http://www.audiodesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807390

Won't work Pen, there are two camps. Those of us who are engineers and know there is almost no difference, and those who read the magazine reviews who know there is.
Our camp uses 14 Ga zip if you have a passive crossover, 10 if you don't, or RG8 if you think perfection on a scope can be heard. Never the line shall either cross.

Can I interest anyone in some used Kimber TC4? I actually bought it to help with some interference from an illegal 100W CB radio. It did help. Then I found his truck and "pinned" his coax. End of problem. (And the Lafayett foot warmer amp). Never got around to replace it.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/cables/speaker-cable-reviews-faceoff-2/speaker-cable-reviews-faceoff-2-page-6

Audioholics had a couple of good reviews and write ups as well, I still can't believe that people think they are hearing differences in cables.

I still can't believe that people think they are hearing differences in cables.
Why not? It's a well-understood psychological phenomenon.

Here we go again...
Let the games begin! :)

Those of us who are engineers and know there is almost no difference, and those who read the magazine reviews who know there is.



But that link is not a subjective review, its full of measurements and what I think would be facts.

Im more interested in how it showed that 6m cable had different distortion measured per cable when connected to a complex loud (loudspeaker) and it had NO difference when connected to a 8 ohm load.

Im also interested in knowing why they use Coax for speaker cable measurement testing....that is what it looks like they are doing to me.

I have always posted that if someone can show me scientific data, measurements that proves audiable difference then Im happy to learn about it. Im not saying the link proves audiable differences but I do believe it shows enough to create a decent discussion.

I do not care for any "I hear a difference" type discussion though, I want to strictly talk about measurements.

The author writes...
Given the obvious interdependence of all the parts of the circuit, the findings help to explain why such a lack of consistency exists between reports of the beneficial effects of using certain loudspeaker cables. It would appear to be the case that certain cable benefits can only be claimed for certain amplifier/loudspeaker combinations, and that any perceived audible improvement heard on any one combination may not necessarily be able to be expected when the cable is used on any other combination".

Now, he may be right. However, the reports concerning speaker cables are subjective reports. While I hate to drag a Nobel laureate into this, the physicist, Brian Josephson finds credence in the subjective reports of telepathy and other paranormal things. He attempts to lend similar credence by drawing upon quantum mechanics as possible explanations. To my mind anyways, it's helpful to draw on data or reports that have had the subjective impressions vetted by objective means. That's all I have to say on the subject.

OK, I lied. I'd also like to read the original papers and see what the authors say.

Won't work Pen, there are two camps. Those of us who are engineers and know there is almost no difference, and those who read the magazine reviews who know there is.
Our camp uses 14 Ga zip if you have a passive crossover, 10 if you don't, or RG8 if you think perfection on a scope can be heard. Never the line shall either cross.





I use 2 # 14 twisted cable with my passive crossover speakers. Does that put me in the third camp?

I want to be in the camp where all the women are.

I'd like to read the original reports too. Wonder why nobody has replicated this work. Standard scientific procedure to see of others get similar results when re-running your experiment.

I found the article really interesting, and potentially revealing. But I have to say that the last few frequency response plots with the "unscaled" vertical dimension cause me to worry that the authors are skewing other data to fit into their views. I mean, if those big-looking variations are really just 0.1 db at max, it reaches the "who cares" level, I think.

I'd like to read the original reports too. Wonder why nobody has replicated this work. Standard scientific procedure to see of others get similar results when re-running your experiment.

I found the article really interesting, and potentially revealing. But I have to say that the last few frequency response plots with the "unscaled" vertical dimension cause me to worry that the authors are skewing other data to fit into their views. I mean, if those big-looking variations are really just 0.1 db at max, it reaches the "who cares" level, I think.

Good catch!!

Thanks, Penn.

When I took statistics in college (I rode my dinosaur to class) one of our "texts" was a great little book called "How to Lie with Statistics." It did a lot with misleading (but entirely true, technically) graphical representations of data. It really stuck with me. Same concept here, although it is not statistical data that is potentially being "overstated" by the picture.

Thanks, Penn.

When I took statistics in college (I rode my dinosaur to class) one of our "texts" was a great little book called "How to Lie with Statistics." It did a lot with misleading (but entirely true, technically) graphical representations of data. It really stuck with me. Same concept here, although it is not statistical data that is potentially being "overstated" by the picture.

so true, I can make my in room response look flat using Arta, just use 1/6 octave smoothing and set my scaling to better values ;)

I want to be in the camp where all the women are.

Best perspective yet! :D

Thanks, Penn.

When I took statistics in college (I rode my dinosaur to class) one of our "texts" was a great little book called "How to Lie with Statistics." It did a lot with misleading (but entirely true, technically) graphical representations of data. It really stuck with me. Same concept here, although it is not statistical data that is potentially being "overstated" by the picture.

I had the same text. Then there is the "throw out the high and low and see if the mean changes". Non-linear scales, compressed data and on and on.

I had a manager back in industry who once instructed me: "Find me the data that proves X". My response was that I will collect data on the question , but it may show Y. He then said, "But I know it is X!" I had to use every trick in the book. He was the boss.