OK perhaps I over stepped my mark there but I was just trying to
offer for the *newbie's* some kind of insight into the general
consensus of speaker cables in this group.

*What* general consensus?

That being snake oil

After all it just a view no more than yours. You hear what you hear
and I hear what I hear.

So you did pass Sophistry 101.


No, just talking from experience

Nor was I it was just a terminollogy for cheap cable.

Typical of people like you, Stevie Boy. When you get nailed for your
careless claims, instead of facing up to that, you hide behind the old "it
was just a figure of speech" defense.

Read first paragraph.....

We'll add deafness to your list of personal faults, Stevie Boy.

Yes I am partialy deaf in one ear but doesnt stop me enjoying Hi-Fi or
incapable of differentiating between sounds.

Hmm likewise. I think you read to much into something when someone states
something this can be a dangerous thing.


Obviously were not talking about fuse wire or the likes were talking
about commercially available cables that range in all kinds of sizes.
Cables designed for use as speaker cable.

There Stevie Boy goes again. He's hiding behind the old "it was just a
figure of speech" defense.

Yea right. You seek an answer and then you have nothing meaningful to say.
I cant compensate for those that dont understand.

Well whatever a credible listening test *is* is open to debate.

Everything is open to debate, but one side of the debate is wrong.

Not always. Everything is a compromise.

But I would say that it took months of listening on two systems and
verified by 3 people.

A whole 3 people?

Wow!

At least it was a unanimous verdict for which I offer the advice on cables.
I would not offer any advice on any equipment I have not had the pleasure of
hearing in any positive manner.


Me just merely talking about my experiences here would not give 1
Iota of proof. It is something that has to be taken on face value.

IOW, it is wroth zero.

??? IOW?

It no more worse me saying this than saying Maplin speaker cable is
adequate (which it maybe).

If you pick the right Maplin cable for the application,t hen it is
adequate.

Proof?

Myself believe the Silver anniversary to be a bit lean and light in
the bass.

Proof?

See above.

OK, you were just trolling.

Hey first time someone said I was trolling :-)

Ive heard it in a friends system against some NAC A4. The
Anniversary had many virtues but overall the NAC A4 was prefered in
*this* system.

Yawn.

Tad pass your bedtime me thinks.


Been down this road before.

No, its the high road. You don't go there Steview Boy. You don't even know
where it is, even with a map in your hands.

Yes I can tell by your typing way passed bedtime.


Again Arny (that has a familiar ring to.... I'll be back :-) ) just
something Ive experienced trying different cables and/or equipment in
a system. Or through visits to other working systems demonstrating
cables.

OK, so you free associate a lot, Steview Boy.

Meaning?

For cables at the lower end of the market I like VDH, Chord company
Silver cable or DNM.

Proof?

It's not something I need to proof is it?

You could try to get your word forms right, even if you are a zero at
technology.

Yes i think your having the same problem tonight.

It's merely a statement of
cables *I* prefer. i'm just putting some guide lines in.

Your preferences are as good as free association, Steview boy.

But a good starting point nonetheless.

Try again. This time Stevie Boy focus on being credible to people
with IQs over 75.

Oh sorry Arny I replied to the wrong person :-)

Yawn.

Night night.

Well you have to consider before you make your mind up that this group is
somewhat anti-specialist speaker cable all in firm belief (particular Mr.
Pinkerton) that its a waste of money and bell wire is sufficient.

Damn those pesky engineers. They are only the people who design and
build audio equipment, what the hell would they know!

When it comes to design much more than I!!! But do they design audio cables?

There is nothing about a cheap cable that can alter the dynamic range of
a sound. If there is, then there's some kind of weird problem with your
hifi system.

Who has mentioned Dynamic range? Theres more to music than highs and lows.

A proper cable should have no signature.

Ive never heard a better word said :-)

Which cable has?

And I'll bet that if you
compared them blindfolded, you'd be incapable of telling the difference.

--

Ive explained further up the thread why I personally believe blind tests are
flawed.

Steve

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:05:35 +0100, "The EggKing"
wrote:

Wow. Thanks for all the info. I've just back into work and am sifting
through all these posts. Perhaps I should have stated the system I have?

It comprises a Quad 99 CD-P, a Quad 909 power amp and a set of Quad 11Ls.
Incidentally, I'm not one of those one-brand only boys, I just got a good
deal. I don't know if this changes anything but I would think that Bell Wire
is out of the question really? LOL.

Good system. nothing wrong with it at all. QED 79-strand - or whatever
the shop gave you - should be more than adequate (this also applies if
you have all Mark Levinson or Krell).
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

When it comes to design much more than I!!! But do they design audio
cables?

No, they don't. Does that tell you something about 'audiophile'
cables?

Is that a pointer at the engineer brigade in here or a general overview of
the Hi-Fi industry?

There is nothing about a cheap cable that can alter the dynamic range
of
a sound. If there is, then there's some kind of weird problem with your
hifi system.

Who has mentioned Dynamic range? Theres more to music than highs and
lows.

Ah, you must have Bose! :-)

You caught me out... 10 out of 10 for intuitiveness.

A proper cable should have no signature.

Ive never heard a better word said :-)

Which cable has?

None of them, under blind conditions....................

I would argue this point.... (not surprising heh?)

How can one positively say NO cable has a signature even under blind
conditions. Unless we actually welded (I dont mean that absolutley Arny) the
speakers to our amps terminals how can we (you) say what signatures cables
have/dont have? I'm all ears for any tecno babble you wanna spurt at me :-)


Ive explained further up the thread why I personally believe blind tests
are
flawed.

But not so horribly flawed as sighted tests............

--

Take this for instance.... You connect up a cable of xyz cost having no idea
how it will sound (bear with me.. read on).
You sit down and make judgements on the sound. You decide in which areas
this cable excels e.g Air, ambience,bass depth,eb and flo, musicality or
whatever.

After listening you put a sonic 'signature' on the cable.

Then you take your next cable of xyz cost and carry out the same procedure.

After listening you put a sonic 'signature' on the cable.

So my question is... how can one put a sonic 'signature' on each cable when
one has no clue before hand what that sonic signature will be.

To take for example Nordost's Valhalla cable that on first and subsequent
hearings *I* hear enormous strides in power of the bass department in
comparison to ALL the other Nordost cables previously released. How could I
possibly have concieved that it would sound so different from the rest of
the range? What in hells bells made me hear dollops more of bass power over
say a silky smooth midrange. I had no knowledge of it's *percieved* sound
before hand.

Steve

How does someone "put a signature" on cable ?

True story - I once lent someone my old Hifi. Since this guy had a habit of
keeping things for a little longer than he should I put my name on the
whole lot, cables included.

Judicious adjustment of the bass and treble controls for one.

This made me think. Steve - Do you think magic cable can do anything to the
sound an EQ can't? Most of what you've said so far seems to be around
boosting/limiting certain frequencies.

Hmm...
silly looking cable £150
twisting bass knob free!

There is a cable - OpusMM - that actually HAS a large crossover network
built in along it's length.

--
Jim H

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:16:34 +0100, "Stevie Boy"
wrote:



When it comes to design much more than I!!! But do they design audio
cables?

No, they don't. Does that tell you something about 'audiophile'
cables?

Is that a pointer at the engineer brigade in here or a general overview of
the Hi-Fi industry?

There is nothing about a cheap cable that can alter the dynamic range
of
a sound. If there is, then there's some kind of weird problem with your
hifi system.

Who has mentioned Dynamic range? Theres more to music than highs and
lows.

Ah, you must have Bose! :-)

You caught me out... 10 out of 10 for intuitiveness.

A proper cable should have no signature.

Ive never heard a better word said :-)

Which cable has?

None of them, under blind conditions....................

I would argue this point.... (not surprising heh?)

How can one positively say NO cable has a signature even under blind
conditions.

One can't, in strictly scientific terms, but OTOH not one single
person has been able to *demonstrate* an ability to detect such
differences, despite a fair amount of money having been on the table
for several years, amid lots of wild claims from many who still
haven't put their ears where their fat mouths are.....

Unless we actually welded (I dont mean that absolutley Arny) the
speakers to our amps terminals how can we (you) say what signatures cables
have/dont have? I'm all ears for any tecno babble you wanna spurt at me :-)

It's *possible* to make cables with a 'sonic sighature', but these are
extremely *bad* cables.......

See MIT cables for some examples.

Ive explained further up the thread why I personally believe blind tests
are
flawed.

But not so horribly flawed as sighted tests............

--

Take this for instance.... You connect up a cable of xyz cost having no idea
how it will sound (bear with me.. read on).
You sit down and make judgements on the sound. You decide in which areas
this cable excels e.g Air, ambience,bass depth,eb and flo, musicality or
whatever.

After listening you put a sonic 'signature' on the cable.

Then you take your next cable of xyz cost and carry out the same procedure.

After listening you put a sonic 'signature' on the cable.

So my question is... how can one put a sonic 'signature' on each cable when
one has no clue before hand what that sonic signature will be.

Becauise you just make up all that crap as you go along (been there,
done that, it's very easy to do, with the best intentions in the
world).

To take for example Nordost's Valhalla cable that on first and subsequent
hearings *I* hear enormous strides in power of the bass department in
comparison to ALL the other Nordost cables previously released. How could I
possibly have concieved that it would sound so different from the rest of
the range? What in hells bells made me hear dollops more of bass power over
say a silky smooth midrange. I had no knowledge of it's *percieved* sound
before hand.

Try looking round the back, to find that someone swapped it for cheap
zipcord without you noticing any difference.............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:50:38 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:43:15 +0000 (UTC), Jim H used
to say...

silly looking cable £150
twisting bass knob free!

Proving Pinky wrong - priceless!

Sorry, couldn't resist

Certainly, it's been beyond the ability of anyone round here.... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:49:15 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:51:29 +0100, Chesney Christ used
to say...

The idea that a cable has a "signature" is absurd. Do you have any
documentary evidence that supports this concept ? Speakers and amps
unquestionably have qualities of their own, but cables do not. They're
just bits of wire.

So how does NACA4/5, Linn K20 and Naim amps fit into that equation then?

The NACA design of cables certainly have a signature.

No, they don't, unless you have speakers with very low impedance at
the treble end (like some electrostats). I use NACA5 on my speakers,
and it sounds the same as any other cable. The Naim amp problem is
incompetent design that allows the amp to go unstable and blow up if
you *don't* use that highly inductive cable - other makers design
better amps.

Note that in the above example, which is a simple LR rolloff, a slight
treble lift would remove that 'signature'. This is *not* the same as
all the magical mystical bull**** claimed by Cardas, Audioquest etc.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:50:38 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:43:15 +0000 (UTC), Jim H used
to say...

silly looking cable £150
twisting bass knob free!

Proving Pinky wrong - priceless!

Sorry, couldn't resist

Certainly, it's been beyond the ability of anyone round here.... :-)

Been there, done that, a number of times.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:15:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:50:38 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:43:15 +0000 (UTC), Jim H used
to say...

silly looking cable £150
twisting bass knob free!

Proving Pinky wrong - priceless!

Sorry, couldn't resist

Certainly, it's been beyond the ability of anyone round here.... :-)

Been there, done that, a number of times.

Still suffering those delusions, eh Arny? :-)

BTW, you hardly qualify as 'round here' in any case.......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering