bi-wiring

[sleeper_red]

is it worth bi-wiring the B&W 601 S3's and LCR60? I'm using Yamaha RX-V1400. thanks.

[pctower]

is it worth bi-wiring the B&W 601 S3's and LCR60? I'm using Yamaha RX-V1400. thanks.

My advice: don't bother asking questions like that on this board. All you will be told is that nothing having to do with cables makes a difference, including biwiring. That may or may not be true, but you will not get both sides of the story here.

If you already are predisposed to believing things like biwiring and after-market cables don't make a difference, you will have your belief reinforced here. If you really want to explore varied opinions, I suggest you look elsewhere.

For what it's worth, I have my B&W CDM-1s biwired in my home theater system as well as my Vandersteen 5s in my dedicated 2-channel system. Richard Vandersteen is one of the most respected speaker designers in the industry. I know him well and he is passionate about everything he does. He has always designed his speakers to perform best with biwiring and virtually insists on it for anyone who wants to get full performance out of his speakers.

[markw]

If you already are predisposed to believing things like biwiring and after-market cables do make a difference, you will not have your belief reinforced here. If you really want to get reinforcment of your beliefs, then follow the other guy's advice.

In other words, if you want real opinions and facts based on scientific rationale, not just starry eyed techno babble, then this is the place to be. Dissenting opinions aren't welcome on some other sites.

Results have been reported from anywhere between no difference to "unbelievable" but bear in mind that in today's market it's difficult to sell a speaker without the ability to bi-wire. ...regardless of whether it makes a difference or not. People want it. People will get it. At worst, putting jumpers in doesn't cost much and if a few more sales can be gained by doing it, why not?

[pctower]

If you already are predisposed to believing things like biwiring and after-market cables do make a difference, you will not have your belief reinforced here. If you really want to get reinforcment of your beliefs, then follow the other guy's advice.

In other words, if you want real opinions and facts based on scientific rationale, not just starry eyed techno babble, then this is the place to be. Dissenting opinions aren't welcome on some other sites.

Results have been reported from anywhere between no difference to "unbelievable" but bear in mind that in today's market it's difficult to sell a speaker without the ability to bi-wire. ...regardless of whether it makes a difference or not. People want it. People will get it. At worst, putting jumpers in doesn't cost much and if a few more sales can be gained by doing it, why not?

One of the biggest jokes of all is that you actually believe the DBTs that are talked about are scientifically valid.

[cam]

is it worth bi-wiring the B&W 601 S3's and LCR60? I'm using Yamaha RX-V1400. thanks.
I have bi-wired my speakers, I can't honestly tell you that there was any difference, but the main reason I did was because I did not need all that much more wire so the cost wasn't an issue but what was the issue was that I felt better about all my HT equipment. If you bi-wire and you think you have made an improvement to your sound then I say do it, but keep your expectations low.

[Geoffcin]

If you already are predisposed to believing things like biwiring and after-market cables do make a difference, you will not have your belief reinforced here. If you really want to get reinforcment of your beliefs, then follow the other guy's advice.

In other words, if you want real opinions and facts based on scientific rationale, not just starry eyed techno babble, then this is the place to be. Dissenting opinions aren't welcome on some other sites.

Results have been reported from anywhere between no difference to "unbelievable" but bear in mind that in today's market it's difficult to sell a speaker without the ability to bi-wire. ...regardless of whether it makes a difference or not. People want it. People will get it. At worst, putting jumpers in doesn't cost much and if a few more sales can be gained by doing it, why not?

Oh, I supposed that the only place to get "real" fact based opinions?

Personally I take a lot of the posts on this forum with a grain of salt. Some people purport to know all the "true" facts when in actuality they discount what their own ears tell them in favor of some tech sheet specs. Then you have others that based on their "superior knowledge" [sic] of electronics that you could not tell the difference between two components, for that matter. The forum is a good place to get bad advise on nearly anything if you listen to these people.

My advise is to go out and listen to a speaker that's been biwired, or biamped if you can. Then make up your mind for yourself without all the noise that this forum generates.

[Thomas_A]

Biwire as commonly made is of no benefit. Better make like this:

http://www.naqref.com/ekk.html

Solid core cable. Can be bought very cheap. Not very flexible though.

For lowest inductance keep connect wires like described in:

http://www.jenving.se/pro.htm

BTW, If you have a jumper at the loudspeaker terminal (double-binding posts), keep it.

T

[markw]

One of the biggest jokes of all is that you actually believe the DBTs that are talked about are scientifically valid.

...is your oh so impartial advice. Who said anything about DBT's? FWIW, they are more reliable than sighted listening. The force has a strong impact on those who want to believe.

You've been a lawyer so long you can't tell the truth from a lie. ...particularly when you tell them. Is that a turtleneck you're wearing or is that your foreskin creeping up again?

[markw]

Oh, I supposed that the only place to get "real" fact based opinions?.

At least here both sides of the argument are allowed. Too bad thesame can't be said for "the other" forum.


Personally I take a lot of the posts on this forum with a grain of salt..

One could easily say the same about "the other" forum. Many do. Particurlarly those who have not been baptised in the gospel of the omnipotent JR.


Some people purport to know all the "true" facts when in actuality they discount what their own ears tell them in favor of some tech sheet specs. Then you have others that based on their "superior knowledge" [sic] of electronics that you could not tell the difference between two components, for that matter. .

And some would rather go purely on what they "believe" they experience. Hey, I saw David Copperfield make the space shuttle disappear. I wnted to believe it. Does that make it real?



The forum is a good place to get bad advise on nearly anything if you listen to these people..

Again, one could easily say the same about "the other". But hey, if you want reinforecment of ehat you WANT to believe, then go ahead. There's also forums devoted to Elvis sightings, Bigfoot sightings and a multitude of other faith based items as well.



My advise is to go out and listen to a speaker that's been biwired, or biamped if you can. Then make up your mind for yourself without all the noise that this forum generates.

Now here I won't disagree. One SHOULD listen for themselves. But, one must also be aware that many times expectations can override reality.

And, I thought we were talking about biwiring? Aren't you aware that biamping is not the same thing? Why not drag bipolar into this as well. From some of the personality traits I see among some around here, it's more fitting than biamping.

But, who ever said biamping was useless? Is this yet another attempt at the famed "straw man" argument that cable believers always, without fail, fall back on? When out of facts, misstate the original statement and argue that instead. Impresses the bejeezus out of the simple minded.

And, if you want "noise" to support bi-wiring without a voice of reasoned opposition then feel free try that other forum. All the support you want. But don't ever look behind the curtain when in the Emerald City. Remember, you're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

[mtrycraft]

My advice: don't bother asking questions like that on this board. All you will be told is that nothing having to do with cables makes a difference, including biwiring. That may or may not be true, but you will not get both sides of the story here.

If it is true, what is there to get another side to it? If it is false, there must be evidence to that fact. I don't suppose you can point to such evidence? Why not?

If you really want to explore varied opinions, I suggest you look elsewhere.

I thought he may be interested in facts.

[b] Richard Vandersteen is one of the most respected speaker designers in the industry. I know him well and he is passionate about everything he does. He has always designed his speakers to perform best with biwiring and virtually insists on it for anyone who wants to get full performance out of his speakers.[/QUOTE]

And other esteemed designers opt to not include it as it is BS. I wonder if RV has conducted any DBT to confirm his implied claims for it.

[mtrycraft]

My advise is to go out and listen to a speaker that's been biwired, or biamped if you can. Then make up your mind for yourself without all the noise that this forum generates.

And how do you suppose he should account for bias? What, dismiss it? Then you have no idea how reliable your perception is. Most likely it will be unreliable. Great advice.

[pctower]

...is your oh so impartial advice. Who said anything about DBT's? FWIW, they are more reliable than sighted listening. The force has a strong impact on those who want to believe.

You've been a lawyer so long you can't tell the truth from a lie. ...particularly when you tell them. Is that a turtleneck you're wearing or is that your foreskin creeping up again?

The second biggest joke of all is that posts like that reflect on you not on me. If that's the way you want to project your public image, well that's your choice. Oh, I almost forgot. You cowardly hide behind your anonimity so you can say things you would never say in person, as opposed to me who takes full personal responsibility for everything I post on the internet.

Now, let's see - whose foreskin is really starting to shrink here? Well, I guess if in your case we really wanted to be scientic about it we'd need a microscope to be able to tell.

FWIW, these boggus DBTs are far worse than sighted, because they are cited by scientist-wanabees like you as actually demonstrating something reliable.

[markw]

Your ONLY input around here seems to always, without exception, contain some kind of dif against those who don't share your opinions. Perhaps if you could just state an opinion without the patented Pctower pre-emptive strike against those who don't share your opinion things would be different.

It's too bad you can't respond civily when anyone posts something disagreeing with you. I didn't attack you or your idras. I simply stated mine with no attacks. Well, no more than your post did, anyway. Now you go ahead and use my text and go off in another direction entirely?

Face it, Phil. You're a yeasayer. To deny this is to deny that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Your posts drip of venom intended for naysayers. This "I don't know what to believe" charade you insist on putting on might fool the first time posters here, but for those of us (well, me at least), it's a joke and you will be treated as such.

Your profession has less to do with the truth than clouding the issue enough with enough unprovable half truths so people don't know what to believe. You consistently prove that here. At least I try to keep it focused on the issue with logic, except for a good jab once in a while. You DO get worked up about this, don't you?

Keep on setting me up, Phil. I love straight lines and I have more lawyer jokes than you can imagine. Keep taking yourself and this forum so seriously and you'll hear them, one after another as the climate dictates. Not to mention your blood pressure...

Also, it's probably time to take your prozac. You're getting testy again. You're fun when you get testy. Do I grok another temper tantrum coming on?

"FWIW, these boggus DBTs are far worse than sighted, because they are cited by scientist-wanabees like you as actually demonstrating something reliable."

Yeah, right. Sighted testing is so, so much more reliable. Attitudes, beliefs and expectations left free to run wild and cloud one's judgment unimpaired. Good legal talk here. Clouding the issue again I see.

Keep on keepin;' on, Phil. Each time you do, I see it as my place to pull down the zipper of your deception and expose you for what you are.

Have a nice day. See ya later. ...unless you keep to the issue that is.

[mtrycraft]

but the main reason I did was because I did not need all that much more wire so the cost wasn't an issue but what was the issue was that I felt better about all my HT equipment.


That is an excellent reason to do it. :)

[zapr]

..........IMO biwiring can reduce distortion more so in the treble region adding air and more instrument separation and clarity. The improvment is subtle but IMO subtle can be a big improvement. I can't show any data or evidence on this but suggest you at lest try it........Zapr.

[92135011]

Some people wire the woofer with thick wires and the tweeter with thin wires in hopes to enhance the upper and lower ranges. However, sometimes that messes up the midrange, which is probably the biggest separating factor between the cheap 50 dollar speakers and the decent 300 dollar ones. So be careful. You dont want to mess up your midrange. Most instuments and the human voice all reside in the midrange. Without good midrange, you might not get the most out of your gear.

Besides, some hi-end speakers such as sonus faber (or is it faber sonus) do not offer biwire capabilies. So it may not be the best idea. Dont forget the extra cost of wiring.

[pctower]

Your ONLY input around here seems to always, without exception, contain some kind of dif against those who don't share your opinions. Perhaps if you could just state an opinion without the patented Pctower pre-emptive strike against those who don't share your opinion things would be different.

It's too bad you can't respond civily when anyone posts something disagreeing with you. I didn't attack you or your idras. I simply stated mine with no attacks. Well, no more than your post did, anyway. Now you go ahead and use my text and go off in another direction entirely?

Face it, Phil. You're a yeasayer. To deny this is to deny that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Your posts drip of venom intended for naysayers. This "I don't know what to believe" charade you insist on putting on might fool the first time posters here, but for those of us (well, me at least), it's a joke and you will be treated as such.

Your profession has less to do with the truth than clouding the issue enough with enough unprovable half truths so people don't know what to believe. You consistently prove that here. At least I try to keep it focused on the issue with logic, except for a good jab once in a while. You DO get worked up about this, don't you?

Keep on setting me up, Phil. I love straight lines and I have more lawyer jokes than you can imagine. Keep taking yourself and this forum so seriously and you'll hear them, one after another as the climate dictates. Not to mention your blood pressure...

Also, it's probably time to take your prozac. You're getting testy again. You're fun when you get testy. Do I grok another temper tantrum coming on?

"FWIW, these boggus DBTs are far worse than sighted, because they are cited by scientist-wanabees like you as actually demonstrating something reliable."

Yeah, right. Sighted testing is so, so much more reliable. Attitudes, beliefs and expectations left free to run wild and cloud one's judgment unimpaired. Good legal talk here. Clouding the issue again I see.

Keep on keepin;' on, Phil. Each time you do, I see it as my place to pull down the zipper of your deception and expose you for what you are.

Have a nice day. See ya later. ...unless you keep to the issue that is.

People who continue to pound lawyer jokes into the ground are dull, uncreative, unimaginative boors, who want to sound clever and funny, but merely demonstrate how shallow they are. Cheapshots are just that - cheap - relied upon by automatons who never had an original thought in their minds.

People who make broad generalizations about lawyers, or any other group of people, are nothing more than idiots who insist on demonstrating their lack of critical thinking ability.

As for what to label me, I'll let you go to the sandbox argue over naysayers and yeasayers with Jon Risch.

Your posts drip of venom intended for naysayers.

You ought to see what my posts drip with when I'm talking about people like Risch and Curl (who you would label "yeasayers"). My posts drip of venom for people who engage in sloppy thinking and make unsupported accusations or claims, regardless of which side they happen to be on. My posts drip with venom for those who espouse dogma, regardless of which version, instead of dealing in rational, productive, fair dialog.

You want me to state some opinions. Well, the following is a collection of some I have stated in the past. Are these enough "opinions" for one day?

My experience with cables:

I’ve been using after-market cables for over 20 years. About 3 years ago, as I was in the process of making some major changes to my system and setting up a dedicated listening room, I auditioned at great length in my system in excess of 20 different brands of cables before I chose the combination of power cords, interconnects, speaker cables, digital cable and phono cable that works for me. However, all of my auditions were sighted and in light of what scientific research has shown as to how unreliable hearing and our other senses can be, there is no way I could claim, from a scientific viewpoint, that any of the cables actually were responsible for audible sonic differences. I am extremely happy with my choices, but I really don’t know what is truly responsible for my perceptions, and when I sit down to listen to music I don’t care nor even think about it.

The Scientific Approach:

However, from a purely scientific viewpoint, sighted auditions are completely unreliable because, as I said, there is a great deal of scientific research that shows how unreliable our senses can be and how easily they can be affected by attitudes, beliefs and expectations, as opposed to the actual stimuli our senses are attempting to detect and differentiate.

Our brains are far more complex than any machine, but our evolutionary history has caused our senses to excel in areas that were important to our survival as a race and be far less reliable in areas that were not essential to survival. Accordingly, there are distinct limitations to the sensitivity of our senses and there is an extremely complex process that occurs in the brain as it receives and interprets nerve signals from our sensory organs. These brain processing functions also developed primarily to enable and enhance our survivability, and these brain processing functions, while probably extremely good at those things required for survival, may very well be woefully inadequate in enabling us to distinguish between actual audible sonic differences and those perceptions resulting from our attitudes, beliefs and expectations.

I have lost the link, but a report was published several months ago in which psychologists were able to imprint in the memories of approximately one-third of the participants vivid memories of having seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. Well, we all know that Bugs Bunny never appears at Disneyland, and yet the implanted memories were as real to these people as any memory.

Our evolution has imbued our senses with marvelous capabilities, but it, as I say, has also resulted in some clear limitations both in sensitivity and how our brain processes nerve signals. Fortunately, our intellect has allowed us to analyze and understand much about how our senses and our brains interact and also to develop incredible technology to fill in the gaps where our senses and brain processing functions are unreliable.

It actually is a little sad to me when I see how many people seem to want to reject the understanding, knowledge and instruments for measurements that our intellect has blessed us with, simply because at times the conclusions to which all of these wonderful tools may lead are at variance with what our unaided, and often unreliable, senses and brain processing functions seem to be telling us at an experiential level.

Placebo effect:

The placebo effect is an established fact, outside audio. Many audiophiles who are often referred to as “golden ears” claim that they don't suffer from the same influences as mere mortals. The people who challenge such claims are right in stating that audio is subject to the same problems as any other research that involves human perceptions?

I also think that people who claim that differences exist have the burden of proof to show that they can actually hear differences under control conditions. I don’t think very sophisticated cable DBTs have ever been performed, but those DBTs that have been performed, to the best of my knowledge, all showed null results.

Why aren’t DBTs’ Performed Much:

In general, I don’t expect that many, if any, professionally conducted, independently verified and peer reviewed cable DBTs will ever be run. Despite what the naysayers say, the cable companies have no incentive to run these tests. It’s a lose-lose situation for them. The vast percentage of customers who will buy expensive cables don’t care about DBTs, but might be affected negatively if a number of companies failed to verify differences through exhaustive and professionally conducted testing. On the other hand, if non-null results were produced, the yeasayers (who constitute virtually all of the potential customer base) wouldn’t care; and the naysayers would not start flooding to the stores to buy expensive cables, regardless of what they claim now. Naysayers by nature don’t spend a lot of money on their gear, and they won’t change because of a few non-null results. Moreover, even if every naysayer started buying expensive cables today, it wouldn’t dent the market because there are so few naysayers involved in the high end market.

The naysayers’ claim that they would flock to stores if non-null results start coming in is just patently absurd. None of these guys is sitting around impatiently waiting for “permission from mama” (in the form of verified, positive results) to run off and start throwing big bucks around on cables. If they actually believe their own nonsense on this particular point, then they are even more blinded by their own dogma than I imagine.

Moreover, despite the image naysayers like to portray of the cable industry (always portrayed with virtually no reliable facts to support such image) the vast majority of cable companies I’m aware of are small cottage industry types that don’t even have enough money to advertise, let alone fund expensive tests.

Finally, there is absolutely no reason why public funds would ever be made available for such testing.

Cable Battles:

I’ve been an obsessed audiophile for over 30 years. The battles here extend back decades, and not much has changed in that time. The same cable arguments are being made today that were made 20 years ago. I was always aware of such arguments, but never paid really close attention to the issues until I started visiting here.

I think the people who place themselves in the “objectivist” camp bring a valuable point of view to the table by demanding scientific proof. My big problem isn’t with that viewpoint, it’s with the way it is applied here. I don’t believe most of the regulars here come even close to adhering to sound scientific practices, methodology or critical thought practices that are at the core of the scientific method they profess to follow. Moreover, I think that many of them are as much a prisoner of their own dogma as are the “golden-ears” they routinely criticize. I see very little interest here in reaching the truth. I find that the goal here is to win arguments, not discuss intelligently. As I mentioned recently, I estimate that about 80% of my time here spent in serious argument has been devoted to dispelling miss-statements and miss-characterizations of my position and belief. I believe I have faced that problem either as a result of intentional efforts to discredit me or because the people on this board are such prisoners of their own dogma they simply can’t read and understand what I’m saying. That is why I even gave up trying to carry on any reasonable dialog here.

As for the “golden-ears”, I think most of their typical claims are foolish. However, I have no problem with the way most of them choose personally to buy cables, because that it the way I have always done it and how, if I ever find the need to buy another cable, will continue to do it. From my point of view, that’s a personal issue and a personal decision, and if someone doesn’t like it, tough.

DBTs:

My main point with regards to cable DBTs is to ask those who claim that cable DBTs have repeatedly shown null results is to ask those who make such claims to direct my attention to those tests that have been conducted under circumstances that would pass muster in a college level science class, could be accepted for publication is a recognized science journal, or comport with the standards of a recognized science lab. That is the type of question that is routinely asked in court of those experts who express opinions based on the outcome of scientific testing. I would assume, based on numerous discussions I have had with scientists (including my nephew’s wife who is working on her PhD in physics at Lawrence Livermore through Berkley and who has already received several awards in her area of research) that scientists also routinely ask themselves.

In fact, several months ago I related a story here that she shared with me of how her team had lost almost 9 months worth of time by relying, at the insistence of senior scientists, upon published studies that were widely accepted as correct, only to find out that these studies were flat out wrong and led them down the wrong path. So even when people attempt to follow careful protocol (and I’m assuming here that the people that published those earlier studies weren’t intentionally trying to come up with the wrong result) it is certainly possible that invalid results can occur. I would assume that this is one reason why Carl Sagan, suggested the tools for critical thinking set forth in the next section.

Thinking:

Thanks to MM, I picked up the follow from Carl Sagan and have posted it numerous times, because it is the best description I have ever read of how I believe one should approach the pursuit of knowledge:


Tools for skeptical thinking by Carl Sagan

What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and -- especially important -- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true.

Among the tools:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the "facts."

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight -- "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses," has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.*

* NOTE: This is a problem that affects jury trials. Retrospective studies show that some jurors make up their minds very early -- perhaps during opening arguments -- and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence. The method of alternative working hypotheses is not running in their heads.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7. If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) -- not just most of them.

8. Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle -- an electron, say -- in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof?

10. You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

11. The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is key, as I tried to stress earlier. We will not learn much from mere contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than none. But what happens if we can invent several? How do we decide among them? We don't. We let experiment do it.

Waveforms and the Laws of Nature

Just as the laws of nature (physics) govern how the cannonball and the feather will fall in a vacuum, the laws of nature (the laws that govern the physical universe) ultimately govern every process involved in the electronic reproduction of music including how we perceive that reproduction. Accordingly, at least theoretically, there is nothing involved in that process that should be beyond the ability of science to measure and explain.

Let’s take a look at what we are talking about here. I assume we all can agree that sound travels in waves, and that the electronic reproduction of sound is explained by the processes that occurs at the microphone where sound waves are translated into electronic signal, at the point where that signal is somehow stored, and later at the point where that signal (in the form of waveforms that can be measured) are retrieved to be amplified and sent on to the speaker, where a process occurs which is essentially the opposite of what occurred at the microphone.

Ideally the sound waves emitted by the speaker would be identical to those that hit the microphone. Of course, everyone recognizes that with our current technology that is not possible. However, at each stage from microphone to speaker we have the technology to measure alterations that occur to the waveform of the electronic signal from the point it enters the given stage to the point it leaves that same stage, including temporal relationships. Thus, with respect to cables, if we look at the waveform, including temporal relationships, both at the input and output of the cable and find no difference, then, assuming we have measured the waveform going in to the cable and waveform going out, including temporal relationships, to a point of sensitivity greater than what is known regarding the sensitivity of human hearing (which isn’t particularly good), and we see no measurable change caused by the cable, then I can see no way to conclude that the cable is affecting the wave form in its long journey from microphone to speaker.

Moreover, if we make those measurements on cable X and cable Y and neither shows any effect on the waveform, but in sighted auditions people claim they hear clear differences between the two cables, I can see no possible way that one could come to any other conclusion than that the differences are due to factors such as the attitude, beliefs and expectations of the people who perceive differences, rather than to anything the cables are actually doing or not doing to be responsible for such differences in perception. I would really like someone to explain how we could come to any other conclusion under such circumstances.

If the waveforms coming out of the speakers are identical as cable X and cable Y are switched in and out of the system, and assuming no other changes such as moving the speakers, then the waveforms hitting the listeners ear will not be changed by a switching of these two cables (because remember I am assuming the waveforms were shown in measurements to be identical using instruments capable of greater sensitivity than human hearing), and yet people claim to hear differences between cables X and cable Y, then the only explanation for such differences has to be what happens inside the heads of the listeners once the sound waves hit their ear drum.

So, the processes involved in electronic reproduction of music, and the laws of nature that govern these processes are well known. Moreover, from what I understand we have instruments that can measure the effect these processes have on the shape and temporal relationship of the waveforms as they travel from microphone to speaker and on to ear drum. If no change can be found in the waveforms as they are emitted by the speaker, or even as they come out of the cable, regardless of whether cable X or cable Y is used, then we either have to conclude that differences have been perceived by the listeners because of (A) the placebo effect, or (B) because of some supernatural force that has never been documented in anything other than audio cables.

Now of course, if the measurements were to show that switching cables X and Y in and out of the system did cause a difference in the signal coming out of each cable significant enough to ultimately cause a difference in the waveforms emitted by the speakers, then one could properly conclude that at least some of the differences perceived by the listeners between the two cables is due to an actual, measurable physical phenomenon occurring within the cable. However, to the best of my knowledge, such measured differences have never been made between two similar cables of similar length and gauge.

In short, the laws that govern the physical universe dictate both how the cannonball and the feather fall in a vacuum and how cables affect the waveforms. There is no room for subjectivity in any of this if the physical phenomenon going on between the input and output of the cables don’t show some effect on the waveforms and/or their temporal relationships that is significant enough to cause an actual audible effect. In such a case, the subjectivity, of necessity, becomes solely a factor of what happens once the ear drum sends the nerve signals on the way to the brain.

If anyone can show me where I am wrong in any of this, I’m all ears, so to speak.

General Thoughts

I have tried to make it as clear as possible here that on a personal basis, I choose components and cables solely on what sounds best to me and what improves my enjoyment of my system, without any consideration given to technology. I even said I didn't care if a designer's chief design tool was midnight séances, as long as his product improved my enjoyment of my system and I judged the improvement to be worth the dollar cost. I think if anyone were to look at my system posted in the Inmate System section (over at AA), and read the review I posted on Sahuaro Cables under my prior moniker, pctower, they would have to conclude that I’m hardly an enemy of high-end cables.

I have also tried to make it clear that not only do I not rely on DBTs to choose my components and cables, but that I have never personally participated in any kind of blind audio test.

With regard to the scientific side of cables and audio in general, I think I have also made it clear that the only thing I'm interested in is an open and productive search for the truth. I defy anyone to point to anything I have posted here that would nail me with respect to any dogma other than a desire to further the technical side, and understanding, of our hobby. If someone can point out any statement I have made here to the contrary, I will be happy to retract it, because I do not want to be misunderstood.

[okiemax]

GREAT POST !!. I enjoyed reading it, and appreciate the effort that must have gone into it

[Geoffcin]

Well, somebody's investing more than a little time on the forum. ;o)

One thing that I've never seen done, and I bet would be more revealing is instead of testing wires individually with a resistive load, to test them with a variety of speakers and see if there isn't just some kind of synergistic thing going on. My guess is that something interesting would show up, just as it's quite obvious that amps with nearly identical specs can sound better/worse with different speakers. I think it's one of the requirement of a scientist, or skeptic for that matter, is to keep an open mind.

[E-Stat]

People who continue to pound lawyer jokes into the ground are dull, uncreative, unimaginative boors...
Nice post, my friend. I'm just waiting to see what our vacuous friends will say! :)

rw

[markw]

People who continue to pound lawyer jokes into the ground are dull, uncreative, unimaginative boors, who want to sound clever and funny, but merely demonstrate how shallow they are. Cheapshots are just that - cheap - relied upon by automatons who never had an original thought in their minds.

People who make broad generalizations about lawyers, or any other group of people, are nothing more than idiots who insist on demonstrating their lack of critical thinking ability. .

Actually, I find most people, including my lawyer friends, enjoy a good lawyer joke. Where do you think I getthem all? I see no reason to stop making them. After all, had you not been so insistent on letting all of us know you were a lawyer when you first came here, I doubt it would be an issue. After all, you’re the one making “broad generalizations” that anyone here, myself included, who dares disagree with you is "spewing dogma".




As for what to label me, I'll let you go to the sandbox argue over naysayers and yeasayers with Jon Risch.. .

So, are you saying that you are neither? Funny, I thought I was the first “maysayer” on this board. Now you are claiming such status? That’s not what your posts would indicate. As for the past few years, I believe you know full well exactly where I stand on these matters. The fact that you know this simply redoubles my responses to you.




Your posts drip of venom intended for naysayers.

You ought to see what my posts drip with when I'm talking about people like Risch and Curl (who you would label "yeasayers"). My posts drip of venom for people who engage in sloppy thinking and make unsupported accusations or claims, regardless of which side they happen to be on. My posts drip with venom for those who espouse dogma, regardless of which version, instead of dealing in rational, productive, fair dialog. .

So, are you saying my posts “espouse dogma”? Is that what you call posters that don’t share your beliefs? I don’t see where my initial post in this thread “espoused dogma” any more than yours did. Mine was simply the flip side of the coin.




You want me to state some opinions. Well, the following is a collection of some I have stated in the past. Are these enough "opinions" for one day?

My experience with cables:

I’ve been using after-market cables for over 20 years. About 3 years ago, as I was in the process of making some major changes to my system and setting up a dedicated listening room, I auditioned at great length in my system in excess of 20 different brands of cables before I chose the combination of power cords, interconnects, speaker cables, digital cable and phono cable that works for me. However, all of my auditions were sighted and in light of what scientific research has shown as to how unreliable hearing and our other senses can be, there is no way I could claim, from a scientific viewpoint, that any of the cables actually were responsible for audible sonic differences. I am extremely happy with my choices, but I really don’t know what is truly responsible for my perceptions, and when I sit down to listen to music I don’t care nor even think about it. .

The fact that you are happy with your choices pleases me. Moreso, the fact that you realize that sighted testing is unreliable puzzles me, though. Whenever someone else mentions this, you jump on them with a curt post. Are they “espousing dogma”?




The Scientific Approach:

However, from a purely scientific viewpoint, sighted auditions are completely unreliable because, as I said, there is a great deal of scientific research that shows how unreliable our senses can be and how easily they can be affected by attitudes, beliefs and expectations, as opposed to the actual stimuli our senses are attempting to detect and differentiate.

Our brains are far more complex than any machine, but our evolutionary history has caused our senses to excel in areas that were important to our survival as a race and be far less reliable in areas that were not essential to survival. Accordingly, there are distinct limitations to the sensitivity of our senses and there is an extremely complex process that occurs in the brain as it receives and interprets nerve signals from our sensory organs. These brain processing functions also developed primarily to enable and enhance our survivability, and these brain processing functions, while probably extremely good at those things required for survival, may very well be woefully inadequate in enabling us to distinguish between actual audible sonic differences and those perceptions resulting from our attitudes, beliefs and expectations.

I have lost the link, but a report was published several months ago in which psychologists were able to imprint in the memories of approximately one-third of the participants vivid memories of having seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. Well, we all know that Bugs Bunny never appears at Disneyland, and yet the implanted memories were as real to these people as any memory.

Our evolution has imbued our senses with marvelous capabilities, but it, as I say, has also resulted in some clear limitations both in sensitivity and how our brain processes nerve signals. Fortunately, our intellect has allowed us to analyze and understand much about how our senses and our brains interact and also to develop incredible technology to fill in the gaps where our senses and brain processing functions are unreliable.

It actually is a little sad to me when I see how many people seem to want to reject the understanding, knowledge and instruments for measurements that our intellect has blessed us with, simply because at times the conclusions to which all of these wonderful tools may lead are at variance with what our unaided, and often unreliable, senses and brain processing functions seem to be telling us at an experiential level. .

Now I’m really confused here. You truly sound like those you attack . You acknowledge that attitudes, beliefs and expectations can “color” the results, thereby opening the door to false results. Again, you attack others who put forth this postulation. We do have at our disposal the means to see thru these false results, don’t you? That’s right....




Placebo effect:

The placebo effect is an established fact, outside audio. Many audiophiles who are often referred to as “golden ears” claim that they don't suffer from the same influences as mere mortals. The people who challenge such claims are right in stating that audio is subject to the same problems as any other research that involves human perceptions?

I also think that people who claim that differences exist have the burden of proof to show that they can actually hear differences under control conditions. I don’t think very sophisticated cable DBTs have ever been performed, but those DBTs that have been performed, to the best of my knowledge, all showed null results. .

Almost correct. This may be where the problem arises. The placebo effect is just as much an established fact in audio as it is anywhere else. Why would you think audio experts are immune from this? They do. Remember that Dunleavy, 12 gauge and the audiophiles trick?




Why aren’t DBTs’ Performed Much:

In general, I don’t expect that many, if any, professionally conducted, independently verified and peer reviewed cable DBTs will ever be run. Despite what the naysayers say, the cable companies have no incentive to run these tests. It’s a lose-lose situation for them. The vast percentage of customers who will buy expensive cables don’t care about DBTs, but might be affected negatively if a number of companies failed to verify differences through exhaustive and professionally conducted testing. On the other hand, if non-null results were produced, the yeasayers (who constitute virtually all of the potential customer base) wouldn’t care; and the naysayers would not start flooding to the stores to buy expensive cables, regardless of what they claim now. Naysayers by nature don’t spend a lot of money on their gear, and they won’t change because of a few non-null results. Moreover, even if every naysayer started buying expensive cables today, it wouldn’t dent the market because there are so few naysayers involved in the high end market. .

Now it’s the chicken or the egg thing. This can be an emotional hobby. Looking at that Dunleavy trick with the 12 gauge and the audiophiles shoes exactly how easy it is to talk someone into hearing what they are told to hear, not what they actually hear.

But, You’re right. The believers would swear they hear what they think they hear regardless of whatever scientific proof was against them. Many religions got started this way. As far as the naysayers go, well, when proof comes forth that there are significant sonic differences in cables perhaps then this issue can be revisited. I myself would be interested in seeing (hearing) what they have to offer. …and it will only take a good faith SBT on my side for me to admit I was wrong. And, yes, I am wrong on occasion. Not too often, but it has happened.

After all, I’ve heard improvements in virtually all other areas of audio over my 40+ years in this hobby. I'm still waiting for a similar leap in technology in cables.




The naysayers’ claim that they would flock to stores if non-null results start coming in is just patently absurd. None of these guys is sitting around impatiently waiting for “permission from mama” (in the form of verified, positive results) to run off and start throwing big bucks around on cables. If they actually believe their own nonsense on this particular point, then they are even more blinded by their own dogma than I imagine. .

I think “naysayers” would, like me, be open to the idea of improving their sound systems if good, solid evidence would manifest itself. As it now stands it’s technobabble, lots of “may result”, “could possibly” and other highly qualified statements, mostly put forth by cable manufacturers and gurus.




Moreover, despite the image naysayers like to portray of the cable industry (always portrayed with virtually no reliable facts to support such image) the vast majority of cable companies I’m aware of are small cottage industry types that don’t even have enough money to advertise, let alone fund expensive tests. .

I have no problems with cottage industries. I simply want a good reason to give up my hard earned cash to them. I’ve heard/read of more than one company who simply bought bulk cable and made cosmetic changes to it and marked it up an ungodly percentage. The names escape me but I’m sure you’ve read about them as well.

Ass faras cottage industries I see quite a few small amp and speaker manufacturers out there making their contribution. More power to them. Their worth is readily apparant upon listening to their products. Too bad the price disparity between the least expensive andthe most expensive cables is such that it inspires tremendous skepticism. ...as well it should.




Finally, there is absolutely no reason why public funds would ever be made available for such testing. .

Me either. It’s not a life and death situation.



Cable Battles:

I’ve been an obsessed audiophile for over 30 years. The battles here extend back decades, and not much has changed in that time. The same cable arguments are being made today that were made 20 years ago. I was always aware of such arguments, but never paid really close attention to the issues until I started visiting here.

I think the people who place themselves in the “objectivist” camp bring a valuable point of view to the table by demanding scientific proof. My big problem isn’t with that viewpoint, it’s with the way it is applied here. I don’t believe most of the regulars here come even close to adhering to sound scientific practices, methodology or critical thought practices that are at the core of the scientific method they profess to follow. Moreover, I think that many of them are as much a prisoner of their own dogma as are the “golden-ears” they routinely criticize. I see very little interest here in reaching the truth. I find that the goal here is to win arguments, not discuss intelligently. As I mentioned recently, I estimate that about 80% of my time here spent in serious argument has been devoted to dispelling miss-statements and miss-characterizations of my position and belief. I believe I have faced that problem either as a result of intentional efforts to discredit me or because the people on this board are such prisoners of their own dogma they simply can’t read and understand what I’m saying. That is why I even gave up trying to carry on any reasonable dialog here.

As for the “golden-ears”, I think most of their typical claims are foolish. However, I have no problem with the way most of them choose personally to buy cables, because that it the way I have always done it and how, if I ever find the need to buy another cable, will continue to do it. From my point of view, that’s a personal issue and a personal decision, and if someone doesn’t like it, tough. .

Phil, here’s where the problem arises. You attack all here who fall on the “objectivist” side of the tracks at one time or another. I can’t recall you ever attacking a subjectivist. Now I wonder who’s zooming who here, to quote an old friend.




DBTs:

My main point with regards to cable DBTs is to ask those who claim that cable DBTs have repeatedly shown null results is to ask those who make such claims to direct my attention to those tests that have been conducted under circumstances that would pass muster in a college level science class, could be accepted for publication is a recognized science journal, or comport with the standards of a recognized science lab. That is the type of question that is routinely asked in court of those experts who express opinions based on the outcome of scientific testing. I would assume, based on numerous discussions I have had with scientists (including my nephew’s wife who is working on her PhD in physics at Lawrence Livermore through Berkley and who has already received several awards in her area of research) that scientists also routinely ask themselves.

In fact, several months ago I related a story here that she shared with me of how her team had lost almost 9 months worth of time by relying, at the insistence of senior scientists, upon published studies that were widely accepted as correct, only to find out that these studies were flat out wrong and led them down the wrong path. So even when people attempt to follow careful protocol (and I’m assuming here that the people that published those earlier studies weren’t intentionally trying to come up with the wrong result) it is certainly possible that invalid results can occur. I would assume that this is one reason why Carl Sagan, suggested the tools for critical thinking set forth in the next section.

Thinking:

Thanks to MM, I picked up the follow from Carl Sagan and have posted it numerous times, because it is the best description I have ever read of how I believe one should approach the pursuit of knowledge: .


I’ll not argue the Carl Sagan quotes. Both sides could learn from him. A great man who will be sorely missed. And, he was grew up in the town next to me. For the sake of berivity I’ll not repost them here.




Waveforms and the Laws of Nature

Just as the laws of nature (physics) govern how the cannonball and the feather will fall in a vacuum, the laws of nature (the laws that govern the physical universe) ultimately govern every process involved in the electronic reproduction of music including how we perceive that reproduction. Accordingly, at least theoretically, there is nothing involved in that process that should be beyond the ability of science to measure and explain.

Let’s take a look at what we are talking about here. I assume we all can agree that sound travels in waves, and that the electronic reproduction of sound is explained by the processes that occurs at the microphone where sound waves are translated into electronic signal, at the point where that signal is somehow stored, and later at the point where that signal (in the form of waveforms that can be measured) are retrieved to be amplified and sent on to the speaker, where a process occurs which is essentially the opposite of what occurred at the microphone.

Ideally the sound waves emitted by the speaker would be identical to those that hit the microphone. Of course, everyone recognizes that with our current technology that is not possible. However, at each stage from microphone to speaker we have the technology to measure alterations that occur to the waveform of the electronic signal from the point it enters the given stage to the point it leaves that same stage, including temporal relationships. Thus, with respect to cables, if we look at the waveform, including temporal relationships, both at the input and output of the cable and find no difference, then, assuming we have measured the waveform going in to the cable and waveform going out, including temporal relationships, to a point of sensitivity greater than what is known regarding the sensitivity of human hearing (which isn’t particularly good), and we see no measurable change caused by the cable, then I can see no way to conclude that the cable is affecting the wave form in its long journey from microphone to speaker.

Moreover, if we make those measurements on cable X and cable Y and neither shows any effect on the waveform, but in sighted auditions people claim they hear clear differences between the two cables, I can see no possible way that one could come to any other conclusion than that the differences are due to factors such as the attitude, beliefs and expectations of the people who perceive differences, rather than to anything the cables are actually doing or not doing to be responsible for such differences in perception. I would really like someone to explain how we could come to any other conclusion under such circumstances.

If the waveforms coming out of the speakers are identical as cable X and cable Y are switched in and out of the system, and assuming no other changes such as moving the speakers, then the waveforms hitting the listeners ear will not be changed by a switching of these two cables (because remember I am assuming the waveforms were shown in measurements to be identical using instruments capable of greater sensitivity than human hearing), and yet people claim to hear differences between cables X and cable Y, then the only explanation for such differences has to be what happens inside the heads of the listeners once the sound waves hit their ear drum.

So, the processes involved in electronic reproduction of music, and the laws of nature that govern these processes are well known. Moreover, from what I understand we have instruments that can measure the effect these processes have on the shape and temporal relationship of the waveforms as they travel from microphone to speaker and on to ear drum. If no change can be found in the waveforms as they are emitted by the speaker, or even as they come out of the cable, regardless of whether cable X or cable Y is used, then we either have to conclude that differences have been perceived by the listeners because of (A) the placebo effect, or (B) because of some supernatural force that has never been documented in anything other than audio cables.

Now of course, if the measurements were to show that switching cables X and Y in and out of the system did cause a difference in the signal coming out of each cable significant enough to ultimately cause a difference in the waveforms emitted by the speakers, then one could properly conclude that at least some of the differences perceived by the listeners between the two cables is due to an actual, measurable physical phenomenon occurring within the cable.

[QUOTE=pctower]However, to the best of my knowledge, such measured differences have never been made between two similar cables of similar length and gauge. .

You might find this link interesting. Or maybe not. It might not be exactly what you want but it’s pretty durn close.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SpeakerCableFaceoff.htm

Interesting results, eh?




In short, the laws that govern the physical universe dictate both how the cannonball and the feather fall in a vacuum and how cables affect the waveforms. There is no room for subjectivity in any of this if the physical phenomenon going on between the input and output of the cables don’t show some effect on the waveforms and/or their temporal relationships that is significant enough to cause an actual audible effect. In such a case, the subjectivity, of necessity, becomes solely a factor of what happens once the ear drum sends the nerve signals on the way to the brain.

If anyone can show me where I am wrong in any of this, I’m all ears, so to speak. .

There’s the rub. Even by your own admission above, attitudes, beliefs and expectations play a major part in the preception of sound and these, my friend, all come into play after the eardrum. And yet you choose to conveniently ignore this when it suits you.




General Thoughts

I have tried to make it as clear as possible here that on a personal basis, I choose components and cables solely on what sounds best to me and what improves my enjoyment of my system, without any consideration given to technology. I even said I didn't care if a designer's chief design tool was midnight séances, as long as his product improved my enjoyment of my system and I judged the improvement to be worth the dollar cost. I think if anyone were to look at my system posted in the Inmate System section (over at AA), and read the review I posted on Sahuaro Cables under my prior moniker, pctower, they would have to conclude that I’m hardly an enemy of high-end cables. .


I have also tried to make it clear that not only do I not rely on DBTs to choose my components and cables, but that I have never personally participated in any kind of blind audio test. .

And by denying yourself the enlightening experience of even a single blind test for cables with one friend, you’ve chosen to ignore the possibility of proving or disproving either case. I guess ignorance is bliss. It saves having to face ones own demons. And yet you still claim to be sitting on the fence? When I see you treating subjectivests wit hequal vigor, perhaps then I'll change my attitude.




With regard to the scientific side of cables and audio in general, I think I have also made it clear that the only thing I'm interested in is an open and productive search for the truth. I defy anyone to point to anything I have posted here that would nail me with respect to any dogma other than a desire to further the technical side, and understanding, of our hobby. If someone can point out any statement I have made here to the contrary, I will be happy to retract it, because I do not want to be misunderstood.


Well Phil, your instant attack of my initial post here trying to hang me with DBT stuff is a pretty good indicator that your preceeding paragraph is total BS.

Where did I ever mention anything about DBT's? And yet you rail about naysayers making "broad generalizations" and "spouting dogma"? And now you cry about my taking a cheap shot with lawyer jokes? You're pretty good at throwing the first punch and then crying when it's returned. It's pretty easy to see where you're coming from.

As far as “the technical side”, it ain't all that difficult. All you ever needed to do is have a friend assist you in a simple single blind test. This was discussed several years ago and yet, nothing happened.

Aside from your actions on this forum and this fine piece of trying to weasel out of them, you’ve just lived up to my expectations. Your actions in this forum fail to meet your grandiose words in this post. You’re just grandstanding for the jury here.

Actions speak louder than words.

[mtrycraft]

... I can't show any data or evidence on this but suggest you at lest try it........Zapr.


That should be the easiest to get from the marketeers, yet it is nonexistant. I wonder why that is.
Why do I need to reinvent the wheel?

[pctower]

Actually, I find most people, including my lawyer friends, enjoy a good lawyer joke. Where do you think I getthem all? I see no reason to stop making them. After all, had you not been so insistent on letting all of us know you were a lawyer when you first came here, I doubt it would be an issue. After all, you’re the one making “broad generalizations” that anyone here, myself included, who dares disagree with you is "spewing dogma".

So, are you saying that you are neither? Funny, I thought I was the first “maysayer” on this board. Now you are claiming such status? That’s not what your posts would indicate. As for the past few years, I believe you know full well exactly where I stand on these matters. The fact that you know this simply redoubles my responses to you.

So, are you saying my posts “espouse dogma”? Is that what you call posters that don’t share your beliefs? I don’t see where my initial post in this thread “espoused dogma” any more than yours did. Mine was simply the flip side of the coin.

The fact that you are happy with your choices pleases me. Moreso, the fact that you realize that sighted testing is unreliable puzzles me, though. Whenever someone else mentions this, you jump on them with a curt post. Are they “espousing dogma”?

Now I’m really confused here. You truly sound like those you attack . You acknowledge that attitudes, beliefs and expectations can “color” the results, thereby opening the door to false results. Again, you attack others who put forth this postulation. We do have at our disposal the means to see thru these false results, don’t you? That’s right....

Almost correct. This may be where the problem arises. The placebo effect is just as much an established fact in audio as it is anywhere else. Why would you think audio experts are immune from this? They do. Remember that Dunleavy, 12 gauge and the audiophiles trick?

Now it’s the chicken or the egg thing. This can be an emotional hobby. Looking at that Dunleavy trick with the 12 gauge and the audiophiles shoes exactly how easy it is to talk someone into hearing what they are told to hear, not what they actually hear.

But, You’re right. The believers would swear they hear what they think they hear regardless of whatever scientific proof was against them. Many religions got started this way. As far as the naysayers go, well, when proof comes forth that there are significant sonic differences in cables perhaps then this issue can be revisited. I myself would be interested in seeing (hearing) what they have to offer. …and it will only take a good faith SBT on my side for me to admit I was wrong. And, yes, I am wrong on occasion. Not too often, but it has happened.

After all, I’ve heard improvements in virtually all other areas of audio over my 40+ years in this hobby. I'm still waiting for a similar leap in technology in cables.

I think “naysayers” would, like me, be open to the idea of improving their sound systems if good, solid evidence would manifest itself. As it now stands it’s technobabble, lots of “may result”, “could possibly” and other highly qualified statements, mostly put forth by cable manufacturers and gurus.

I have no problems with cottage industries. I simply want a good reason to give up my hard earned cash to them. I’ve heard/read of more than one company who simply bought bulk cable and made cosmetic changes to it and marked it up an ungodly percentage. The names escape me but I’m sure you’ve read about them as well.

Ass faras cottage industries I see quite a few small amp and speaker manufacturers out there making their contribution. More power to them. Their worth is readily apparant upon listening to their products. Too bad the price disparity between the least expensive andthe most expensive cables is such that it inspires tremendous skepticism. ...as well it should.

Me either. It’s not a life and death situation.

Phil, here’s where the problem arises. You attack all here who fall on the “objectivist” side of the tracks at one time or another. I can’t recall you ever attacking a subjectivist. Now I wonder who’s zooming who here, to quote an old friend.

I’ll not argue the Carl Sagan quotes. Both sides could learn from him. A great man who will be sorely missed. And, he was grew up in the town next to me. For the sake of berivity I’ll not repost them here.

You might find this link interesting. Or maybe not. It might not be exactly what you want but it’s pretty durn close.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SpeakerCableFaceoff.htm

Interesting results, eh?

There’s the rub. Even by your own admission above, attitudes, beliefs and expectations play a major part in the preception of sound and these, my friend, all come into play after the eardrum. And yet you choose to conveniently ignore this when it suits you.

And by denying yourself the enlightening experience of even a single blind test for cables with one friend, you’ve chosen to ignore the possibility of proving or disproving either case. I guess ignorance is bliss. It saves having to face ones own demons. And yet you still claim to be sitting on the fence? When I see you treating subjectivests wit hequal vigor, perhaps then I'll change my attitude.

Well Phil, your instant attack of my initial post here trying to hang me with DBT stuff is a pretty good indicator that your preceeding paragraph is total BS.

Where did I ever mention anything about DBT's? And yet you rail about naysayers making "broad generalizations" and "spouting dogma"? And now you cry about my taking a cheap shot with lawyer jokes? You're pretty good at throwing the first punch and then crying when it's returned. It's pretty easy to see where you're coming from.

As far as “the technical side”, it ain't all that difficult. All you ever needed to do is have a friend assist you in a simple single blind test. This was discussed several years ago and yet, nothing happened.

Aside from your actions on this forum and this fine piece of trying to weasel out of them, you’ve just lived up to my expectations. Your actions in this forum fail to meet your grandiose words in this post. You’re just grandstanding for the jury here.

Actions speak louder than words.


I have neither the time nor interest to deal with all your strawdogs. I’ll simply make a few comments.

I didn’t ask you to stop telling lawyer jokes. If you want to sound boorish or have a great need to demonstrate to the world you know how to buy books on amazon.com, be my guest.

I don’t attack the concept of DBTs. I attack people who cite test results that are based on faulty protocol and statistical analysis, and don the mantle of “science” in the process. Personally, I find that an abomination of true science.

I also attack the absolutist, unqualified advice (which is almost always couched as an implied unqualified claim that all cables of similar gauge and length sound the same) that is given newcomers here. My position and reason for my attacks on that have been well documented..

I don’t bother attacking subjectivists here. You and the rest of the grossly one-sided gang here do a great job of that. I do the attacking where it’s needed and where I don’t have the comfort of simply preaching to the choir. Just check out my posts at Prophead. I don’t need to cower behind the shield of anonymity nor do I need the protection of the wolfpack.

The fact that you think that any valid conclusions could be drawn from an amateurish single-blind (or double blind) test simply demonstrates how little you really know about the subject. Participation in such a test is nothing more than an opportunity to make the mistake of reaching a conclusion based on an anecdotal experience.

The reliability of DBT audio tests and the proper protocol and statistical analysis to be applied is an extremely complicated subject that has received almost no scholarly attention from anyone (beyond Dr. Toole’s work with speakers). Yet people like you perpetuate the myth that there have been a number of meaningful or properly conducted tests done on such things as cables.

Just because you claim to believe in science and the scientific method doesn’t mean, as you seem to believe, that you have applied it properly or that you are relying on the work of others who have and are therefore immune from criticism for the conclusions that you have drawn. This is a very simple fact that you and some others on this board simply are incapable of grasping. Just because I attack your specific flawed use of science doesn’t mean I’m anti-science. To the contrary, I’m the one who is insisting on strict adherence to the fundamental principles of the scientific method.

The tired old stories of people being fooled into believing they heard differences that really didn’t exist has been dissected from so many different angles, anyone would be a fool to draw any general conclusions from those stories.

As for actions, I'll stand by mine any day of the week. That's why I make a point of identifying who I am. I have little respect for cowards such as you who talk big, but refuse to asume personal responsibility for a single word you disseminate via the internet.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Your comment about my attacking all of the objectivists here at one time or another. When it comes to a true "objectivist" there is not a single person on this board, including you, that could hold a candle to Steve Eddy. He is scrupulous in his intelectual honesty. Not only have I never attacked him, Risch and his gang of thugs have often accused me of simply being his lapdog. When it comes to someone like Steve, whose powerful intellect, knowledge, experience, consistency, desire to seek the truth wherever that search may lead, and (above all in my book) scrupulous intellecual honesty, I would consider it an honor to be labeled as his lapdog. Not only do I have enormous respect for him, it is people like him who genuinely make me feel humble and insignificant.

Since you apparently have the need to substitute labels for thought (an affliction you seem to share with Jon Risch), perhaps "lapdog for Steve" is a label you would consider trying to pin on me.

[markw]

I have neither the time nor interest to deal with all your strawdogs. I’ll simply make a few comments.

What straw dogs? Oh, now I see… When you argue as subject other than that which was brought up, it’s all well and good. When someone confronts you with on this, suddenly it’s a “straw dog”. Great debating tactic, Phil. Ain’t workin’ here, though. When confronted with facts, act haughty and try to claim the high road… but only after dumping over everyone else.




I didn’t ask you to stop telling lawyer jokes. If you want to sound boorish or have a great need to demonstrate to the world you know how to buy books on amazon.com, be my guest. .

Thanks, I gots a million of them. As I can see from our dealings here, some are based on true facts.




I don’t attack the concept of DBTs. I attack people who cite test results that are based on faulty protocol and statistical analysis, and don the mantle of “science” in the process. Personally, I find that an abomination of true science.

Bull. You use DBT as much, or even more, that those you claim fall back on it. Look at post 4 in this thread. Who brought up DBT? Certainly not me.

But, I notice that subjectivists those who arrive at their conclusions without any testing whatsoever fall beneath your radar.

BTW, Phil, what did you make of that post at Audioholics. One would think a thank you would be in order here. Or did it not meet your needs?




I also attack the absolutist, unqualified advice (which is almost always couched as an implied unqualified claim that all cables of similar gauge and length sound the same) that is given newcomers here. My position and reason for my attacks on that have been well documented..

Yet you, yourself have no problem issuing it yourself. Look at the first paragraph in your initial post in this thread. Talk about the patented Pctower pre-emptive strike! Again, see the last sentence in above paragraph, wher esubjectivists seem immune from your attacks.




I don’t bother attacking subjectivists here. You and the rest of the grossly one-sided gang here do a great job of that. I do the attacking where it’s needed and where I don’t have the comfort of simply preaching to the choir. Just check out my posts at Prophead. I don’t need to cower behind the shield of anonymity nor do I need the protection of the wolfpack.

I don’t see myself as part of a wolfpack. I speak my own opinions regardless of whomever else agrees or disagrees. The fact thatyou see me as part of a pack simply points to ypir own paranoia, not to mention a budding messiah complex, which seems to be growing to the point as to rival that of JR.




The fact that you think that any valid conclusions could be drawn from an amateurish single-blind (or double blind) test simply demonstrates how little you really know about the subject. Participation in such a test is nothing more than an opportunity to make the mistake of reaching a conclusion based on an anecdotal experience.

Well, Phil., didn’t you arrive at your own conclusions without even examining them? At least I did question my abilities and preformed single blind tests before offering my results to others. How did you keep your human fralities in check? O, right, you’re above human fallings. You don’t need to question anything. Talk about a messiah complex…




The reliability of DBT audio tests and the proper protocol and statistical analysis to be applied is an extremely complicated subject that has received almost no scholarly attention from anyone (beyond Dr. Toole’s work with speakers). Yet people like you perpetuate the myth that there have been a number of meaningful or properly conducted tests done on such things as cables.

Yeah, bla bla bla. When you even try a simple single blind test I’ll consider your arguments here. As it now stands you are a walking example of hubris maximus. Spouting rhetoric out of both ends simultaneously. Output of either is totally indistinguishable from the other and 100% interchangeable.




Just because you claim to believe in science and the scientific method doesn’t mean, as you seem to believe, that you have applied it properly or that you are relying on the work of others who have and are therefore immune from criticism for the conclusions that you have drawn. This is a very simple fact that you and some others on this board simply are incapable of grasping. Just because I attack your specific flawed use of science doesn’t mean I’m anti-science. To the contrary, I’m the one who is insisting on strict adherence to the fundamental principles of the scientific method.

…and I’m the one saying to listen for yourself.. but question and verify the results. Funny, isn’t it? Who’se on first now?




The tired old stories of people being fooled into believing they heard differences that really didn’t exist has been dissected from so many different angles, anyone would be a fool to draw any general conclusions from those stories.


Take two responses twice daily and call me in the morning.





As for actions, I'll stand by mine any day of the week. That's why I make a point of identifying who I am. I have little respect for cowards such as you who talk big, but refuse to asume personal responsibility for a single word you disseminate via the internet.

My grandson, who was several months old, found a new media for artful expression in his diaper. When we found this out, he had created what, in his eyes, was a masterpiece and was smiling proudly at us.




Oh yeah, one more thing. Your comment about my attacking all of the objectivists here at one time or another. When it comes to a true "objectivist" there is not a single person on this board, including you, that could hold a candle to Steve Eddy. He is scrupulous in his intelectual honesty. Not only have I never attacked him, Risch and his gang of thugs have often accused me of simply being his lapdog. When it comes to someone like Steve, whose powerful intellect, knowledge, experience, consistency, desire to seek the truth wherever that search may lead, and (above all in my book) scrupulous intellecual honesty, I would consider it an honor to be labeled as his lapdog. Not only do I have enormous respect for him, it is people like him who genuinely make me feel humble and insignificant.

I’m not Steve Eddy. I’m merely a guy who, as per advice, tried something for himself. Isn’t that what everyone wants? It would seem that the only results you would be interested in are those that benefit your case. I suggest you re-read those hallowed words by Carl Sagan you like to drag out when it suits you.




Since you apparently have the need to substitute labels for thought (an affliction you seem to share with Jon Risch), perhaps "lapdog for Steve" is a label you would consider trying to pin on me.

Well, I’d say you’ve got your head in someone’s lap. From the way it’s facing, what you are doing, though, is subject to debate.

TTFN. See ya around.

[pctower]

BTW, Phil, what did you make of that post at Audioholics. One would think a thank you would be in order here. Or did it not meet your needs?

The link was dead. I didn't see it..

Yet you, yourself have no problem issuing it yourself. Look at the first paragraph in your initial post in this thread. Talk about the patented Pctower pre-emptive strike! Again, see the last sentence in above paragraph, wher esubjectivists seem immune from your attacks.

The fact that you consider my advice for him to get a broard range of viewpoints to be absolutist couldn't have illustrated better the mindset of many here that I take issue with.

I don’t see myself as part of a wolfpack. I speak my own opinions regardless of whomever else agrees or disagrees. The fact thatyou see me as part of a pack simply points to ypir own paranoia, not to mention a budding messiah complex, which seems to be growing to the point as to rival that of JR.

Of course you're part of a wolfpack. You won't go into enemy territory and fight for your beliefs. It's comfortable here for you where the vast majority agree with you and here is where you stay.

Well, Phil., didn’t you arrive at your own conclusions without even examining them? At least I did question my abilities and preformed single blind tests before offering my results to others. How did you keep your human fralities in check? O, right, you’re above human fallings. You don’t need to question anything. Talk about a messiah complex…

I probably question my listening abilities more than just about anyone. I'm fairly certain I'd flunk most DBTs as I have seen them described. The point you are missing is I have reached no conclusions. I have made purchasing decisions based on what improves my own personal perceptions of my own system. For me at that point it's entirely a hedonistic thing - no science involved whatsoever. Those perceptions remain constant after my purchasing decision, I remain happy and that's all I care about at that level. No conclusions are required there as I'm not trying to figure anything out or make claims I expect others to accept. The fact that you and many others here seem unable to understand that tells me that listening and entertainment is not your primary objectives in this hobby.

Yeah, bla bla bla. When you even try a simple single blind test I’ll consider your arguments here. As it now stands you are a walking example of hubris maximus. Spouting rhetoric out of both ends simultaneously. Output of either is totally indistinguishable from the other and 100% interchangeable.

Telling me I need to personally conduct a test in order for me to express the opinions I do here is like telling mtrycrafts he needs to have a system in order to challenge the claims of golden-ears.

I am careful to approach the subject from what can be verified by reliable scientific test results. I don't rely at all on my own experience when discussing DBTs, so it's irrelevant.

So is yours, BTW, as you present it. Nothing but anecdotal evidence - worthless (to use mtrycrafts' words).

…and I’m the one saying to listen for yourself.. but question and verify the results. Funny, isn’t it? Who’se on first now?

You are along with A&C who make about much sense as you do.

I’m not Steve Eddy. I’m merely a guy who, as per advice, tried something for himself. Isn’t that what everyone wants? It would seem that the only results you would be interested in are those that benefit your case. I suggest you re-read those hallowed words by Carl Sagan you like to drag out when it suits you.

Mark - at least have a little intellectual honesty and tell me exactly what you think my "case" is that I'm trying to benefit.

If you want to try blind tests for your own enjoyment - fine. But don't come here claiming that it provides you any special insight that lends credence to your belief regarding cables. That experience is worth no more than any of mine as far as advancing the state of collective human knowledge regarding this subject.

Valid DBTs conducted in accordance with protocol that is designed by true experts in such field would advance human knowledge in this area. From all I can tell, the "true experts" don't give a rat's behind about testing cables, amps, CD players or anything else of the sort. There is no market driven demand for such tests.

Yet people like you seem to persist in perpetuating the myth that there is a reliable body of DBT research in the non-speaker area of high end audio. There is not and I just wish you and your fellow travelers would get honest and admit it.

[jneutron]

For lowest inductance keep connect wires like described in:
http://www.jenving.se/pro.htm
T

From the link: ""for lowest inductance Connecting Rondo as shown in the figure below will make a lower inductance of 0.25 and 0.35 µH/m, respectively, which in turn makes them top class high-end loudspeaker cables.""

A typical zip cord measures .19 uH per foot, or .57 uH per meter. Two in parallel will give about .285 uH per meter. I'm not sure what in that makes it a "top class" cable.

Unfortunately, they do not provide capacitance figures, to show the tradeoff..

Here's a graph showing the C-L tradeoff for a double braid coax capacitance is pf per foot, inductance is nanohenries per foot.(zip cord is about 200nH per foot.)..Where would that wire fit in?

Or, are they saying R and L are the only relevant parameters?.

Cheers, John

[skeptic]

For typical loudspeakers with typical speaker wire lengths in home installations, may articles have documented the high end rolloff for most commonly used speaker wire including 16 gage lamp cord at well under one db at 20khz due strictly to the LC effects of speaker wire. Considering the other variables in a sound system which affect frequency response, this rolloff in absolute terms and certainly in terms of one wire to another seems not to have any significance in practical (audible terms.) DC resistance can be a factor where poorly damped speakers can have exaggerated low frequency resonances but the best solution to that problem would seem to be heavier gage wire and selection of an amplifier with an adequate damping factor.

Are there any documented non linear parameters worth considerning? I haven't seen any reported. Now that would be something to take seriously.

[jneutron]

You might find this link interesting. Or maybe not. It might not be exactly what you want but it’s pretty durn close.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SpeakerCableFaceoff.htm
Interesting results, eh?


That article has within it the caveat ""within the context of electrical test performance.""

Meaning, it's intent was solely to guage cables based on test metrics. not connecting them to speakers, seeing a difference, then applying the difference to hearing capabilities.

At no point in time, has the author stated he does or does not hear a difference, just that the metric is a reproduceable, test based one..

Course..he does quote some amazingly intelligent, articulate, and witty people in the article......:-)

Cheers, John

[pctower]

That article has within it the caveat ""within the context of electrical test performance.""

Meaning, it's intent was solely to guage cables based on test metrics. not connecting them to speakers, seeing a difference, then applying the difference to hearing capabilities.

At no point in time, has the author stated he does or does not hear a difference, just that the metric is a reproduceable, test based one..

Course..he does quote some amazingly intelligent, articulate, and witty people in the article......:-)

Cheers, John


Seeing your post just reminded me. Your candle burns every bit as bright, if not brighter, than Steve's.

[Thomas_A]

JNeutron,

their claims are that for loudspeaker cable, inductance and resistance are the most important parameters. Nothing more fancy than that. Capacitance is more important for interconnects.

Even if the "worst" cables of normal length show only 0.5 dB drop or so for 20 kHz due to high inductance it can be a good idea to have the values as low as possible. It's not uncommon with 0.5 dB deviations at 20 kHz from a flat response from many amps and CD players. It is thus possible that different combinations of CD players, amps and cables can reach a total difference of a couple of dB at 20 kHz, and thus display audible differences lower down in frequency.

T

[jneutron]

their claims are that for loudspeaker cable, inductance and resistance are the most important parameters. Nothing more fancy than that. Capacitance is more important for interconnects.

Ah. It would be interesting to see their documentation showing how they actually tested that premise...I find that at 4 and 8 ohm impedances, measurement of voltage, current, and phase relations is not an easy one to do accurately. So, I would believe that the guys at most of the cable companies don't know how to do it correctly.


Even if the "worst" cables of normal length show only 0.5 dB drop or so for 20 kHz due to high inductance it can be a good idea to have the values as low as possible. It's not uncommon with 0.5 dB deviations at 20 kHz from a flat response from many amps and CD players. It is thus possible that different combinations of CD players, amps and cables can reach a total difference of a couple of dB at 20 kHz, and thus display audible differences lower down in frequency.
T

I would agree, keeping inductance as low as practical is probably good..

I'm at the moment, reviewing a paper where the researcher is showing test results that are rather amazing...human perception capability in the 1.5 to 2 MICRO-second realm. (Thanks, Mtry)

If that is in fact an actual human capability, then inductance may indeed be a big player.

Cheers, John

[Thomas_A]

JNeutron,

I have corresponded previously with Supra Cables regarding their measurements as depicted at:

http://www.jenving.se/ply.htm

As shown, their measurements of a cable with its conductors wide-spaced, they find a loss of around 4 dB at 20 kHz, while standard "zip" is below 1 dB. In my specific question, I asked for the lenght of the cables and the answer was 10 meters ended with a 8 ohm resistor (but he was not sure, since it was such a long time since the measurements were made). It seems however, that the test was performed on longer cables, perhaps 20-30 meter.

Now, Supra might appear to be "exotic" high-end cables abroad; the price for their "zip"-cord like cables (Classic) is about 2 times that of a no-name brand here in Sweden. The Ply cable is more expensive though.

Although some of their claims are not scientific (i.e. bs), I regard Supra as being less bs among AudioCable Makers. Also, they are one of the few that actually braid their own cables at their factory, perhaps one of the reasons why prices are a little bit higher.

http://www.tnt-audio.com/intervis/suprae.html

T

[jneutron]

JNeutron,

I have corresponded previously with Supra Cables before regarding their measurements as depicted at:

As shown, their measurements of a cable with its conductors wide-spaced, they find a loss of around 4 dB at 20 kHz, while standard "zip" is below 1 dB. In my specific question, I asked for the lenght of the cables and the answer was 10 meters ended with a 8 ohm resistor (but he was not sure, since it was such a long time since the measurements were made). It seems however, that the test was performed on longer cables, perhaps 20-30 meter.

Although some of their claims are not scientific (i.e. bs), I regard Supra as being less bs among AudioCable Makers. Also, they are one of the few that actually braid their own cables at their factory, perhaps one of the reasons why prices are a little bit higher.

T

Thanks for the link..interesting read. The format was a PITA, because the three long columns fold over to page two when printed..rather discontinuous...

I'll address the simple errors..

""Conventionally, fat conductors’ high loop inductance (which raises impedance at +6dB/octave) is further raised due to internal eddy currents causing ’Skin effect’. This acts like ’the square root of an inductor’, i.e. progressively adds a +3dB/octave component to the cable’s series inductance. ""

NO...NO...NO...

The skin effect will only remove the internal inductance from the wire as the frequency goes up. The internal inductance of any wire is 15 nanohenries per foot, when skin effect does NOT occur...As skin effect occurs, the inductance will start to go down, and in the limit, the internal, 15 nanohenry inductance (per foot, per wire) is gone.. Skin effect does NOT cause additional inductance, it makes the internal go away.

It will, however, start to increase the cable resistance by cross section reduction and current re-distribution.

Geeze...this is not rocket science...it's very easy stuff....how come these guys can't get the easy stuff right!!! :-)

""Supra Ply is able to be a large-section, low resistance cable, while also overcoming skin effect and transversal distortion, by using a proprietary, pure tin plating. This has the double benefit that tin and copper meld without forming a diodic barrier (as with many silver-plated copper ’audiograde’ conductors) and that tin strongly resists most common causes of metal corrosion, and hermetically protects the copper""

NO...NO...NO..First, tin plating is never pure..And, the plating process does NOT make the copper and tin "meld". Tin plating is porous..to make it hermetic requires fusing the tin, bringing it over 231 C to reflow it. At that point, it will form two intermetallic compounds, a non solderable one against the copper (using R type flux), and a second one over that, with the pure tin over that (assuming there is any free tin left over after the heating).

The tin overcoat will have a higher resistivity than copper, and will contribute very little to the reduction or increase of skin effect. It is entirely used as a barrier metal. Fused, it will indeed provide a hermetic protection layer for the copper..

The diode explanation does not even warrant discussion..(beyond the scope of this text)

The scope photo's...

Why is it the flat DC portion of the signals is inching up? They have done something very wrong in the measurement technique. Without more details, I suspect that the IA circuitry they use to get the difference signal may be saturating during the transient portion of the waveform, and that upward slope is the recovery of the IA (many high speed circuits will take a very long time to recover from a transient overload)..not some signal abberation from the cable..If it is truly a circuitry problem, I would question all the waveforms..

Overall, a rather professional looking presentation..I liked it..

Given the errors found in Hawksford's essex echo skin effect analysis paper....I would be concerned about citing any of his HI-FI based papers, as his skin theory, test setup, and test results are not consistent with what has been known about wire inductance since the mid 40's.

Cheers, John

[FLZapped]

is it worth bi-wiring the B&W 601 S3's and LCR60? I'm using Yamaha RX-V1400. thanks.


Well, maybe, maybe not. If you are able to solve for all the variables(5 or 6), you might find a positive outcome - and then the question becomes, is that enough to be audible?

So it's a crap shoot.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

Oh, I supposed that the only place to get "real" fact based opinions?

Some people purport to know all the "true" facts when in actuality they discount what their own ears tell them in favor of some tech sheet specs.

This is your own conclusion. A search will reveal that their position is that uncontrolled sighed listening is unreliable. Your ears are fine, it's what your brain does to the information it's receiving from all input sources.


Then you have others that based on their "superior knowledge" [sic] of electronics that you could not tell the difference between two components, for that matter.

Ah yes, the always useful ad hominem attack when there is no other argument to be had.


My advise is to go out and listen to a speaker that's been biwired, or biamped if you can. Then make up your mind for yourself without all the noise that this forum generates.

Considering you just slammed anyone here who actually knows something about electronics and physics, you have just failed miserably in your demonstraton of knowledge. Bi-wiring and bi-amping are two completely different configurations only related by the number of cables entering the speaker system.

-Bruce

[Audio Angel]

PART ONE (original posted elsewhere in this disscussion forum under Bi-Wire topic -- reposted here F.Y.I)

If you are really interesting in audible results from Bi-Wiring or Tri-Wiring the secret is to remove the crossover from the inside of the speaker and place it very near your amplifier output terminals. Run a short wire from the amplifier output to the crossover input. Run seperate and seperated wires from the crossover outputs to each speaker element.

No matter how many wire runs you may make, running seperate wires from the amplifer to a distant crossover produces questionable improvements because the filtering action is after the wire runs.

Try this simple test. Take two straight pins and connect wires from each pin to the (+) and (-) terminals of one of your speakers. Connect the other speaker using the standard bi-wire hookup. Poke the pins through the insulation of each of the wire runs going to the LF and HF elements of the speaker. You will hear the same signal coming down either wire run. It does not matter which speaker element wire you may listen to, as the filter components are at the speaker end of the wire. The above empirical test should dispell the back EMF theory as you can hear a full-range signal anywhere along the wire run to either speaker element. The back EMF signal has all that cable with which to interact. Some chocking of the EMF signal will occur -- the more resistance (smaller the wire) the more chocking due to the higher resistance, or in AC terms reactance. If you are using a heavy guage wire, the back EMF from the LF element just travels back to the amplifier where it reacts with the output stage and then back to the HF element along a long wire run before the crossover filter. This is why a high damping factor is important. A high damping factor does just that, it dampens the back EMF. Most transistor amplifier output stages have very high damping factors.

Doing the same pin poking test with the crossover near the amplifier with seperate wire runs to each of the speaker elements will produce quite different results since this places the filter components and filter action at the proper end of the wire run. Now poking the pins along any pair of wires will produce bass for the LF element, mid-range for the MF element and treble for the HF element. The back EMF phenomena is now isolated back to the crossover. Any EMF produced as the woofer recovers is now filtered from the mid-range and/or tweeter before it can interact in a long wire run.

Keep the connection length between the amplifier and the speaker's crossover as short as possible because you want the amplifier to "see" the crossover and the action of its filtering components with as little added wire resistance, inductance, and capacitance as possible. After the full-range signal is split into the approprate ranges for each of the speaker elements, the interaction of each speaker element will not find its way back to the amplifier as readily by way of seperate wire runs connected to a common point (the amplifier output terminals).

Try to keep each speaker element wire run seperated from the other wire runs by a few inches or so. If the wires become close enough to each other they will couple though their respective magnetic fields and defeat the purpose of Bi- or Tri-Wiring. Don't bind the speaker wires together. In this case, neat appearance is not approprate for good sound. Remember, preamps produce voltage gain, whereas power amplifiers produce current gains. It is the current factor in the signal that generates magnetic fields in the speaker wire. Given a long run with the wires parallel for several feet, a fraction of one signal will couple to the other wire. Best to just let them hang/lie loose and sort of go along in a random path. Don't get too hung up on this, but just don't tie all your speaker cables together.

If you are fusing any of the speaker elements, the fuse should be placed as physically close to the speaker as possible. The speaker fuse should not be at the amplifier terminals, it should be at the speaker terminals -- and it should be placed in the (+) positive side of the cable. This means a seperate fuse for each speaker element. I find that a powerful amplifier, capable of destroying the speaker, will control the speaker much better than an amplifier whos power rating is equal to the maximum the speaker will take. Use an over-powered amplifier and fuse the speaker to protect it from accidental burn-out. Think of it in these terms. If someone were to grab you and shake you who would be able to exibit more control over your body, someone of your weight or someone twice your weight? You see the more powerful amplifier will make the speaker cone go where the signal says, hence more dynamic and accurate reproduction, less back EMF distortion, much improved transient response and operation in a more linear part of the amplifier specification.

Place the crossover near the amplifier, seperate the wire runs, use a big amp and fuse the speaker at the speaker. The resulting realism is well-worth the occasional blown fuse and trouble of moving the crossover.

PART TWO (reply to various comments)

First of all the improvement for this crossover approach to Bi- or Tri-Wiring is audible and not just one of those improvements you have to strain to hear or think you hear because you spent a ton of money and time making the so-called improvement. You hear a difference and to us experienced listeners (I count everyone posting here) the difference is definitely an improvement in the things we value in our reproduction systems, clarity, dynamic impression, openness, reduced fatigue, etc.

When I first started using this technique, I ran listening tests by converting one of the two stereo speakers while leaving the other unchanged. A third party placed both speakers close together through a sheet over them both and feed them a mono signal. Only the third party knew which how each speaker was connected. Acoustic levels were matched using an SPL meter. Switching (or having someone else switch) between one or the other speaker gave sonic evidence to even the most inexperienced listener that something had changed in one speaker for the better. I've tried this on several different speaker models of different manufactures and always hear an audible result for the better. I can't say the same for similar trials with convention Bi-Wiring.

I will be the first to agree that Bi-Amplification is superior to Uni-Amplification. But this technique is about Bi-Wiring or Tri-Wiring; that is, using one amplifier driving a multi-element speaker system. We assume the amplifier to speaker connection requires 10 to 15 feet of cable. We further assume the cable is common copper cable with parallel conductors; nothing esoteric.

In order to understand that the benefits cited are not just technobabble let us first consider what the amplifier "sees" when connected to a loudspeaker. Most loudspeakers are coil and cone types, that is, linear motors. As such, the load on the amplifier is not just resistive but reactive and further varies with frequency. As the voice coil is driven it also returns to the starting point. The return motion of the coil through the magnetic field of the magnet gap produces back EMF into the amplifier. This should be taken into consideration when analyzing the effects of cable resistance, inductance and capacitance on the amplifier. The load may mathematically seem to be the same wherever the crossover is placed, but the reactance is not. At a given frequency the impedence load will be the same, but the load does not take into consideration the reaction of the speaker coil over (recovery) time, i.e., reactance. The effect of the connecting cable should not be viewed with respect to the speaker as much as with respect to the amplifier.

The differences in the impedance of any speaker in a multi-speaker system will run between 6 to 25 ohms in the audible range. The connecting cable (~1 ohm) and the output impedance of the amplifier (.01 ohm) is larger if the crossover is placed at the far end of the connecting cable. This makes the amplifier more dependent on the cable characteristics of capacitance and resistance. That is why hearing any improved performance with convention Bi-Wiring is so questionable. All you are doing in effect is using a heaver gauge wire, as someone correctly pointed out.

Moving the crossover close to the amplifier causes the amplifier to react less with the connecting cable because the final filtering does not reflect the speaker's inductive reactance back to the amplifier through coupling in the connecting cable.

The concept of Bi-Wiring is to give separate pathways for the various bandwidths provided to each driver of a multi-element speaker system by the crossover network. Separate cable runs from a common amplifier output to each filter section's input does not meet this goal. The virtues of the Bi-Wire scheme are only realized in concept if the multiple and separate pathways to each speaker element are after the filtering action of the crossover network. Only in this way will each speaker driver's reactance remain separated from other driver's reactance with respect to the commingling of back EMF forces in the multiple connection cable.

With the crossover at the far end of the speaker connecting cable, no matter how many multiple pathways the cable(s) may take, it is the interaction of the cable with the one amplifier and the crossover that is in play. Because of the common amplifier connection, back EMG and cable characteristics will remain un-separated.With the crossover at the near end of the speaker connecting cable, it is the multiple bandwidth-restricted pathways that interact with the crossover and speaker. The effect of the connecting cable on the amplifier is minimal because the output stage is looking directly into the crossover filters, not down a connecting cable with additional resistance, inductance and capacitance characteristics.

Actually, if you think about it, the crossover network is not -- NOT -- part of the speaker; it is the final circuit topology of the amplifier. We tend to think of it as being a function of the speaker, but only because differences in speaker design require the manufacturer to place the final filters in the speaker box. Filters (passive or active) should really be on the amplifier chassis as close to the amplifier stage they are filtering as possible. If you are going to split up the amplifier components, it makes as much sense to put the last amplifier stage in the speaker box too! Why stop at the filters? Or how about using Bi-Amplification and placing all the active crossover elements in the speaker box with cables running back and forth between the box and amplifiers. It makes no sense, electrically. The filters are a component of the output circuit, not a speaker part.

Bi-Amplification is supposed to help the performance of the speaker, but it really is a help to the amplifier if you place the final filter components before the connecting cables. This is because a loudspeaker is a reactive device. The reactance reaching the final amplifier stage is more defined by the connecting cable if the cable is before the final filter configuration than if it is after filtering. The consequence of moving the crossover closer to the amplifier is better amplifier performance -- and that reflects into the performance of the speaker -- but, it is the amplifier that is really receiving the benefit.

Other considerations for moving the crossover from the speaker box to the amplifier include eliminating the microphonic effect of the high acoustic (physical vibration) levels within a speaker enclosure on the capacitors. As you may know, capacitor noise is the primary cause of blurring when they are inserted into a circuit. Vibrations can cause microscopic holes to develop in metallized polypropylene capacitors. Even if self-healing, noise is produced. A good reason why foil and polypropylene capacitors sound cleaner than the metallized types. You may think this is the real technobabble, but when you get into high-resolution systems this sort of thing becomes audible.

Likewise, but more in theory, the influence of the magnetic fields within a speaker enclosure will interact with the inductive elements of the crossover. Since the magnetic fields fluctuate, this interferes with the coil characteristics and ultimately interferes with the correct operation of the crossover.

I too used to be one of the unbelievers in Bi-Wire benefits. I had trouble hearing any difference and could not technically explain why there should be any change. It seemed a marketing ploy more than anything. It wasn't until I tried moving the crossover that I heard any improvement to the fidelity. Further study made me realized there was more going on than I had previously understood (like most things in life) so that now I know if I move the crossover; I can expect a margin of improvement. Not an AM to FM improvement, nothing that vast, rather a slight advance -- one more notch up the ladder to better reproduction.

I'm not here to debate the issue. I am here to share my findings with you. I am not a casual listener but rather a dedicated one capable of discerning sonic value. I know what my experience has told me. All I can say is that if you are going to buy into this Bi-Wire thing, try it this way. The cost is about the same, but the results are, at least in my opinion, audible and welcome.