often it is the mavericks, such as those who do not count, who
> notice something not quite right and try to figure out why that is.
>
> That being said, I personally agree that the science actually is
> settled, but that doesn't mean the lack of research proves it.
>

One can't prove a negative, but OTOH, it is a good indicator that there is no
compelling reason to extend cable research any further than it has already
gone. For instance, no one seems to have noticed that one brand of cable TV
coax gives a better picture than another over the same long run. Nobody in
telecommunications has noted any superiority of one CAT 5 cable brand over
another, or one type of powerline cable over another, so it seems that the
anomalies between cable brands noticed by audiophiles has no corollary in
other fields which use wire.

BTW, that brings me to another point. Expensive line cords. Have you seen
some of these IEC lines cords being sold for hundreds of dollars? They're as
big as a baby's arm! I don't get this one at all. These manufacturers are
trying to say that after traveling, perhaps, hundreds of miles and passing
through dozens of transformers along the way, not to mention the several
hundred feel of Romex in you home, that your mains supply is going to be
somehow miraculously improved by traversing the final 2 meters of it's long
journey (to the component using it) through a $900 power cord? Gimme a break!
Are people THAT gullible?

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:47:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> "Audio Empire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:49:20 -0800, Walt wrote
>> (in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):
>>
>>> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There is nothing anyone could do, there is no possible
>>>>> test involving human subjects that will ever be found
>>>>> suitable to the non-believers.
>
>>>> Huh? I don;t believe there is any difference between
>>>> cables (of the sort under discussion), but a properly
>>>> done experiment would change my mind. And I'm sure I'm
>>>> not alone in that.
>
> Agreed. One experiment would convince me that it was worthwhile to
> personally do another experiment to prove that the first wasn't a fluke or a
> fraud. This is only because we've seen so much hype and confusion in the
> past.
>
>>> Well, it would take more than one experiment at this
>>> point, but I think you're correct that just about
>>> everyone on the "our" side would change their mind if a
>>> series or properly done experiments were to contradict
>>> the assertion that cables do not make an audible
>>> difference.
>
> There seems to be zero liklihood of anybody from the "pro cable sound" to
> actually do a decent experiement. They still think they can haggle, when in
> fact they've been bankrupt all these years.
>
>> Absolutely. If you could use the scientific method to
>> prove to me that, for instance, there is a such thing as
>> "cable sound", it would certainly have me believing that
>> more research into conductor theory was needed because
>> that would mean that we don't know everything that needs
>> to be known about the effects of wire upon a signal
>> passing through it.
>
> Right. We could compare the wild assertions of the "pro cable sound" group
> to be like swampland in Florida, except the swamp they are selling is in a
> continent that hasn't been discovered yet.
>
>> Since I'm surely not the only person
>> who feels this way, and since there is no evidence that
>> government or university-level research into wire
>> properties is being conducted, I have to assume that any
>> empirical evidence that would lead researchers to rethink
>> the known properties of wire, simply does not exist.
>
> In fact cables operating at audio frequencies are very well understood.

That's my point. Audio is EASY! If a couple of feet of coax can change the
integrity of a signal of so low a passband frequency, what are the
implications for the integrity of far more important signals at much higher
frequencies?
>
> Furthermore, if audio's high end were *so* interested in component
> interfacing, why haven't they gone for wall-to-wall balanced I/O with say,
> XLR connectors? Balanced I/O at least has reliably observable technical
> advantage and a connector system that is the gold standard for professional
> audio, not to mention a brilliant track record of success. I daresay that
> *every* recording of significance from the last 30 years has passed through
> at least one run of balanced cable with XLR connectors on it.

True, but I've heard "professionals" say that there are differences in the
sound of balanced cables too. One well-known recording engineer insists on
custom balanced cables from Kimber for his microphone runs because this brand
"sounds better" to him. I don't say anything, but privately, my response is
"balderdash and poppycock!"

"Audio Empire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)

> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:47:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

>> In fact cables operating at audio frequencies are very
>> well understood.

> That's my point. Audio is EASY! If a couple of feet of
> coax can change the integrity of a signal of so low a
> passband frequency, what are the implications for the
> integrity of far more important signals at much higher
> frequencies?

Good point. If audio was problematical for cables, then AM radio would be
impossible, and everything running higher than that would be science
fiction. It would be like 1925.

>> Furthermore, if audio's high end were *so* interested in
>> component interfacing, why haven't they gone for
>> wall-to-wall balanced I/O with say, XLR connectors?
>> Balanced I/O at least has reliably observable technical
>> advantage and a connector system that is the gold
>> standard for professional audio, not to mention a
>> brilliant track record of success. I daresay that
>> *every* recording of significance from the last 30
>> years has passed through at least one run of balanced
>> cable with XLR connectors on it.

> True, but I've heard "professionals" say that there are
> differences in the sound of balanced cables too.

There are always a few people who don't get it.

> One
> well-known recording engineer insists on custom balanced
> cables from Kimber for his microphone runs because this
> brand "sounds better" to him.

Is Kimber giving him the cables?

>I don't say anything, but privately, my response is "balderdash and
>poppycock!"

I smell a shill.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:16:41 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> "Audio Empire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:47:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):
>
>>> In fact cables operating at audio frequencies are very
>>> well understood.
>
>> That's my point. Audio is EASY! If a couple of feet of
>> coax can change the integrity of a signal of so low a
>> passband frequency, what are the implications for the
>> integrity of far more important signals at much higher
>> frequencies?
>
> Good point. If audio was problematical for cables, then AM radio would be
> impossible, and everything running higher than that would be science
> fiction. It would be like 1925.
>
>>> Furthermore, if audio's high end were *so* interested in
>>> component interfacing, why haven't they gone for
>>> wall-to-wall balanced I/O with say, XLR connectors?
>>> Balanced I/O at least has reliably observable technical
>>> advantage and a connector system that is the gold
>>> standard for professional audio, not to mention a
>>> brilliant track record of success. I daresay that
>>> *every* recording of significance from the last 30
>>> years has passed through at least one run of balanced
>>> cable with XLR connectors on it.
>
>> True, but I've heard "professionals" say that there are
>> differences in the sound of balanced cables too.
>
> There are always a few people who don't get it.
>
>> One
>> well-known recording engineer insists on custom balanced
>> cables from Kimber for his microphone runs because this
>> brand "sounds better" to him.
>
> Is Kimber giving him the cables?

Now THAT I simply have no way of knowing.

>> I don't say anything, but privately, my response is "balderdash and
>> poppycock!"
>
> I smell a shill.

If this guy was quoted as saying that in print (perhaps in Kimber's
literature of on their website- but I don't see any such testimonials), I'd
say that he was absolutely a shill.

But why mention it to me in a private phone conversation? He went out of his
way to say to me that one of the reasons why his recordings sound as good as
they do is because he uses Kimber cable for all of his analog interconnects;
microphones, recording desk to D/A, and all monitoring tasks. I asked if he
really believed that cables made THAT much of a difference, and he said yes.
I then asked if he'd done an ABX test with other balanced cables to ascertain
this "fact" and he answered that he had compared Kimber's product with others
and found it superior sounding. He did not say that he had done a proper DBT.
Debating the guy on cables was not the purpose of my phone interview with
him, so I didn't belabor the point.