Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Stereophile & Cable Theory

Tags:
  • Performance
  • Audio
  • Cable
  • Product
Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:46:39 AM

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

Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
posted today at <A
HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable&lt;/A>.
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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

More about : stereophile cable theory

Anonymous
August 29, 2005 9:20:09 AM

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
> <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
>
<snipped>
>
>
> > 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".
>
>
That seems to be the plan: the article will "dazzle 'em with science",
than Atkinson, his minions and the snake oil merchants will swoop in
and "baffle 'em with bullshit". IOW, a typical $tereopile ploy.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 12:06:38 PM

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

<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/reference/1095cable&lt;/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 from a teaching/learning viewpoint, please check out
Jim Lesurf's:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/p...


http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/p...

and

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/s...


As I said in the HE2005 debate, one place where high end
audio journalism falls flat on its face is quantification.
the Hawksford article is obviously designed to raise a lot
of concerns without proceeding far enough along the line of
quantification. Had Hawksford carried the ideas he presented
to a reasonable, properly-quantified conclusion, he would
have had to print very un-Stereophile-like conclusion such
as:

"In practice it is questionable whether delays of the
magnitudes shown would ever be audible. If so, the general
advice would seem to be to choose reasonable large diameter
wires with a close spacing in order to minimise the effects
of resistance and inductance."
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 2:45:39 PM

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:qn3iush2g4pa.1kga5a9z1knu5$.dlg@40tude.net
> > On 29 Aug 2005 07:44:08 -0700, George Middius wrote:
> >
> >> Don Pearce said:
> >>
> >>> DBT anybody?
>
> >> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in
> >> spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing
> >> hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20
> >> cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.
>
<snipped>
>
>
> > Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
> > cables.
>
> George has a grip, its just not on anything that is
> discussed in polite company.
>
>
Pud pullers are Atkinson's favorite demographic; "George" is a natural.
;-)
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 3:05:20 PM

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

Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com wrote:
> Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
> posted today at <A
> HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable&lt;/A>.
> 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.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile


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 :) .

ScottW
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 3:14:02 PM

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

ScottW wrote:
> Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com wrote:
> > Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
> > posted today at <A
> > HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable&lt;/A>.
> > 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.
> >
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
>
>
> 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 :) .
>
>
Selling advertising contracts to the snake oil merchants by promising
them a place on the RCL..
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:23:39 PM

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

Hello Arny,

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
news:Z7mdnZ2dnZ1QM2ugnZ2dnadnj96dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com:
....
> "In practice it is questionable whether delays of the
> magnitudes shown would ever be audible. If so, the general
> advice would seem to be to choose reasonable large diameter
> wires with a close spacing in order to minimise the effects
> of resistance and inductance."

I agree. What that otherwise interesting article still misses is the
answer to the question: will the differences introduced by a
"suboptimal" cable be audible with respect to an optimal one? So far the
science answer to this question has been basicly a simple no.

Bye,

P.S. May I suggest that you spend less time explaining again and again
things like this and spend instead sometime organizing a bit better your
otherwise excellent pcabx web site? That site is a wonderful source of
many useful informations, but sometimes they are a bit difficult to find.
For example I searched for a long time for some data about the safety
limits for frequency response deviations audibility, and found only
recently that your web site has a nice graph reporting all that is
needed. BTW many thanks for writing and maintaining that site, even in
its current "not so friendly" :)  form.

P.P.S. Another little question: do you know of a similar graph with the
limit of audibility of pre-echo (ore pre-ringing, or whathever it is
called)? Something like limit of audibility with respect to pre-delay vs
level and/or frequency? I searched for this kind of information for a
long time too, may be it is available in some "hidden" page of your site.

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:23:40 PM

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

"Denis Sbragion" <d.sbragion@infotecna.it> wrote in message
news:Xns96C19C7A4148Cdsbragioninfotecnait@193.43.96.1

> P.P.S. Another little question: do you know of a similar
> graph with the limit of audibility of pre-echo (ore
> pre-ringing, or whathever it is called)? Something like
> limit of audibility with respect to pre-delay vs level
> and/or frequency?

I believe that the phrase you are looking for is "temporal
masking".

Here's a fairly classic item about it:

http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~bosse/proj/node21.html

More specifics:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/T/Te/Temp...

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic...
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:35:28 PM

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

On 29 Aug 2005 04:46:39 -0700, Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com wrote:

> Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
> posted today at <A
> HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable&lt;/A>.
> 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.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Well, I have always stated that differences in cables exist at all
frequencies, and they are easily measurable. That article bears out my
thoughts, although it contains paragraphs thjat will be seen as heresy by
many here - and especially those over on r.a.p, namely relfections at
impedance discontinuities, which many have assured me are strictly an RF
phenomenon (nonsense, of course).

But if you actually cary the theoretical maths through to real, practical
cases, it is easy to see that provided you use a cable that is at least
competent in any situation, there can be no audible benefit from going to
high-end "boutique" cables, which when you look at them very clearly don't
have their design grounded anywhere near Maxwell's equations. That is what
the discussion is about, not whether a hundred yards of telephone wire is
different from 10 feet of twelve gauge for connecting speakers.

So, we are no further forwards here. Audibility of differences between
cables can only be ascertained by ear - nothing else will do.

DBT anybody?

d
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:35:29 PM

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

Don Pearce said:

>DBT anybody?

No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more
on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying
$20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 6:04:20 PM

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

Hello Arny,

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:uuGdnTWLk87SjI7eRVn-
pQ@comcast.com:
> I believe that the phrase you are looking for is "temporal
> masking".

yep, that's it! I'm more interested into pre-masking, but that's the name.

> Here's a fairly classic item about it:

Many thanks, that's already really useful. I wonder if there's also some
further information about the dependence of temporal masking with
frequency. I found some data about post-masking, and a general hint telling
that pre-masking is about 1/10 of post-masking in an unrelated paper, but
no detailed data about pre-masking vs frequency.
Just as a side note it's quite common to find inconsistent data
between different papers. For example the Stanford paper report 20/200 ms
for pre/post masking, and the Absolute Astronomy web site instead report
10/50, but probably it's just a matter of different "reference" levels.
Probably the most reliable reference is the ITU-R BS.1387 cited in the
Hydrogenaudio thread, which is completely new to me and which I'm going to
download ASAP.

Many thanks!

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:13:24 PM

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

On 29 Aug 2005 07:44:08 -0700, George Middius wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
>>DBT anybody?
>
> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more
> on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying
> $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.

OK, who's talking about:

a) investing ANY money in a comparator
b) taking hundreds of hours, or
c) buying cables

Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables.

d
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:13:25 PM

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

"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:qn3iush2g4pa.1kga5a9z1knu5$.dlg@40tude.net
> On 29 Aug 2005 07:44:08 -0700, George Middius wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce said:
>>
>>> DBT anybody?

>> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in
>> spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing
>> hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20
>> cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.

Thus George reveals several tenets of the anti-scientific,
anti-intellectual religion he's been preaching on RAO for
years:

George Middius religious belief (1): To benefit from DBTs
you have to do the tests yourself.
George Middius religious belief (2): To do a DBT you have to
buy a switchbox.
George Middius religious belief (3): To do a DBT you have to
invest 100's of hours.
George Middius religious belief (4): The lowest cost usable
cables cost at least $20.
George Middius religious belief (5): The highest cost cables
cost no more than $60.

George has about 4 converts - Art Sackman,

We can quickly conclude that despite George's spirited
defense of Stereophile and John Atkinson, he never reads it.

> OK, who's talking about:

> a) investing ANY money in a comparator

George Middius

> b) taking hundreds of hours, or

George Middius

> c) buying cables

George Middius

> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying
> cables.

George has a grip, its just not on anything that is
discussed in polite company.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:13:25 PM

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

Don Pearce said:

> > No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more
> > on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying
> > $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.
>
> OK, who's talking about:
>
> a) investing ANY money in a comparator
> b) taking hundreds of hours, or
> c) buying cables
>
> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables.

Oh, you wanna be a audio enjuhnear? Why dint ya say so. Want some help
applying for a job? I know several headhunters. Only thing is, junior
cable wonk jobs don't pay much. Just so you know what you're getting into.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:13:26 PM

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

The Krooborg is trying to muck up humanity again.

>>> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in
>>> spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing
>>> hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20
>>> cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.

>George Middius religious belief (1): To benefit from DBTs
>you have to do the tests yourself.
>George Middius religious belief (2): To do a DBT you have to
>buy a switchbox.
>George Middius religious belief (3): To do a DBT you have to
>invest 100's[sic] of hours.
>George Middius religious belief (4): The lowest cost usable
>cables cost at least $20.
>George Middius religious belief (5): The highest cost cables
>cost no more than $60.

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. You might do better
with your mental problems if you didn't let your buttons get pushed so easily.


>George has a grip, its just not on anything that is
>discussed in polite company.

Phallic obsession noted. ;-)
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:15:44 PM

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

"George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in
message news:D evllg02bbd@drn.newsguy.com
>
>>>> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom
>>>> in spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing
>>>> hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20
>>>> cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.
>
>> George Middius religious belief (1): To benefit from DBTs
>> you have to do the tests yourself.
>> George Middius religious belief (2): To do a DBT you
>> have to buy a switchbox.
>> George Middius religious belief (3): To do a DBT you
>> have to invest 100's[sic] of hours.
>> George Middius religious belief (4): The lowest cost
>> usable cables cost at least $20.
>> George Middius religious belief (5): The highest cost
>> cables cost no more than $60.
>
> 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?

> 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?
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:15:45 PM

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

Oh dear. The Krooborg is rampaging and my raincoat is at the cleaner.

>> 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.

>> 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. Let's try out some actual facts. It's a fact
that you, Arnii Krooborg, are frequently compared to turds and overflowing
toilets. Coincidence? Hardly(tm). You are, after all, 98% pure feces. That's
probably a record, even for a 'borg. As Dr. Kroomacher once said with some
pride, "Zey haff not yet made a rrroll of toilet pepper zat I kannot overcome!"
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:43:20 PM

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

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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:46:59 PM

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

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.

Thanks for the catch, ScottW. And thanks to everyone for increasing
our website traffic statistics. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:59:55 PM

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

<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/reference/1095cable&lt;/A>.
> 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.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:59:56 PM

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

The Bug Eater argues for Kroothanasia.

> In short Arnii is feces and should be flushed.

Would you like to do the honors, Mickey?
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 9:53:42 PM

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

John Atkinson 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.
>
>
You wouldn't happen to have any evidence to support this allegation,
would you, slimeball? :-D
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 10:57:33 PM

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:37:55 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
>>> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more
>>> on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying
>>> $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.
>>
>> OK, who's talking about:
>>
>> a) investing ANY money in a comparator
>> b) taking hundreds of hours, or
>> c) buying cables
>>
>> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables.
>
> Oh, you wanna be a audio enjuhnear? Why dint ya say so. Want some help
> applying for a job? I know several headhunters. Only thing is, junior
> cable wonk jobs don't pay much. Just so you know what you're getting into.

Never mind, George. Better luck next time, huh?

d
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 10:57:34 PM

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

Don Pearce said:

> >>> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more
> >>> on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying
> >>> $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.

> >> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables.

> > Oh, you wanna be a audio enjuhnear? Why dint ya say so. Want some help
> > applying for a job? I know several headhunters. Only thing is, junior
> > cable wonk jobs don't pay much. Just so you know what you're getting into.
>
> Never mind, George.

So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.

> Better luck next time, huh?

Please spare us the details.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 11:51:55 PM

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

"George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:D evllg02bbd@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
> The Krooborg is trying to muck up humanity again.
>
>>>> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in
>>>> spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing
>>>> hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20
>>>> cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.
>
>>George Middius religious belief (1): To benefit from DBTs
>>you have to do the tests yourself.
>>George Middius religious belief (2): To do a DBT you have to
>>buy a switchbox.
>>George Middius religious belief (3): To do a DBT you have to
>>invest 100's[sic] of hours.
>>George Middius religious belief (4): The lowest cost usable
>>cables cost at least $20.
>>George Middius religious belief (5): The highest cost cables
>>cost no more than $60.
>
> 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. You might do
> better
> with your mental problems if you didn't let your buttons get pushed so
> easily.
>
>
Why would anybody argue audio with you, you don't know anything.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 11:53:10 PM

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

"George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:D evlo702bl3@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
> The Bug Eater argues for Kroothanasia.
>
>> In short Arnii is feces and should be flushed.
>
> Would you like to do the honors, Mickey?
>
Yes George, I'd like to flush you, you are after all RAO's biggest turd.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 12:14:49 AM

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

"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.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 12:18:13 AM

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

"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1125358999.997016.174630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.

What kind of cables? Interconnects or speaker?
What were the sources and loads?
Any MIT like networks in the cables?

There are lots of ways to make cables sound different.
Do any of them represent good audio engineering?

ScottW
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:50:41 AM

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

George "Minus" Middius a écrit :

>...Want some help applying for a job? I know several headhunters...

In fact George knows only dickhunters so if you are looking
for blowjobs... ;-)
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:52:42 AM

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

George "Minus" Middius a écrit :

>...Want some help applying for a job? I know several headhunters...

In fact George knows only dickhunters so if you are looking
for blowjobs... ;-)
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 4:51:44 AM

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:49:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:


>George has about 4 converts - Art Sackman,

And? I'm still waiting for my name to be taken in vain again.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 11:00:25 AM

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

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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 11:02:19 AM

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

"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.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 11:03:35 AM

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

"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote
in message
news:1125358999.997016.174630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> 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.

.....leaving the above anecdote unconfirmable.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 12:21:14 PM

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:38:44 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
>>>>> No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more
>>>>> on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying
>>>>> $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course.
>
>>>> Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables.
>
>>> Oh, you wanna be a audio enjuhnear? Why dint ya say so. Want some help
>>> applying for a job? I know several headhunters. Only thing is, junior
>>> cable wonk jobs don't pay much. Just so you know what you're getting into.
>>
>> Never mind, George.
>
> So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
> cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.
>

Well, please enjoy that George. I don't buy cables - I have (like I'm
pretty sure everybody else here has) a box of cables collected over the
years that have accompanied various equipment purchasesas freebies. I use
them because I know they are perfect for my needs. I know that no other
cables at any price can sound any better.

I will leave the mental masturbation to you and anybody else who believes
otherwise.

>> Better luck next time, huh?
>
> Please spare us the details.

Glad to.

d
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 12:21:15 PM

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

Don Pearce said:

> > So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
> > cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.

> Well, please enjoy that George.

An IKYABWAI from you, Don? I'm disappointed.

> I know that no other cables at any price can sound any better.

So you're not shopping for cables, you're not interesting in designing and
selling cables, and you know everything there is to know about cables.

What is there to "discuss" then?

> I will leave the mental masturbation to you and anybody else who believes
> otherwise.

Oh, of course.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:20:16 PM

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 04:50:01 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
>>> So you don't care about buying cables, and you don't care about designing
>>> cables. I guess that leaves mental masturbation.
>
>> Well, please enjoy that George.
>
> An IKYABWAI from you, Don? I'm disappointed.
>

You set 'em up - I'll knock 'em down.

>> I know that no other cables at any price can sound any better.
>
> So you're not shopping for cables, you're not interesting in designing and
> selling cables, and you know everything there is to know about cables.
>

Shame on you George, for taking my limited proposition and attempting to
refute it by claiming I have made a general proposition. I may be stupid -
but you aren't catching me with that old chestnut of a debating trick.

> What is there to "discuss" then?
>
Certainly not my cable purchasing habits - 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.

>> I will leave the mental masturbation to you and anybody else who believes
>> otherwise.
>
> Oh, of course.

d
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:20:17 PM

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

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.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:20:18 PM

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.

How about a magazine that will help you get more enjoyment
out of what you bought, not less?

> u seem to have a problem with that.

I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting
commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:20:19 PM

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

Another Kroonundrum looms. Will this one be more or less horrific than the
earlier ones about "lying" and "hypocrisy"? (That's "hypocracy" in Krooglish,
Arnii.)

>I have no problem with consumer magazines promoting
>commerce as long as it is done in an ethical manner.

Arnii, are you presenting yourself as an arbiter of ethics? That's laughable. In
case you've forgotten, you're nuts. As in whacko, bananas, not all there.

But do expound on the Krooger version of "ethical" publishing. Will it be
farther from reality than Don's is? We're waiting eagerly for the rules of
Kroo-ethics.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 3:10:57 PM

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
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 3:14:49 PM

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"
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 3:23:48 PM

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
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 3:29:16 PM

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
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:21:25 PM

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
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:21:26 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 8:08:09 PM

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
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 8:08:10 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 8:45:37 PM

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?
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 8:50:33 PM

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

"George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:D evrrk02vle@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.
    • 1 / 8
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!