Dr.Toole and JBL

[okiemax]

From time to time on this forum, reference is made to research by Dr. Floyd E. Toole, who I believe is still Corporate Vice President of Acoustical Engineering for Harman International. Although I can't find the results of any studies he has done on speaker cables on the web, Mtrycraft and Monstrous Mike in recent posts claim Dr. Toole has conducted tests on different cables and found they made no difference on his speakers.

It could be I am misunderstanding what has been said about Dr. Toole, but if he thinks different speaker cables make no difference in performance, this is in conflict with the following advice quoted from the manual on his firm's JBL TiK Series speakers:

"Speaker cables and interconnects are important components in an audio system. With all the factors at an appropriate level of quality the speaker cable and the interconnect cable can make sigificant contributions to the percieved sound quality. Careful selection of cables and interconnects can add or subtract marked shadings in tonal character. Likewise different cables can have a dramatic impact on the dynamic contrasts experienced by listeners."

http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Owner%27s%20Manual/Ti10K%20om.pdf

What do other forum members make of this contradiction?

[pctower]

You're going to love all the twisting, turning, sophistry and hypocricy you'll see forthcoming on this one.

I have repeatedly asked for proof that Dr. Toole doesn't think cables make a difference and none has ever been forthcoming. Yet, you will frequently see someone here claim that is his belief - and of course the person who is usually disseminating that unsubstantiated claim is usually one of most vocal in their attacks against unsubstantiated cable claims.

As something that I thought you might find interesting, the following is the only public pronouncement of Dr. Toole I have ever seen regarding cables:

“4. [Interview Question] I believe that many audiophiles would get more from their equipment if they would transfer some of their interest and money for audio cables into acoustics and room adaption (sic), but since audio cables seem to be of such big interest, maybe you could share what you think are the relevant qualities when it comes to loudspeaker cables?

[Dr. Toole's Answer] Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" (sic) , in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do.”

http://www.sonicdesign.se//tooleinw.htm

Notice he says "(s)uperbly performing cables can be purchased ..." The only reasonable inference to be drawn from that statement is that there is a difference in how comercially produced cables perform.

He goes on to say that "'bad cables', are not bad enough to be audible worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do." Again, the only fair inference from that sentence is that there are good and bad cables from a sonic standpoint and that a bad cable can do as much harm sonically as bad room acoustics or bad speakers.

I posted this over a year ago, and when I did I couldn't believe the contortions the regulars here went through to try and claim that one cannot conclude from this statement that Dr. Toole must believe that cables do make a difference (assuming he hasn't changed his mind since he gave that interview). That's when I realized the so called "scientists" here are as mired in their dogma as are the golden ears.

And of course there was also the time I posted the add copy from the Levinson site (subsidiary of Harmon) for their interconnects. It was hilarious watching all of the rabid naysayers coming to the defense of a cable purveyor's add copy, simply because that particular purveyor happened to be owned by Harmon who happened to be Dr. Toole's employer.

[Rockwell]

He goes on to say that "'bad cables', are not bad enough to be audible worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do." Again, the only fair inference from that sentence is that there are good and bad cables from a sonic standpoint and that a bad cable can do as much harm sonically as bad room acoustics or bad speakers.

My interpretation of that statement is that "bad" cable's effect on the sound is insignificant to the effects of acoustics and speakers.

[Rockwell]

What do other forum members make of this contradiction?

It's not likely that Dr. Toole, a VP(?), wrote or even read this. I don't think the views of a company(or, in this case, that of a technical writer) must necessarily mesh with that of all employees.

[Monstrous Mike]

From time to time on this forum, reference is made to research by Dr. Floyd E. Toole, who I believe is still Corporate Vice President of Acoustical Engineering for Harman International. Although I can't find the results of any studies he has done on speaker cables on the web, Mtrycraft and Monstrous Mike in recent posts claim Dr. Toole has conducted tests on different cables and found they made no difference on his speakers.

It could be I am misunderstanding what has been said about Dr. Toole, but if he thinks different speaker cables make no difference in performance, this is in conflict with the following advice quoted from the manual on his firm's JBL TiK Series speakers:

"Speaker cables and interconnects are important components in an audio system. With all the factors at an appropriate level of quality the speaker cable and the interconnect cable can make sigificant contributions to the percieved sound quality. Careful selection of cables and interconnects can add or subtract marked shadings in tonal character. Likewise different cables can have a dramatic impact on the dynamic contrasts experienced by listeners."

http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Owner%27s%20Manual/Ti10K%20om.pdf

What do other forum members make of this contradiction?
I think Dr. Toole has been built up more by the yeasayers than anybody (including that fence sitter pctower) to be bigger than life so that attempts to chop him down will have a more lasting effect. Perhaps this is the reverse strawman theory.

To summarize, Dr Toole has published his efforts regarding his method of designing speakers. That is, the way he approached speaker design was to thoroughly control the testing of various designs using DBT testing procedures with trained listeners. He is admired by many of us scientifically-thinking forum members for his assertion that sighted evaluation of audio components has the real risk of introducing significant enough biases into subjective evaluations as to render them meaningless. He has written a peer-reviewed paper on this very subject with Sean Olive.

Since I am from Ottawa and being in the government working on technical issues, I have run into Dr. Toole's co-workers on occasion at the Communication Research Centre (CRC). Many don't really give it much thought but one did relate an informal test to determine in exotic cabling should be used in his speaker design if there was a performance impact. The guy didn't really even know what they were using for wire at the time and he guessed some sort of Monster 14 gauge copper stranded wire. Anyways, the test with the much more expensive wire, using the same testing criteria as his speakers, did not show any performance improvement and he dropped the matter. There are no studies or reports of this because it was simply a side issue of some curiosity.

While Dr. Toole has moved on to Harmon, some of his ex co-workers work in this lab: http://www.crc.ca/en/html/aas/home/home. If you care to read some of the work at that site, you will see that Dr. Toole's methods have formed the basis for subjective evaluation of audio signals. These techniques were used to develop the mp3 coding algorithms.

In the end, what we have is a proven method of subjective evaluation of audio signals. All that is needed is the effort to apply this method to a set of audio cables for a scientific evaluation. Everything is there except the willingness to exude such an effort. That's the point. It can be done. However, don't expect somebody who has an opinion that there are no differences to jump up and expend the energy to complete such a test. I know I have no desire to.

With opportunity for somebody to grab the chance at shutting people like me up for good, I simply cannot understand why it hasn't been done yet. Can you imagine the first audiophile club who could produce testing results that show conclusive evidence of real cable sonic differences? They'd be international heros in the audio community.

So what's the excuse for not doing this?

[E-Stat]

Can you imagine the first audiophile club who could produce testing results that show conclusive evidence of real cable sonic differences? They'd be international heros in the audio community. So what's the excuse for not doing this?
Do you really think that "an audiophile club" could produce a study that would be accepted as rigorous enough by the scientific testing crowd here? Also, introducing the inevitable sonic degradation of a relay controlled switchbox and double the number of cables and connectors is diametrically opposed to those who seek the maximum fidelity. I have yet to see a test where the box itself is tested and not assumed to be "perfect" based upon theoretical assumptions.

Quite frankly, few audiophiles couldn't care less whether or not labcoats agree with them.

rw

[E-Stat]

It's not likely that Dr. Toole, a VP(?), wrote or even read this. I don't think the views of a company(or, in this case, that of a technical writer) must necessarily mesh with that of all employees.
Absolutely. Someone rogue audiophile slipped in to the JBL organization unbeknownst to everyone else in the company and not only wrote that speaker wires are an important component in an audio system, but also promoted the potential advantages of biwiring. Naturally, Toole was completely unaware that this unsuspected plant was in cahoots with some likeminded co-conspirator engineers such that his speakers are going out the door engineered with biwiring capability and the appropriate multiple connectors on the back.

rw

[Rockwell]

Absolutely. Someone rogue audiophile slipped in to the JBL organization unbeknownst to everyone else in the company and not only wrote that speaker wires are an important component in an audio system, but also promoted the potential advantages of biwiring. Naturally, Toole was completely unaware that this unsuspected plant was in cahoots with some likeminded co-conspirator engineers such that his speakers are going out the door engineered with biwiring capability and the appropriate multiple connectors on the back.

rw

This is a product manual, right? Do you really think a VP(especially one over acoustic research) reads it before it goes out the door? Anyway, companies are about making money, and if it give audiophiles a warm fuzzy about their products, then I think they will do it.

[mtrycraft]

You're going to love all the twisting, turning, sophistry and hypocricy you'll see forthcoming on this one.

I have repeatedly asked for proof that Dr. Toole doesn't think cables make a difference and none has ever been forthcoming. Yet, you will frequently see someone here claim that is his belief - and of course the person who is usually disseminating that unsubstantiated claim is usually one of most vocal in their attacks against unsubstantiated cable claims.

As something that I thought you might find interesting, the following is the only public pronouncement of Dr. Toole I have ever seen regarding cables:

“4. [Interview Question] I believe that many audiophiles would get more from their equipment if they would transfer some of their interest and money for audio cables into acoustics and room adaption (sic), but since audio cables seem to be of such big interest, maybe you could share what you think are the relevant qualities when it comes to loudspeaker cables?

[Dr. Toole's Answer] Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" (sic) , in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do.”

http://www.sonicdesign.se//tooleinw.htm

Notice he says "(s)uperbly performing cables can be purchased ..." The only reasonable inference to be drawn from that statement is that there is a difference in how comercially produced cables perform.

He goes on to say that "'bad cables', are not bad enough to be audible worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do." Again, the only fair inference from that sentence is that there are good and bad cables from a sonic standpoint and that a bad cable can do as much harm sonically as bad room acoustics or bad speakers.

I posted this over a year ago, and when I did I couldn't believe the contortions the regulars here went through to try and claim that one cannot conclude from this statement that Dr. Toole must believe that cables do make a difference (assuming he hasn't changed his mind since he gave that interview). That's when I realized the so called "scientists" here are as mired in their dogma as are the golden ears.

And of course there was also the time I posted the add copy from the Levinson site (subsidiary of Harmon) for their interconnects. It was hilarious watching all of the rabid naysayers coming to the defense of a cable purveyor's add copy, simply because that particular purveyor happened to be owned by Harmon who happened to be Dr. Toole's employer.


He didn't publish his research. Nothing to publish as it is basic cable science. But, anyone can email him as he answers his mail. I see you have not done this since my last suggestion to you that you should. Why not?

[mtrycraft]

From time to time on this forum, reference is made to research by Dr. Floyd E. Toole, who I believe is still Corporate Vice President of Acoustical Engineering for Harman International. Although I can't find the results of any studies he has done on speaker cables on the web, Mtrycraft and Monstrous Mike in recent posts claim Dr. Toole has conducted tests on different cables and found they made no difference on his speakers.

It could be I am misunderstanding what has been said about Dr. Toole, but if he thinks different speaker cables make no difference in performance, this is in conflict with the following advice quoted from the manual on his firm's JBL TiK Series speakers:

"Speaker cables and interconnects are important components in an audio system. With all the factors at an appropriate level of quality the speaker cable and the interconnect cable can make sigificant contributions to the percieved sound quality. Careful selection of cables and interconnects can add or subtract marked shadings in tonal character. Likewise different cables can have a dramatic impact on the dynamic contrasts experienced by listeners."

http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Owner%27s%20Manual/Ti10K%20om.pdf

What do other forum members make of this contradiction?
He didn't write the manual. Not sure if he reviewed it But-
Did you read the section Connections? He recommends 18ga as a minimum based on distance, right?

So, someone trying 24 ga would not be appropriate, right?
Same for interconnects. You don't want high capacitance, can roll off frequency response. Basic electronics.
No, Toole didn't publish his cable research. Nothing to publish as it is basic cable science.

He did most of his research, 25 years worth, at the Canadian Nationa Research Center, Ottowa. Do a google.
I corresponded with him directly as i posted. You can too by email. So can pctower or the next person. So far I have not heard anyone who has done so, yet they keep on *****ing.
Do some of the legwork as I have done. More rewarding that way. You might get silver or gold poisoning if I keep feeding everyone with a silver or gold spoon.

[mtrycraft]

It's not likely that Dr. Toole, a VP(?), wrote or even read this. I don't think the views of a company(or, in this case, that of a technical writer) must necessarily mesh with that of all employees.


However, if you read the secton called 'Cables' it suggests 18ga as a minimum, based on distance. So, there is nothing mysterious about the speaker cables. Rather simple.
If one uses 24 ga, then it is outside of recommended practice and you are asking for it. As you know, we don't recommend 24 ga:)

[mtrycraft]

Absolutely. Someone rogue audiophile slipped in to the JBL organization unbeknownst to everyone else in the company and not only wrote that speaker wires are an important component in an audio system, but also promoted the potential advantages of biwiring. Naturally, Toole was completely unaware that this unsuspected plant was in cahoots with some likeminded co-conspirator engineers such that his speakers are going out the door engineered with biwiring capability and the appropriate multiple connectors on the back.

rw


Check out the section 'Cables' Did you miss that one? Oh, 18ga is the minimum based on distance. Nothing futher is stated except by distance requirements. Rather simple, no magic, no bs, no hype, no mystery cable needed. But, you habve no idea, we know.

[mtrycraft]

Absolutely. not only wrote that speaker wires are an important component in an audio system, but also promoted the potential advantages of biwiring.
rw


Try to read the whol manual before you spout off nonsense. The reason for the posts is for multiple amplifier use, not the promotion of buy-wiring. Please quote the benefits of your speculations.

[mtrycraft]

Do you really think that "an audiophile club" could produce a study that would be accepted as rigorous enough by the scientific testing crowd here? Also, introducing the inevitable sonic degradation of a relay controlled switchbox and double the number of cables and connectors is diametrically opposed to those who seek the maximum fidelity. I have yet to see a test where the box itself is tested and not assumed to be "perfect" based upon theoretical assumptions.

Quite frankly, few audiophiles couldn't care less whether or not labcoats agree with them.

rw

You are spouting hogwash about sonic degradation. You have no basis of facts to base you vailed specualtions as that is all it is. Prove it. Stop guessing and speculating.

[Tony_Montana]

It could be I am misunderstanding what has been said about Dr. Toole, but if he thinks different speaker cables make no difference in performance, this is in conflict with the following advice quoted from the manual on his firm's JBL TiK Series speakers.

I don't see why we always have to rely on "experts" to tell audio community about cables and its effect on a system. With a little bit of investigation and knowledge, role of a cable and how to minimize its effects can be pretty much understood by anybody. It is not rocket science :)

[pctower]

My interpretation of that statement is that "bad" cable's effect on the sound is insignificant to the effects of acoustics and speakers.

Of course you would rewrite beyond recognition the natural meaning of his words to suit your dogma. That's exactly what I predicted.

[pctower]

He didn't publish his research. Nothing to publish as it is basic cable science. But, anyone can email him as he answers his mail. I see you have not done this since my last suggestion to you that you should. Why not?

You're twisting and turning even more than I thought you would on this one.

As for e-mailing, apparently you have. Since you have been one of Toole's most active promoters on this site, why don't you report specifically what his position is on cables, and the details of his research to arrive at those conclusions. While you're at it, why not report on his explanation of the interview I quoted.

What's the big mystery here?

[E-Stat]

... you vailed
Yes, I've skied Vail before. Great powder.

rw

[Rockwell]

Of course you would rewrite beyond recognition the natural meaning of his words to suit your dogma. That's exactly what I predicted.

Your interpretation doesn't make sense. I don't think you could find an undamaged cable that degrades the signal nearly as much as room acoustics or even loud speakers.

Given the context of the statements that came before it and the mangled nature of the sentence itself, I don't think it's a stretch to reach my conclusion.

[Monstrous Mike]

Do you really think that "an audiophile club" could produce a study that would be accepted as rigorous enough by the scientific testing crowd here?
First of all, it wouldn't be "us" who would be accepting that study. And secondly, it doesn't matter who does this testing, if it is documented and accurate, anybody else should be able to reproduce it. Science doesn't contain these biases towards who did the testing that you are trying to imply. It is the test, the test method and the results that should stand on their own. The originators of such testing are really irrelevent other than the respect that they would garner for their efforts.


Also, introducing the inevitable sonic degradation of a relay controlled switchbox and double the number of cables and connectors is diametrically opposed to those who seek the maximum fidelity. I have yet to see a test where the box itself is tested and not assumed to be "perfect" based upon theoretical assumptions.

Inevitable sonic degradation? You admitted that you are not a person of science so why now are you making statements that even well-versed audio engineers would need to test and validate? I know that you would like to say that DBTs are impossible to conduct but that doesn't make it a fact.

As I have mentioned before, there is standard that exists with regard to subjective audio testing. It is called ITU Recommendation BS.1116-1 and if you really want you can get a copy yourself here: http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=items&lang=e&parent=R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I.

You only have one valid point with regard to cable sonics and that is your own in-home testing experience. If you stick with that, you'll be fine. If you try to throw out will scientific ideas, strawman arguements and just plain wrong facts, your case weakens considerably.

You are trying to validate what you perceived in your audio system. I have trying to point out how to do that and you are simply not accepting it. That's your perogative but I stand by my points and am open to criticism.

[E-Stat]

Try to read the whol manual before you spout off nonsense.
I did. I find your lack of reading comprehension tiresome.



The reason for the posts is for multiple amplifier use, not the promotion of buy-wiring.
Let's read together, shall we?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _
"JBL Ti loudspeakers may also be connected to the power amplifier using several lengths of wire. The multi-wire connection method offers a number of options and advantages...

This way each individual speaker drive unit (and it's associated network) can be connected independently to the power amplifier...

By removing the bars, connections can be made to the individual network sections using two or more pairs of wires (four or more conductors) as shown in figure 1. The wires may be of the same type for both low, middle, and high frequency sections. The advantages are that wire effects (resistance, inductance, etc.) are reduced, and intermodulation of low and high frequencies in the cable is avoided. Specialized wires for low, middle, and high frequencies may yield excellent results in some systems. In either case, the cable for the low frequencies should be as short as possible and the left and right cable for each section must be the same length. If the cable to one speaker system is longer than the one to the other speaker due to the distance from the power amplifier, make sure not to wind the excess cable up in the form of a coil...

Another option is to power each separate drive unit (and its associated network section) from its own power amplifier.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________


You seem to read what you want to read instead of that which is actually there.



Please quote the benefits of your speculations.
See above notation for JBL's "speculations".


rw

[Monstrous Mike]

Let's read together, shall we?

You seem to read what you want to read instead of that which is actually there.

See above notation for JBL's "speculations".
What exactly are trying to do here? Are you quoting something from JBL in an effort to discredit Dr. Floyd Toole? Does that mean his work previously is invalidated?

Or perhaps you are trying to imply that perhaps Dr. Toole has revealed how he really feels about speaker wires by being the VP in a company with ad copy like that.

Instead of speculating yourself to death, email Dr. Toole and ask him for the test results his company has done on biwiring. Now that would be useful. Or is ad copy good enough evidence for your beliefs?

[E-Stat]

Inevitable sonic degradation? You admitted that you are not a person of science...
I am a person of science. That would be computer science.



...why now are you making statements that even well-versed audio engineers would need to test and validate?
That is precisely my point, Mike, Rather than assuming that such switch boxes and doubling the number of cables and connections is inaudible, "well-versed audio engineers do need to test and validate" that assumption first. I asked Mtry for such substantiation and I extend the invitation to you as well.



I know that you would like to say that DBTs are impossible to conduct but that doesn't make it a fact.

What gave you that idea? What I question is testing that involves the introduction of a new set of variables that are completely absent in the normal use of audio systems and assumed to have no effect.



...As I have mentioned before, there is standard that exists with regard to subjective audio testing. It is called ITU Recommendation BS.1116-1 and if you really want you can get a copy yourself here: http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=items&lang=e&parent=R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I.

Cool. I'll take a look.



If you try to throw out will scientific ideas...
This reminds me of my college statistics text entitled "How to Lie With Statistics". What I throw out are unproven assumptions and sweeping generalizations of audio behavior not based on direct experimentation, but extrapolation of results with other gear.

rw

[E-Stat]

What exactly are trying to do here? Are you quoting something from JBL in an effort to discredit Dr. Floyd Toole?
What a curious response. Here's the basic play-by-play

1. I reported the manual described the multi-wiring capability and commentary that there are potential benefits.
2. Mtry said the multiple posts were there for multiple amplifiers, not multi-wiring.
3. I cited the passages that state otherwise. That's it. No black helicopters.


Does that mean his work previously is invalidated?
You tell me. I'm simply reporting the content found in their manual. It would be amusing if it were the case that JBL technical writers did refute some of their own company research with their commentary.

rw

[Rockwell]

However, if you read the secton called 'Cables' it suggests 18ga as a minimum, based on distance. So, there is nothing mysterious about the speaker cables. Rather simple.
If one uses 24 ga, then it is outside of recommended practice and you are asking for it. As you know, we don't recommend 24 ga:)

It is the paragraph under that one that I find troubling. However, I suspect that it comes from the marketing department rather than Dr. Toole, given his apparent position on cable sonics.

[Monstrous Mike]

What I throw out are unproven assumptions and sweeping generalizations of audio behavior not based on direct experimentation, but extrapolation of results with other gear.

rw
Well, you what E-Stat? Cable sonic differences is an unproven assumption but you seem to be holding on to it pretty good.

[pctower]

Your interpretation doesn't make sense. I don't think you could find an undamaged cable that degrades the signal nearly as much as room acoustics or even loud speakers.

Given the context of the statements that came before it and the mangled nature of the sentence itself, I don't think it's a stretch to reach my conclusion.

I'm not interpreting anything. I'm reading what he said. You are having to read all kinds of things into his statement to conclude that by "bad" he means "damaged".

He states that "Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices." Even the cheapest commercial cables are almost never "damaged" when sold. So he obviously isn't comparing "damaged" vs "undamaged" commercially sold cables. By characterizing some commercial cables as "superb" performers, he obviously believes that there are performance differences between and among commercially available cables. His next sentence makes it clear that by "performance" he is talking about sonic performance.

Had he meant what you seem to be suggesting he would have simply said that any commercially available cable will do and that none are any better sonically than any other regardless of price. He has a graduate degree. He certainly knows how to communicate what he really means.

I refer expressly to his words and sentence structure. You simply state conclusions and interpretations that square with your own biases.

[pctower]

This is a product manual, right? Do you really think a VP(especially one over acoustic research) reads it before it goes out the door? Anyway, companies are about making money, and if it give audiophiles a warm fuzzy about their products, then I think they will do it.

If he doesn't read product manuals that are designed to enable customers to maximize the benefit of their purchase, then WHAT THE HELL DOES HE READ?

Do you honestly believe he spends all the time he does in acoustic research and then doesn't ensure that his findings relating to factors that can affect sonic performance are incorporated into speaker product manuals.? How far out on the limb of intellectual dishonesty are you willing to go to defend your dogma at all costs?

Your last sentence is pure, unadulterated, unsubstantiated specualtion.

[Swerd]

PCT, I expect better from you than this! Perhaps I shouldn’t. You frequently tell us you are a lawyer, but you are committing the worst kind of distortion by omission here. Perhaps that is what lawyers do for a living, but you probably are also aware that these are clearly not the only reasonable inferences, much less conclusions, that can be drawn from his statements.

Interview Question:
"I believe that many audiophiles would get more from their equipment if they would transfer some of their interest and money for audio cables into acoustics and room adaption (sic), but since audio cables seem to be of such big interest, maybe you could share what you think are the relevant qualities when it comes to loudspeaker cables?"

Dr. Toole's Answer:
"Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" (sic), in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do."

In your earlier comments, you omitted the phrase ...for very moderate prices... from the statement that superbly performing cables can be purchased. You say that "the only reasonable inference to be drawn from that statement is that there is a difference in how commercially produced cables perform". What you infer might be correct if you dropped the words onlyand reasonable. A more reasonable conclusion from his full statement is that it is not expensive or difficult to purchase cables that perform superbly.<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Without knowing his definition of superbly performing cables, it is not possible to reasonably conclude or infer anything else.

This is a big stretch considering his entire answer to the question, begins with "Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them."<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Your inferences, while not logically false, make no sense when compared to the obvious conclusions from what Toole says in his full answer to the question.

I would like to point out a web page that summarizes Toole’s career and some of his major contributions to acoustics. http://caa-aca.ca/PEIWEBpage/PEI_Toole.htm
(http://caa-aca.ca/PEIWEBpage/PEI_Toole.htm)
On this page is a list of some of his publications. Numerous titles appear to be on the subject of how to identify and control the variables in listening tests. This seems to be one of his main contributions. I have a pdf copy of #19 on this list, titled Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things. If anyone would like to read it, contact me and I’ll be glad to send it to you. I think it is a good example of how to scientifically approach the problem of conducting unbiased listening tests.

Note that nowhere in this list is a title about the effects of speaker cables. To be fair, it is possible that such a study was done but does not appear on this list, or is buried within one of the other publications on the list without being reflected in the title. I certainly have not read each publication on this list. But it is safe to say that Toole has never published directly on what properly controlled listening tests reveal about sound reproduction acoustics attributable to cables. This is probably because there is little to report on the subject, and there were much bigger questions for him to study. Good scientists tend to investigate fields where there is a demonstrably significant phenomena to study. I’m not saying that there is absolutely no effect from cables, but it may be so small (even to the point of vanishing) that scientists have ignored this as a problem worthy of their time and resources. Certainly Floyd Toole has ignored it.

Also worth mentioning is a list of White Papers containing 6 more articles by Dr. Toole, available from a Harmon International website. They are easy to download and I urge people to have a look.

http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->There is a wealth of information about speakers and room acoustics, but I find no mention in them about the effect of different speaker cables. Considering Toole’s demonstrated expertise on designing and conducting unbiased listening tests, this absence says much about the overall contribution of cables to the acoustics of reproduced sound.

I quote from page 4 of an article titled Part Two: Making a Good Loudspeaker – Imaging, space, and great sound in rooms. I find this reveals much about Toole's thoughts on the subject of objective listening tests in general and why I object so much to PCT's misinterpretation of his words.

"If listeners like or dislike something, it is important to try to identify what, technically, was responsible. By taking the listening reports back to the lab, it is possible to learn the relationships between what we measure, and what we hear. This is the science of psychoacoustics, and the better we understand it, the better we will be at delivering good sound to our customers’ ears. Technical measurements must be accurate, or else they lie to us. Getting accurate acoustical measurements without good facilities is very difficult to impossible. Much of the data floating around the loudspeaker industry is not accurate.

Most listening tests are valid only at a specific time and place, for the specific recordings that were listened to, and for the people offering their opinions. This can be acceptable if it is you choosing your own system in your own home. It is not acceptable for a loudspeaker manufacturer, who is trying to design products that can sound good to many listeners, in many rooms, with many recordings. Consequently, we get scientific about it, and start to remove some of the variables that have nothing to do with the sound from the loudspeaker, letting the listeners focus as much of their attention as possible on the sound, and the sound alone. Purveyors of 'magic' in the audio industry find these double-blind tests very threatening."

[Rockwell]

If he doesn't read product manuals that are designed to enable customers to maximize the benefit of their purchase, then WHAT THE HELL DOES HE READ?

Do you honestly believe he spends all the time he does in acoustic research and then doesn't ensure that his findings relating to factors that can affect sonic performance are incorporated into speaker product manuals.? How far out on the limb of intellectual dishonesty are you willing to go to defend your dogma at all costs?

Depends on how big the company is and how many layers of management. My point is that just because this statement appears in a product manual of the company he works for, doesn't mean he endorses it. You don't know if he read it or wrote it or endorsed it.


Your last sentence is pure, unadulterated, unsubstantiated specualtion.

So true, but educated speculation. :)

[Richard Greene]

Toole frequently writes about room acoustics, and sometimes about speakers (mainly acoustics after joining Harman)

He's almost never mentioned wires publicly and can't be held responsible for every word in every Harman product owner's manual (which are probably written by a technical writer working with engineering and marketing).

I note that excerpts from the owner's manuals presented here do not include all the paragraphs on wires -- specific paragraphs are carefully selected to present a biased view.

Toole's provided no data and no articles on wires (that I know of.)

Just a brief answer to an interview question ... which you guys are twisting and
turning inside out to defend pre-existing opinions.

Doing this is about as useful as quoting PC Tower on garterbelts because he once made some comments on the subject (" NIce garterbelt babycakes ! ") after drinking eight martini's at some topless club.

Toole = very interested in room acoustics
Toole = no apparent interest in wires

[E-Stat]

Well, you what E-Stat? Cable sonic differences is an unproven assumption but you seem to be holding on to it pretty good.
I assert no hard proof other than observations over thirty years of experience with some nice gear. And that of many trusted ears I have known over the years. Take it or leave it.

FWIW, I do place cables last in the order of audible hierarchy in an audio system.

1. Speakers
2. Source(s)
3. Amplification
4. Rooms and treatments
5. Cables

rw

[mtrycraft]

I assert no hard proof other than observations over thirty years of experience with some nice gear. And that of many trusted ears I have known over the years. Take it or leave it.

FWIW, I do place cables last in the order of audible hierarchy in an audio system.

1. Speakers
2. Source(s)
3. Amplification
4. Rooms and treatments
5. Cables

rw


It is unfortunate that you place rooms and treatment number 4. Your loss, really. shows how much more you have to learn after 30 years.

[mtrycraft]

You're twisting and turning even more than I thought you would on this one.

As for e-mailing, apparently you have. Since you have been one of Toole's most active promoters on this site, why don't you report specifically what his position is on cables, and the details of his research to arrive at those conclusions. While you're at it, why not report on his explanation of the interview I quoted.

What's the big mystery here?

You contact him. It is about time yuou do some research.

[mtrycraft]

Thanks for your great analysis and review.

[mtrycraft]

I did. I find your lack of reading comprehension tiresome.



Let's read together, shall we?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _
"JBL Ti loudspeakers may also be connected to the power amplifier using several lengths of wire. The multi-wire connection method offers a number of options and advantages...

This way each individual speaker drive unit (and it's associated network) can be connected independently to the power amplifier...

By removing the bars, connections can be made to the individual network sections using two or more pairs of wires (four or more conductors) as shown in figure 1. The wires may be of the same type for both low, middle, and high frequency sections. The advantages are that wire effects (resistance, inductance, etc.) are reduced, and intermodulation of low and high frequencies in the cable is avoided. Specialized wires for low, middle, and high frequencies may yield excellent results in some systems. In either case, the cable for the low frequencies should be as short as possible and the left and right cable for each section must be the same length. If the cable to one speaker system is longer than the one to the other speaker due to the distance from the power amplifier, make sure not to wind the excess cable up in the form of a coil...

Another option is to power each separate drive unit (and its associated network section) from its own power amplifier.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________


You seem to read what you want to read instead of that which is actually there.



See above notation for JBL's "speculations".


rw


It is you who has comprehension problems. Nowhere it makes a case for audiophile cables. It is all about multi amping speakers. Period, end of story.

[mtrycraft]

Yes, I've skied Vail before. Great powder.

rw
I am glad I missed you there.

[mtrycraft]

It is not rocket science :)


But it is a mystery to many/most audiophiles :)

[pctower]

PCT, I expect better from you than this! Perhaps I shouldn’t. You frequently tell us you are a lawyer, but you are committing the worst kind of distortion by omission here. Perhaps that is what lawyers do for a living, but you probably are also aware that these are clearly not the only reasonable inferences, much less conclusions, that can be drawn from his statements.

Interview Question:
"I believe that many audiophiles would get more from their equipment if they would transfer some of their interest and money for audio cables into acoustics and room adaption (sic), but since audio cables seem to be of such big interest, maybe you could share what you think are the relevant qualities when it comes to loudspeaker cables?"

Dr. Toole's Answer:
"Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" (sic), in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do."

In your earlier comments, you omitted the phrase ...for very moderate prices... from the statement that superbly performing cables can be purchased. You say that "the only reasonable inference to be drawn from that statement is that there is a difference in how commercially produced cables perform". What you infer might be correct if you dropped the words onlyand reasonable. A more reasonable conclusion from his full statement is that it is not expensive or difficult to purchase cables that perform superbly.<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Without knowing his definition of superbly performing cables, it is not possible to reasonably conclude or infer anything else.

This is a big stretch considering his entire answer to the question, begins with "Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them."<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Your inferences, while not logically false, make no sense when compared to the obvious conclusions from what Toole says in his full answer to the question.

I would like to point out a web page that summarizes Toole’s career and some of his major contributions to acoustics. http://caa-aca.ca/PEIWEBpage/PEI_Toole.htm
(http://caa-aca.ca/PEIWEBpage/PEI_Toole.htm)
On this page is a list of some of his publications. Numerous titles appear to be on the subject of how to identify and control the variables in listening tests. This seems to be one of his main contributions. I have a pdf copy of #19 on this list, titled Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things. If anyone would like to read it, contact me and I’ll be glad to send it to you. I think it is a good example of how to scientifically approach the problem of conducting unbiased listening tests.

Note that nowhere in this list is a title about the effects of speaker cables. To be fair, it is possible that such a study was done but does not appear on this list, or is buried within one of the other publications on the list without being reflected in the title. I certainly have not read each publication on this list. But it is safe to say that Toole has never published directly on what properly controlled listening tests reveal about sound reproduction acoustics attributable to cables. This is probably because there is little to report on the subject, and there were much bigger questions for him to study. Good scientists tend to investigate fields where there is a demonstrably significant phenomena to study. I’m not saying that there is absolutely no effect from cables, but it may be so small (even to the point of vanishing) that scientists have ignored this as a problem worthy of their time and resources. Certainly Floyd Toole has ignored it.

Also worth mentioning is a list of White Papers containing 6 more articles by Dr. Toole, available from a Harmon International website. They are easy to download and I urge people to have a look.

http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->There is a wealth of information about speakers and room acoustics, but I find no mention in them about the effect of different speaker cables. Considering Toole’s demonstrated expertise on designing and conducting unbiased listening tests, this absence says much about the overall contribution of cables to the acoustics of reproduced sound.

I quote from page 4 of an article titled Part Two: Making a Good Loudspeaker – Imaging, space, and great sound in rooms. I find this reveals much about Toole's thoughts on the subject of objective listening tests in general and why I object so much to PCT's misinterpretation of his words.

"If listeners like or dislike something, it is important to try to identify what, technically, was responsible. By taking the listening reports back to the lab, it is possible to learn the relationships between what we measure, and what we hear. This is the science of psychoacoustics, and the better we understand it, the better we will be at delivering good sound to our customers’ ears. Technical measurements must be accurate, or else they lie to us. Getting accurate acoustical measurements without good facilities is very difficult to impossible. Much of the data floating around the loudspeaker industry is not accurate.

Most listening tests are valid only at a specific time and place, for the specific recordings that were listened to, and for the people offering their opinions. This can be acceptable if it is you choosing your own system in your own home. It is not acceptable for a loudspeaker manufacturer, who is trying to design products that can sound good to many listeners, in many rooms, with many recordings. Consequently, we get scientific about it, and start to remove some of the variables that have nothing to do with the sound from the loudspeaker, letting the listeners focus as much of their attention as possible on the sound, and the sound alone. Purveyors of 'magic' in the audio industry find these double-blind tests very threatening."

First of all, LEARN TO READ. I included the entire quote in my first post.

Secondly, the reasonable price point is only dealing with relative costs. He still distinguishes bad cables from good and uses a relative term of "superbly", so he is suggesting differences in performance.

Thirdly, I am very familiar with Dr. Tooles work and have read all of his papers that can be downloaded. I really don't know what Dr. Toole thinks about cables, because, as you point out, he has never really addressed the subject in a formal way.

I'm simply commenting on the public information that's available - the interview I quoted and the JBL manual produced by his company, and I'm only commenting on the reasonable interpretation of those two items and the reasonable inferences than can be drawn from those two items. AND the only reason either even interests me is because I love to see the intellectual dishonesty that eminates from those regulars who worship Dr. Toole and try to explain away the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from what we have available publicly from Dr. Toole.

I also bring it up because people like MM have claimed in the past that Dr. Toole has in fact tested cables and found no difference, yet he provides no support or details for these claims. As you know from your research there is no public support for MM's claims.

Personally, I don't think any conclusion can be drawn about Dr. Toole's opinions on cables from what is available publicly. But not for the distorted reasons that the rabid naysayers advance. Rather, these are just snippets that, absent anything else, on their face suggest Toole does believe cables make a difference - that's the only fair inference that can be drawn from the JBL manual and the short interview and any attempt to argue otherwise is simply sophistry.

On the other hand, anyone who would draw a firm or even a tentative conclusion from these tidbits of information on what Toole really thinks about cables is a fool. I'm not a fool and I draw no conclusions.

[pctower]

You contact him. It is about time yuou do some research.

I'll pass for the time being.

I'm much more interested in the mystery of why you won't publicly reveal your communication with Dr. Toole.

Perhaps could it be that you and he are one and the same?

[pctower]

Depends on how big the company is and how many layers of management. My point is that just because this statement appears in a product manual of the company he works for, doesn't mean he endorses it. You don't know if he read it or wrote it or endorsed it.



So true, but educated speculation. :)

Yes, one cannot know for sure if he read it or not. But that is different than your first statement.

Well, we're all educated (I assume). I wonder how much weight that really adds to our speculations (mine included).

[pctower]

Toole frequently writes about room acoustics, and sometimes about speakers (mainly acoustics after joining Harman)

He's almost never mentioned wires publicly and can't be held responsible for every word in every Harman product owner's manual (which are probably written by a technical writer working with engineering and marketing).

I note that excerpts from the owner's manuals presented here do not include all the paragraphs on wires -- specific paragraphs are carefully selected to present a biased view.

Toole's provided no data and no articles on wires (that I know of.)

Just a brief answer to an interview question ... which you guys are twisting and
turning inside out to defend pre-existing opinions.

Doing this is about as useful as quoting PC Tower on garterbelts because he once made some comments on the subject (" NIce garterbelt babycakes ! ") after drinking eight martini's at some topless club.

Toole = very interested in room acoustics
Toole = no apparent interest in wires

Dr. Tower's Definitive Works on The Garterbelts' Hidden Secrets is nearing the end of its final rewrite. Until the date (yet to be determined) of its simultaneous release in German and English, Dr. Tower is contractually prohibted from discussing any aspect of the subject.

[E-Stat]

It is all about multi amping speakers. Period, end of story.Last time I checked, the plural of "amplifier" is "amplifiers". Is English your second language?

rw

[E-Stat]

It is unfortunate that you place rooms and treatment number 4. Your loss, really. shows how much more you have to learn after 30 years.
While I expect you duck this question as you do all others when it comes to your direct experience (do you really have any?) and system, I will ask it anyway.

What are the dimensions of your listening room and what treatments do you have?

Mine is 30 x 15 x 7. Since it is located in the basement, it has carpet over a poured concrete floor. As a "daylight" basement, there are windows on the end wall behind the listening position. I have six foot tall bass traps in the back corners, use room lenses behind the panels, wall diffusors on the back walls, and use eggcrate material on one side and a Ficus tree on the other for first reflection point damping. The ceiling uses acoustical tile. Slap echo is pretty tame and the traps have successfully smoothed out the bass nodes pretty well.

rw

[Swerd]

Dr. Tower's Definitive Works on The Garterbelts' Hidden Secrets is nearing the end of its final rewrite. Until the date (yet to be determined) of its simultaneous release in German and English, Dr. Tower is contractually prohibted from discussing any aspect of the subject.
We are all eager to find out what DBT methodology you used in The Garterbelts' Hidden Sectets. ;)

[Monstrous Mike]

I assert no hard proof other than observations over thirty years of experience with some nice gear. And that of many trusted ears I have known over the years. Take it or leave it.
rw
For forty years, I had thought that it was absolutely necessary to wash your hands each and every time after you went for a piss. And I did this and observed I have never been sick and rarely even get a cold (knock on wood). Then I found out the facts regarding personal hygene and discovered that my forty year belief was unfounded.

As a result, this made me investigate some of my other beliefs and I have changed somewhat.

[Rockwell]

For forty years, I had thought that it was absolutely necessary to wash your hands each and every time after you went for a piss. And I did this and observed I have never been sick and rarely even get a cold (knock on wood). Then I found out the facts regarding personal hygene and discovered that my forty year belief was unfounded.

As a result, this made me investigate some of my other beliefs and I have changed somewhat.

I think it is more of a courtesy to others, than a necessity. :) For my own personal health, I just make sure I wash before eating.

[E-Stat]

...went for a piss.
Great segue as this analogy is piss poor. Did you ever experience sickness immediately after not washing your hands? Did you ever try?



...As a result, this made me investigate some of my other beliefs
Hopefully, you will not cease to perform any other related hygienic tasks ! :)

There is a difference between believing and experiencing. I believe it would be enjoyable to hang glide. I know it is enjoyable to skydive.

BTW, I did register and download the ITU document. I haven't had a chance to fully read the lengthy document, but I'm in agreement with most of their points concerning the discernment of "impairments". I do take exception, however, to the notion that one must use equalized studio monitors as the reference speaker.

rw

[mtrycraft]

Last time I checked, the plural of "amplifier" is "amplifiers". Is English your second language?

rw

Is that the best you can do?

[maxg]

Is that the best you can do?

"JBL Ti loudspeakers may also be connected to the power amplifier using several lengths of wire. The multi-wire connection method offers a number of options and advantages..."

The power amplifier - definitely only one. Also implies benefit from multi-wire connection (not something I have ever experienced but there you go).

"This way each individual speaker drive unit (and it's associated network) can be connected independently to the power amplifier..."

Leans towards the idea that there is a reason for doing this without yet saying it...

"By removing the bars, connections can be made to the individual network sections using two or more pairs of wires (four or more conductors) as shown in figure 1. The wires may be of the same type for both low, middle, and high frequency sections. The advantages are that wire effects (resistance, inductance, etc.) are reduced, and intermodulation of low and high frequencies in the cable is avoided."

Now we are getting somewhere "The advantages are that wire effects (resistance, inductance, etc.) are reduced...." this would certainly lead the reader to believe that wires make a sonic difference.

" Specialized wires for low, middle, and high frequencies may yield excellent results in some systems."

Specialized wires? Somehow better than normal day to day speaker wires?

"In either case, the cable for the low frequencies should be as short as possible and the left and right cable for each section must be the same length."

Must be the same length? Not should be the same length, not should be approximately the same length - very definite here - without stating exactly why of course.

"If the cable to one speaker system is longer than the one to the other speaker due to the distance from the power amplifier, make sure not to wind the excess cable up in the form of a coil..."

Well this one I dont know - I would hope speaker wires are shielded enough to handle coiled storage but they must know better - mustn't they?

"Another option is to power each separate drive unit (and its associated network section) from its own power amplifier."

Well there is the bi-amping option, finally.

FWIW -I dont think we can deduce Mr. O'Toole's beliefs from this quote in a brochure, merely that the brochure has been produced to keep cable companies happy as well as customers.

Ultimately it seems neither side can be bothered to run another DBT test, acceptable to both parties, to evaluate any cable induced sonic differences so it remains a matter of belief and interpretation of experiences. My experiences leave me to believe there are sonic differences in interconnects and speaker cables and I shop accordingly - others are free to choose for themselves.

FWIW 2:

IMHO the 3 elements that determine the sound of a system are: Source, System and Surroundings (room environment) in approximately equal measure. Of the System I would put about 75% of its contribution down to the speakers, 20% down to amplification and source equipment and the rest for sundry elements.

In other words sonically (and very non scientficially) you could best aim to get 5% of 33.3% changes for the sum of cabling / power items / system isolation equipment (stands et al). You decide between all of those the relative importance of each.

In other words YMMV - in simple terms.

[pctower]

While I expect you duck this question as you do all others when it comes to your direct experience (do you really have any?) and system, I will ask it anyway.

What are the dimensions of your listening room and what treatments do you have?

Mine is 30 x 15 x 7. Since it is located in the basement, it has carpet over a poured concrete floor. As a "daylight" basement, there are windows on the end wall behind the listening position. I have six foot tall bass traps in the back corners, use room lenses behind the panels, wall diffusors on the back walls, and use eggcrate material on one side and a Ficus tree on the other for first reflection point damping. The ceiling uses acoustical tile. Slap echo is pretty tame and the traps have successfully smoothed out the bass nodes pretty well.

rw

Of course he will duck the question. You will be treated in the most condescending fashion here with all kinds of attacks on what you don't know, but he won't reveal one damn fact about his background, experience or personal system.

Welcome to the virtual house of cards built out of intellectual arrogance, hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, double standards, and a smattering of dusty counterfeit blind tests published in the mainly now-defunct everything-sounds-the-same press foisted off on this board to the unsuspecting and uncritical as “scientific evidence” by people who have demonstrated absolutely no background or expertise that would qualify them to evaluate or conduct such tests. And all of this to the aim that the regulars here can delude themselves into believing that they are intellectually superior to the people that post over at AA, whom they often endearingly refer to as “stupid”, “fools”, “flat-earthers”, “believers in alien abductions” and “terminally gullible”.

[pctower]

"JBL Ti loudspeakers may also be connected to the power amplifier using several lengths of wire. The multi-wire connection method offers a number of options and advantages..."

The power amplifier - definitely only one. Also implies benefit from multi-wire connection (not something I have ever experienced but there you go).

"This way each individual speaker drive unit (and it's associated network) can be connected independently to the power amplifier..."

Leans towards the idea that there is a reason for doing this without yet saying it...

"By removing the bars, connections can be made to the individual network sections using two or more pairs of wires (four or more conductors) as shown in figure 1. The wires may be of the same type for both low, middle, and high frequency sections. The advantages are that wire effects (resistance, inductance, etc.) are reduced, and intermodulation of low and high frequencies in the cable is avoided."

Now we are getting somewhere "The advantages are that wire effects (resistance, inductance, etc.) are reduced...." this would certainly lead the reader to believe that wires make a sonic difference.

" Specialized wires for low, middle, and high frequencies may yield excellent results in some systems."

Specialized wires? Somehow better than normal day to day speaker wires?

"In either case, the cable for the low frequencies should be as short as possible and the left and right cable for each section must be the same length."

Must be the same length? Not should be the same length, not should be approximately the same length - very definite here - without stating exactly why of course.

"If the cable to one speaker system is longer than the one to the other speaker due to the distance from the power amplifier, make sure not to wind the excess cable up in the form of a coil..."

Well this one I dont know - I would hope speaker wires are shielded enough to handle coiled storage but they must know better - mustn't they?

"Another option is to power each separate drive unit (and its associated network section) from its own power amplifier."

Well there is the bi-amping option, finally.

FWIW -I dont think we can deduce Mr. O'Toole's beliefs from this quote in a brochure, merely that the brochure has been produced to keep cable companies happy as well as customers.

Ultimately it seems neither side can be bothered to run another DBT test, acceptable to both parties, to evaluate any cable induced sonic differences so it remains a matter of belief and interpretation of experiences. My experiences leave me to believe there are sonic differences in interconnects and speaker cables and I shop accordingly - others are free to choose for themselves.

FWIW 2:

IMHO the 3 elements that determine the sound of a system are: Source, System and Surroundings (room environment) in approximately equal measure. Of the System I would put about 75% of its contribution down to the speakers, 20% down to amplification and source equipment and the rest for sundry elements.

In other words sonically (and very non scientficially) you could best aim to get 5% of 33.3% changes for the sum of cabling / power items / system isolation equipment (stands et al). You decide between all of those the relative importance of each.

In other words YMMV - in simple terms.

Well, what a welcome breath of fresh air - someone who actually knows how to read and isn't blinded by dogma and bias.

Very nice analysis.

[E-Stat]

At least someone here can read intelligently. The manual clearly states three ways to attach wires to the speaker. In order of appearance, they are with a single wire and the amplifier, multi-wires and the amplifier, and finally, below the picture with multiple amplifiers.

FWIW, I have no direct experience with multi-wiring and thus offer no commentary. Since I have been using full range electrostats for nearly thirty years, the issue never arose for me.

rw

[Monstrous Mike]

And all of this to the aim that the regulars here can delude themselves into believing that they are intellectually superior to the people that post over at AA, whom they often endearingly refer to as “stupid”, “fools”, “flat-earthers”, “believers in alien abductions” and “terminally gullible”.
And we have a better sense of humour.

BTW, you don't need to have any knowledge, experience, or even equipment to ask some simple questions. Along the same vein, having thirty years experience in this hobby and owning sparkling spanky equipment doesn't make anybody an expert in this hobby either.

As I have pointed out before, people have gone their entire lives believing something to be true when it is in fact false. None of us is immune to this. If you think you are then you have your head in the sand. And yes, that would also mean "terminally gullible".

[pctower]

And we have a better sense of humour.

BTW, you don't need to have any knowledge, experience, or even equipment to ask some simple questions. Along the same vein, having thirty years experience in this hobby and owning sparkling spanky equipment doesn't make anybody an expert in this hobby either.

As I have pointed out before, people have gone their entire lives believing something to be true when it is in fact false. None of us is immune to this. If you think you are then you have your head in the sand. And yes, that would also mean "terminally gullible".

And you live in your fantasy world with your view that "belief" is important to most audiophiles. It's the experience they enjoy and the decisions they make that improve their personal experiences.

[Monstrous Mike]

And you live in your fantasy world with your view that "belief" is important to most audiophiles.
You're killing me here. I'm the one living in a fantasy world? OK, if I went over to the Cable Asylum and questioned their beliefs about cable sonics, you are telling that the response would indicate it is not important to them?! If the belief in cable sonics wasn't important, there would be no talk of science or engineering or frequency, rather only what was heard in what system with what cables.


It's the experience they enjoy and the decisions they make that improve their personal experiences.
I have no doubt that buying expensive wires improves the audiophile personal experience. I have always maintained that that is beyond question.

However, two other points continually jump out at me. The first is the incessant need to correlate this personal experience gain to some scientific quality of a cable or wire. The techno-babble used as justification is astounding not to mention the logic. And secondly, the attempts to discredit those who are perceived as intruding on this personal satisfaction are quite unprofessional and usually rather laughable. John Risch maintains a long list of people who are classified as discredited naysayers.

That post on Dr. Toole came close to doing exactly that without even his actual point of view being heard. Where was your call for fair play in that instance?

[RobotCzar]

Dr. Toole did not write the manual or make the claim stated. So this is a non-issue.

He is not in charge of Harman and one assumes that reality and precision would take a back seat to hype if Harman thought it was in their interest to say that cables are "important". We who go by the evidence have repeatedly stated that all the opinions of pundits, all the statements in brochures and manuals, all the "recommendations" of audio companies and goofy magazines, don't count as much as a simple test. Can I make that any clearer? We leave it to pctower to make lawyer arguments about truth (which is a very humorous concept).

Cable fans can't demonstrate that they really hear differences, so they read manuals (probably written my junior marketeers) to support for their ideas. Go for it, but it ain't any kind of evidence. You deserve what you get if you treat manual as some source of infallible information.

[pctower]

Dr. Toole did not write the manual or make the claim stated. So this is a non-issue.

He is not in charge of Harman and one assumes that reality and precision would take a back seat to hype if Harman thought it was in their interest to say that cables are "important". We who go by the evidence have repeatedly stated that all the opinions of pundits, all the statements in brochures and manuals, all the "recommendations" of audio companies and goofy magazines, don't count as much as a simple test. Can I make that any clearer? We leave it to pctower to make lawyer arguments about truth (which is a very humorous concept).

Cable fans can't demonstrate that they really hear differences, so they read manuals (probably written my junior marketeers) to support for their ideas. Go for it, but it ain't any kind of evidence. You deserve what you get if you treat manual as some source of infallible information.

Your first sentence makes an absolute claim. What is your basis for that claim? Do you also claim he did not approve it before it went out? If so, what is your basis for that claim?

The rest of your post is extraneous to the subject, which is what does the public record suggest Dr. Toole's opinion on cables might be. I never even remotely suggested that either the interview or the manual is proof of anything. Go find someone else who wants to argue with you about anything beyond your first sentence.

[pctower]

You're killing me here. I'm the one living in a fantasy world? OK, if I went over to the Cable Asylum and questioned their beliefs about cable sonics, you are telling that the response would indicate it is not important to them?! If the belief in cable sonics wasn't important, there would be no talk of science or engineering or frequency, rather only what was heard in what system with what cables.


I have no doubt that buying expensive wires improves the audiophile personal experience. I have always maintained that that is beyond question.

However, two other points continually jump out at me. The first is the incessant need to correlate this personal experience gain to some scientific quality of a cable or wire. The techno-babble used as justification is astounding not to mention the logic. And secondly, the attempts to discredit those who are perceived as intruding on this personal satisfaction are quite unprofessional and usually rather laughable. John Risch maintains a long list of people who are classified as discredited naysayers.

That post on Dr. Toole came close to doing exactly that without even his actual point of view being heard. Where was your call for fair play in that instance?


And where, may I ask, have I ever even hinted that I believe that CA is representative of audiophiles in general? Of course the people who post there and on audio boards in general often argue about "beliefs".

As for Risch, I have consistently been far harder on him than you in your wildest dreams ever thought of being.

Fair play? What goes out in public is subject to comment. Harmon promotes him extensively on their website, and he permits them to do that. If he disagrees with material his company publishes he has a choice. Either publicly disavow it, or take his lumps for being associated with a company that publishes stuff as that.

I certainly never asked Dr. Toole to associate himself with Harmon and plaster his face and works all over their website.

[Richard Greene]

"Of course he will duck the question. You will be treated in the most condescending fashion here with all kinds of attacks on what you don't know, but he won't reveal one damn fact about his background, experience or personal system. Welcome to the virtual house of cards built out of intellectual arrogance, hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, double standards, and a smattering of dusty counterfeit blind tests published in the mainly now-defunct everything-sounds-the-same press foisted off on this board to the unsuspecting and uncritical as “scientific evidence” by people who have demonstrated absolutely no background or expertise that would qualify them to evaluate or conduct such tests. And all of this to the aim that the regulars here can delude themselves into believing that they are intellectually superior to the people that post over at AA, whom they often endearingly refer to as “stupid”, “fools”, “flat-earthers”, “believers in alien abductions” and “terminally gullible”.

RG responds:
This is a epic slam from the grandmaster of put-downs, in a style so clever that 1,000,000
Jon Risch's at 1,000,000 typewriters could not hope to match.

I predict that by the end of the year, after careful analysis of every word and many hostile debates on this forum, PC will declare that, in fact, these few words on wires were never spoken by Dr. Toole at all -- because if every fifth word is deleted, and the remaining paragraph is studied by looking at its reflection in a mirroe, it is plain to anyone with sense that the so-called "Toole Paragraph" really contains deranged alien commands to the WirePolice.

Either that, or a new debate will be launched on whether Dr. Toole knows anything of value about wires, since one person can't be an expert on everything, excluding Mtrycrafts, of course. As an example, let's consider Albert Einstein -- he couldn't figure out his income tax.

[pctower]

"Of course he will duck the question. You will be treated in the most condescending fashion here with all kinds of attacks on what you don't know, but he won't reveal one damn fact about his background, experience or personal system. Welcome to the virtual house of cards built out of intellectual arrogance, hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, double standards, and a smattering of dusty counterfeit blind tests published in the mainly now-defunct everything-sounds-the-same press foisted off on this board to the unsuspecting and uncritical as “scientific evidence” by people who have demonstrated absolutely no background or expertise that would qualify them to evaluate or conduct such tests. And all of this to the aim that the regulars here can delude themselves into believing that they are intellectually superior to the people that post over at AA, whom they often endearingly refer to as “stupid”, “fools”, “flat-earthers”, “believers in alien abductions” and “terminally gullible”.

RG responds:
This is a epic slam from the grandmaster of put-downs, in a style so clever that 1,000,000
Jon Risch's at 1,000,000 typewriters could not hope to match.

I predict that by the end of the year, after careful analysis of every word and many hostile debates on this forum, PC will declare that, in fact, these few words on wires were never spoken by Dr. Toole at all -- because if every fifth word is deleted, and the remaining paragraph is studied by looking at its reflection in a mirroe, it is plain to anyone with sense that the so-called "Toole Paragraph" really contains deranged alien commands to the WirePolice.

Either that, or a new debate will be launched on whether Dr. Toole knows anything of value about wires, since one person can't be an expert on everything, excluding Mtrycrafts, of course. As an example, let's consider Albert Einstein -- he couldn't figure out his income tax.

Gee, and I thought I was being so gentle and respectful.

Speaking of bazaar twists that could occur before the end of the year, I have not ruled out the possibility of voting for JFK. If I do, you can have a field day rubbing my face in that.

Also, don't know if you're a Sarah Brightman fan at all, but we saw her at America West Arena on Tuesday, and it was one of the most enjoyable concerts I've been to in a logn time. Given my hick, southwestern taste in music, I know that isn't saying much, but I highly recommend catching her on her current tour if at all possible.

Quite a spectacular show.

[E-Stat]

Also, don't know if you're a Sarah Brightman fan at all, but we saw her at America West Arena on Tuesday, and it was one of the most enjoyable concerts I've been to in a logn time..
I have enjoyed her voice since the Phantom days and being the fool that I am, I missed her performance here in Atlanta.

rw

[Richard Greene]

"Speaking of bazaar twists that could occur before the end of the year, I have not ruled out the possibility of voting for JFK. If I do, you can have a field day rubbing my face in that."

RG:
I'm still waitin' for that there Iraqi Dumbocracy you predicted.
I see nothing in JFK's record that even suggests he was against the Iraq War,
which is my big beef with tweedle dumb. In fact, at one time JFK was calling for 40,000 more troops. So it seems it's a rich white Yale guy from MA vs. a rich white Yale guy from TX. Too bad Howard temper tantrum Dean is gone -- he was different --
a rich white Yale guy from VT. I could not possibly vote for an ultraliberal like Kerry
even though I often consider voting out the incumbent rather than my usual wasted vote
on the Libertarian candidate that 99% of voters will ignore. Bush is history unless there is an unexpected surge for Nader who was an oddball when I heard him speak in college about 35 years ago ... and is now just an old odd ball. Bush can't stand up to the fact that there will be at least 1.5 million fewer jobs during his term -- claiming it would have been worse without tax cuts just doesn't create a positive message, even though probably true.
.
.
.
."Also, don't know if you're a Sarah Brightman fan at all, but we saw her at America West Arena on Tuesday, and it was one of the most enjoyable concerts I've been to in a long time. "

RG
Thanks for the tip. I've been seeing performers I should have seen 30-40 years ago in their prime and never did: Aretha Franklin a few weeks ago and Al Green next week.
Some young talent would be a change of pace after these geezers.

I just know 30 years from now baby-boomer audiophiles will be "debating" whose hearing aid sounds more natural and whether high-end aides create a better stereo image.

[mtrycraft]

Your first sentence makes an absolute claim. What is your basis for that claim? Do you also claim he did not approve it before it went out? If so, what is your basis for that claim?.


Since when does the VP of research write speaker manuals or signs off on them? Harman ain't a mom and pop operation. But, hey, kill two birds, send an email and ask, this and about the cables he tested.

[mtrycraft]

I assert no hard proof other than observations over thirty years of experience with some nice gear. And that of many trusted ears I have known over the years. Take it or leave it.

FWIW, I do place cables last in the order of audible hierarchy in an audio system.

1. Speakers
2. Source(s)
3. Amplification
4. Rooms and treatments
5. Cables

rw


Ah, yes, 30 years of flawed observations and you expect that to have any merit, any meaning? Hardly.

[mtrycraft]

While I expect you duck this question as you do all others when it comes to your direct experience (do you really have any?) and system, I will ask it anyway.

What are the dimensions of your listening room and what treatments do you have?

Mine is 30 x 15 x 7. Since it is located in the basement, it has carpet over a poured concrete floor. As a "daylight" basement, there are windows on the end wall behind the listening position. I have six foot tall bass traps in the back corners, use room lenses behind the panels, wall diffusors on the back walls, and use eggcrate material on one side and a Ficus tree on the other for first reflection point damping. The ceiling uses acoustical tile. Slap echo is pretty tame and the traps have successfully smoothed out the bass nodes pretty well.

rw


Still irrelevant, isn't it, whether or not I have a second of experience, or a system, a boombox or a clock radio. Since you seem to be hanging all your claims on yours, you have a whole lot of luggage, burden of proof, to support your claims. Please feel free to criticise my spelling or grammar as you don't seem to be able to support any of your claims with evidence.

[pctower]

Ah, yes, 30 years of flawed observations and you expect that to have any merit, any meaning? Hardly.

Oh yes. Placebo is so all encompassing, all powerful, all everything that it permeated every nook, cranny and second of his last 30 years, causing every one of his experiences to be flawed fantasy.

As with any extremist, your one-dimensional life view ultimately will self-destruct by virtue of your own tunnel vision.

[mtrycraft]

Of course he will duck the question. You will be treated in the most condescending fashion here with all kinds of attacks on what you don't know, but he won't reveal one damn fact about his background, experience or personal system.

Welcome to the virtual house of cards built out of intellectual arrogance, hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, double standards, and a smattering of dusty counterfeit blind tests published in the mainly now-defunct everything-sounds-the-same press foisted off on this board to the unsuspecting and uncritical as “scientific evidence” by people who have demonstrated absolutely no background or expertise that would qualify them to evaluate or conduct such tests. And all of this to the aim that the regulars here can delude themselves into believing that they are intellectually superior to the people that post over at AA, whom they often endearingly refer to as “stupid”, “fools”, “flat-earthers”, “believers in alien abductions” and “terminally gullible”.


Just as soon as you can tell me how any of it is relevant to the issues at hand? It isn't, just in case you have a difficult time finding a reason.

I see you still have yet to cite a single reference to positive results for differences. Why is that?

[mtrycraft]

-- claiming it would have been worse without tax cuts just doesn't create a positive message, even though probably true. .


But not testable as any such speculations.

[mtrycraft]

Oh yes. Placebo is so all encompassing, all powerful, all everything that it permeated every nook, cranny and second of his last 30 years, causing every one of his experiences to be flawed fantasy.

As with any extremist, your one-dimensional life view ultimately will self-destruct by virtue of your own tunnel vision.


Oh, the placebo is all around, never know when it strikes or sleeps. Thirty years is not an insurance policy against it. But what do I know? I have no experience, I don't know a thing, I don't have a system, all irrelevant, really. His experience makes him happy, great. But, it is really meaningless to others as it is so unreliable.

Self destruct? No, I will die of old age, or an accident or become fatally ill.
Tunnel vision? Help me out of it then. Just a few real citations to support any claims for differences will do.

[WmAx]

I'll pass for the time being.

I'm much more interested in the mystery of why you won't publicly reveal your communication with Dr. Toole.

Perhaps could it be that you and he are one and the same?

Actually, this might mean nothing, maybe something. At this suggestion, for fun, i read some random post by mtrycrafts from years past as found on google web search. The result? On several occasions he makes comments about psychoacoustics and related functions in a very authorative-type manner, like somenoe who is very experienced in this field. The excerts that I read happened to be extremely accurate. Logically, the next step would be to find what state Toole lived in when mtrycrafts used to post on AA. You can look up the regional location of the IP addresses, usually, and AA attaches this data(and assuming he did not use a proxy or use a non-local dial in to mask his location). Next, try to match grammatical patterns from mtrycrafts to known Toole texts..... Hopefully be able to find a connecting incidence and/or error that mtrycrafts moniker has made that can conncect him to Toole...

Hey... like I said, this may be a wild goose chase(probably is!), but anything for entertainment. Of course, I'm far too lazy to investiage further. :-)

-Chris

[pctower]

Actually, this might mean nothing, maybe something. At this suggestion, for fun, i read some random post by mtrycrafts from years past as found on google web search. The result? On several occasions he makes comments about psychoacoustics and related functions in a very authorative-type manner, like somenoe who is very experienced in this field. The excerts that I read happened to be extremely accurate. Logically, the next step would be to find what state Toole lived in when mtrycrafts used to post on AA. You can look up the regional location of the IP addresses, usually, and AA attaches this data(and assuming he did not use a proxy or use a non-local dial in to mask his location). Next, try to match grammatical patterns from mtrycrafts to known Toole texts..... Hopefully be able to find a connecting incidence and/or error that mtrycrafts moniker has made that can conncect him to Toole...

Hey... like I said, this may be a wild goose chase(probably is!), but anything for entertainment. Of course, I'm far too lazy to investiage further. :-)

-Chris

Did a quick pass and all I could find was that he used AOL back in 1999.

But it was fascinating to see how much things have not changed.

Here's what Rod (AA's owner) said about mtrycrafts back in 1999:

> > 95% of the snide comments
are started by Mtry. He rarely answers the original post and then he baits every single poster in the thread with snide comments.

Ask a question about wire, 4 responses and 4 or 5 more from Mtry. If that's not trying to start an agrument, then do tell me what it is?

I'm sorry but folks can only take being snidely called a moron so many times and they'll snap. It is so hard to see? Unfortunately, it gets to the point some folks are conditioned to call Mtry names being he even opens his mouth (or presses submit).

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=13185&highlight=mtrycrafts&session=

I also found one post that suggested he at one time had been banned from this board.

A lot more juicy stuff there in those old AA archives. I find it mind-boggling that someone like Pat D has been around since at least 1999 and it's virtually impossible to distinguish his posts back then from the ones of today. Same with mtrycrafts.

I've always hated the put-down "get a life", but it just might apply in this case. Almost enough to shock me back to my senses and realize what a complete waste of time this is.

Thanks for the suggestion. It was fun going that far back in audio board history.

[Bobby Blacklight]

If you look at the brochure on the Lansing site

http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/jbl/specs/home-speakers/1999-tik/page12.jpg

The have a statement that the multiple binding posts are for the "serious audiphile" to use specially selected wire sets for each frequency range and up to 4 amplifiers. Which is all well and good except for the fact that you can't defeat the passive crossover, no biamp/quadamp switches. No one would passive biamp like that. JBL has advocated the benefits of bi-wiring in there owners manuals going back as for as the XPL series released in the late 1980's. So this is nothing new to them and was in there manuals before Dr.Toole came on board.

[mtrycraft]

JBL has advocated the benefits of bi-wiring in there owners manuals going back as for as the XPL series released in the late 1980's. .

So does Paradigm manual has that praise for buy-wiring, a company that uses extensive DBT testing. Yet when you call them and ask for DBT data to support this recommendation, the phone is silent.