Of significant interest .....

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/3/37567.html

The above link provides the web address for the document that may be of significant interest....and therefore may lay a few myths to rest.

Though I can already hear the naysayers.....

This could be part of scientific evidence that shows cables may [in this case speaker cables] effect the perceived sound. As a great many well respected people have said. It mirrors my experience with various systems and cables combinations

Sorry if you don't like...... [not really!]

 

cut to the chase.

http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201805860

http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807797

 

Most interesting to see this ground breaking research appearing on that world renowned site "planetanalogue.com"

Wonder why they chose to remove those graphs before presenting to the AES?

 

maybe they had copyrigth issues in print?

 

I take it it also available via the AES then.
I also take it that's your attempt to discredit the work?
Is there any published pieces via the AES or elsewhere that directly questions their findings and can you direct us to it?

 

It's not an attempt at anything Cooky - simply a highlighting of the fact that this "data" was removed from the AES paper aparently - and that it's yet to be reviewed by their peers and consequently should be viewed with a good deal of scepticism. Why would the AES question their "work" if it wasn't presented to them? Might that give us a clue as to the veracity of the claims?



If you want to jump on it and spend shedloads on cables - feel free to do so.

 

Sorry SM it was an observation that you weren't being your usual forensic self.
I'm interested to know how you know the 'data' was exised from the paper 'as presented to the AES'-if that is the case then I think we can agree it is rather stupid and pointless to present
On your last quote;
I can honestly look you in the eyes and say that between us there's only one who's spent shedloads on cables and it's not me
PS The newsletter issue before last from Audiophilecandy has in interview with the guy from Nordost you'll laugh your head off

 

Come on then cable acolytes, dip your bread!
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-...ove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better-305549.php

 

Just think of all the cables you buy with that million bucks Bob.

 

Hi Cooky,

It's probably because I'm in Tokyo with Ian and Markus and not really interested in little distractions

I'll have all the time to pick the arguement to pieces upon my return.

 

now if you wnat real bullshit, read the cd mat thing in the autum issue.

" a heavy mat stabilises an out of balance cd?" not unless it's stuck to the cd and dead centre it doesn't and even then the added weight,what effect on the motor....


and then the nordost guy, 8n copper, how about a big bag full of **** off, you can't purify more than the tiniest amounts of a material to that level, miligrams,never mind enough to make a decent length of cable. i don't notice laminar flow and clean room air filtration gear in their cable winding facility. just a big factory full of air, no special vaccum winding airtight rooms, the tool.

 

:thumbsup:

 

...maybe they all hold their breath at Nordost!

 

Maybe they all absorb none noble gases through their skin leaving nothing but argon to aide their purity claims.

 

So, has anyone decided to take up James Randi's challenge and possibly win a $1m?

 

I've already won it but ticked the no publicity box.....DOH!

 

Well you should share some of that with us. After all it wasn't for the link posted by bob...

 

Hi,

I doubt too many people will. The reason is that a specific set of Cables is proscribed, not the ability to distinguish between (say) mains flex and Nordosts best or whatever you may choose. Also, Mr. Randi omitted to specify WHICH Monster Cable speaker cable was to be used for comparison.

So even if I performed a suitable experiment, under suitable conditions and scrutiny (and I may be forgiven for not taking up Mr. "I'll debunk everything" Randi's offer to arrange the experiment on my behalf), having purchased Monster Speaker Cables and the said 7K+ Speaker cable he could still back out claiming I used the "wrong" Monster cable.

For arguments sake, I could use one of these "Network Box" equipped Monster Cable Cables which contain a lowpass that seems identical to those used by Transparent and MIT, which has audible (and measurable) effects.

So, one of the usual "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" Challenges from Mr. Randi, in his usual line of approach, well known from other fields of enquiry.

Forgive me for not leaping with joy (bad back).

Ciao T

 

Folks,

Seeing where this thread and the previous "LCR Parameters" one is going (looks like towards Walthamstow from here) I'll submit a nice extract from a previous post of mine, quoting RAW. I know, quoting your own posts quoting others seems recursive and bad form, but what the heck.....

From:

http://www.zerogain.com/forum/showpost.php?p=211320&postcount=2

"I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good scholary arguments, and they were still debating when I left them.

The world is forever spawning Damned Things- things that are neither tree nor shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white- and the categorical thinker can only regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to his card-index system of classifications. Worst of all are the facts which violate "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia.

The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card- indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment."

Ciao T

 

You couldn't use one of those exactly because it has audible and measurable effects.

The claim that needs to be tested is that cables that are electrically equivalent sound different. Cable believers always start to weasel when faced with this distillation. There is no debate that small frequency response or level changes are audible, there is clearly some debate about what 'small' means. But this isn't what advocates of £50/£500/£5000 cables are claiming.

So if you can hear the difference between two conventionally equivalent cables you are making a paranormal claim and can challenge for Randi's $1000000. So why not?

Paul