Stereophile & Cable Theory

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</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

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</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_p [...] page1.html


http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_p [...] page1.html

and

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_p [...] page1.html


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."

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</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

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/e [...] asking.htm

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forum [...] opic=23467

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.

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.

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.
;-)

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

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</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..

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?

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

"George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
newsevllg02bbd@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.

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

"George Middius" <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
newsevlo702bl3@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.

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!"

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

On 30 Aug 2005 07:00:25 -0700, "John Atkinson"
<Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote:

>But as Sumiko doesn't and didn't distribute cables with "MIT-like
>networks" it is unlikely that the tests I mentioned used those.

If I remember correctly, the original Dynaudio Ocos were fitted with
termination networks.

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

François Yves Le Gal <flegal@aingeal.com> said:

>>But as Sumiko doesn't and didn't distribute cables with "MIT-like
>>networks" it is unlikely that the tests I mentioned used those.

>If I remember correctly, the original Dynaudio Ocos were fitted with
>termination networks.


In the speaker, not in the cable.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

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

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125358104_155@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:AfOdnZBL36ELs47eRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>
>> George has a grip, its just not on anything that is discussed in polite
>> company.
>>
>
> How nice of you to attend our little tea party.
>
>
EEeeeewwww.