"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message


On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:53:55 +0100, Chesney Christ used
to say...

I'm afraid that doesn't constitute an argument. Extraordinary claims
- that mere cables alone (which do not include embedded components)
can alter the sound - require extraordinary evidence.

So a cable with high cpacitance won't affect the sound?

I've never seen a cable with cpacitance. However high cablecapacitance
isn't necessarily a problem for most power amps.

So a cable with high inductance won't affect the sound?

One has to really go out of one's way to make a cable with enough inductance
to have audible effects, when working with most loudspeakers.

Do either of the above require "embedded components" to affect the
sound?

If you adopt some esoteric or obscure cable construction method in order to
get extraordinarily high capacitance or inductance, you've effectively
created an embedded component.

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message

On 23 Jul 2003 06:52:30 -0700, Pusillanimous Mcgillitude used
to say...


Your illiteracy makes you seem like an idiot.

And your continual posting about makes you look like one.

If irony killed there would be a lot of casualties about now!

LOL!

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
You may interpret the expression differently from me. To me an
"embedded component" means some physical electronic doohickey like a
resister or capacitor or summat.

Then you're easily fooled. Whether you add an external capacitor etc or
this is built into the cable it will make no difference whatsoever.
Apart to the price.

Whoosh - Plowman's Head (yet again)

But everything apparently goes over your head. Or more likely straight
through it.

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:41:49 +0100, "Stevie Boy"
wrote:

Stevie Boy in uk.rec.audio:

Yes, it can be laid back, provide more drive, more immediacy, a
'faster' sound, more airy, greater musicality,sterile,sweet, better
leading edge definition...

Quite some claim!

Thankyou :-)

What do you mean by 'provide more drive'? this seems the least likely of
your descriptions, wouldn't that need the cable to transfer energy above
100%? (or else be an active component!)

No it just means that the cable is allowing the amp to control the speakers
better.

Shame that this is still meaningless drivel......

If there is so much to distinguish cables, why not select a cable and some
music that particuarly highlights one ef these traits and take Pinkerton up
on his offer?

Well he insists on 0.1db difference from 20Hz to 20Khz at the speaker
terminals of all cables connected. Rather than just have the cables plonked
on as they otherwise would be.

Sure, as this elimnates *gross* differences in LCR parameters, such as
some **** claiming victory by comparing 30AWG and 12AWG cables! The
stated criterion will cover almost any conventional speaker cable,
whether QED 79-strand or Kimber Black Pearl.

Plus I am at 1 end of the earth and he is at the other.

Unlikely, since GB is a very small island.....

I am in the Heart of England, so unlikely to be more than 100 miles
from you.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:19:18 +0000 (UTC), Jim H
wrote:

Stevie Boy in uk.rec.audio:

Well he insists on 0.1db difference from 20Hz to 20Khz at the speaker
terminals of all cables connected. Rather than just have the cables
plonked on as they otherwise would be.

I think that's so the manufacturers don't intentionally put an EQ signiture
onto a cable. This could be considered deliberate worsening of their
product in order to give it a distinctive sound, if you think the amp to be
the place to apply an EQ curve.

As I understand, the cable would be tested that none of this cheating was
going on, and then plonked on as usual. It would be very strange for a
cable to fail this test.

Correct. I have never had to introduce any kind of level-matching when
comparing cables.

Plus I am at 1 end of the earth and he is at the other.

Strange how Britons seem to overplay the size of their country! (unless one
of you is outside the uk) I'd fly long distance to earn $5,000 in a few
hours!

I am within 100 miles of 95% of the population of England. Now, if I
was in Seattle and he was in Miami, I could see the problem.......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:47:46 +0100, "Stevie Boy"
wrote:


Well he insists on 0.1db difference from 20Hz to 20Khz at the speaker
terminals of all cables connected. Rather than just have the cables
plonked on as they otherwise would be.

I think that's so the manufacturers don't intentionally put an EQ
signiture
onto a cable.

I'm not sure how they could do this other than manipulating the capacitance
(which is more likely to cause severe roll off) or making the cable have
unusually high or low impedence at certain frequencies which in turn could
easily upset the amplifiers output.

Never seen the 'high end' cables with little 'compensation' boxes on
their ends? Typically MIT and Transparent.

This could be considered deliberate worsening of their
product in order to give it a distinctive sound, if you think the amp to be
the place to apply an EQ curve.

Yes as far as I can see it that would not be sensible.

You got that right! :-)

As I understand, the cable would be tested that none of this cheating was
going on, and then plonked on as usual.

If that *is* the case then it does seem fair.

This has always been the case to date.

Plus I am at 1 end of the earth and he is at the other.

Strange how Britons seem to overplay the size of their country!

It's just a lot of time out and travelling.

Define 'a lot'. Where are you?

(unless one
of you is outside the uk)

No we both reside.

I'd fly long distance to earn $5,000 in a few
hours!

Me too if the $5,000 was guaranteed. But according to the discussions so far
it would seem that the test to pass with flying colours may not be the case.

Well, it's never been done so far! :-)

In the meantime I'm of to buy some Maplin adequate speaker cable tomorrow...
time permitting and since it's a cable adequate for the job so this group
tells me it should not sound imperceptibly different from my Nordost cable
that I use.

Correct.

All going well (the placebo affect tells me it will be as good as I've been
told it will be, my expectations are high) I will then be able to sell my
Nordost for a tidy sum and then combined with the sale of my CD player I
should be able to upgrade :-) Yippee!

Absolutely! That's the whole point.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
But everything apparently goes over your head. Or more likely straight
through it.

The point was that I didn't choose that expression, Chesney did, I just
gave my thoughts on what I understood by it.

It's usefulness or lack thereof didn't come into it.

Suppose I should be used to now by your convoluted 'reasoning'.

If you actually tried reading what was written instead of just jumping
in and trying to score a point then perhaps you might stand a chance of
reducing the effect of wind whistling through your ears.

Perhaps if you made some sensible points in a discussion you'd encourage
more.

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article , Stevie Boy wrote:

If there is so much to distinguish cables, why not select a cable and some
music that particuarly highlights one ef these traits and take Pinkerton
up on his offer?

Well he insists on 0.1db difference from 20Hz to 20Khz at the speaker
terminals of all cables connected. Rather than just have the cables plonked
on as they otherwise would be.

My understanding of the original condition is that it translates to a
requirement that the cables themselves have a flat (enough) frequency
response.

This is a genuine question even though it may be taken otherwise: is
audible frequency response deviation from flat either an acceptable or
a desireable factor in a cable?

I have always assumed it to be a defect, leading to my belief that the
condition is very reasonable, but I suppose others may have different
views.

--
John Phillips

John Phillips in uk.rec.audio:


This is a genuine question even though it may be taken otherwise: is
audible frequency response deviation from flat either an acceptable or
a desireable factor in a cable?

I'd say not. If you need to make small changes to the EQ a hardwired cable
seems pretty crude, especially given the lack of information on the curve
they provide. Using the tone controls or getting a dedicated EQ would be a
beter choice.


--
Jim H

3.1415...4999999 and so on... Richard Feynman

"Jim H" wrote in message

John Phillips in uk.rec.audio:


This is a genuine question even though it may be taken otherwise: is
audible frequency response deviation from flat either an acceptable
or a desireable factor in a cable?

I'd say not. If you need to make small changes to the EQ a hardwired
cable seems pretty crude, especially given the lack of information on
the curve they provide. Using the tone controls or getting a
dedicated EQ would be a better choice.

Now this makes a lot of sense. I know a little bit about the kind of Eq you
get out of speaker cables, and its really pretty limited and arbitrary. It's
based on the impedance curve of the speaker more than anything.

The Eq that can possibly be obtained by swapping speaker cables is generally
unknown to the person doing the swapping.

There is a world of different kinds of Eq that can be obtained with actual
equalizers and tone controls that no speaker cable is ever going to give
you.

I don't know of any Eq that you can get out of a speaker cable that can't be
also obtained with a proper equalizer. Unlike the cable that has only one Eq
curve with the given speaker, the equalizer has a zillion of them.