Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 74
  1. #26
    Forum Regular Monstrous Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    What I throw out are unproven assumptions and sweeping generalizations of audio behavior not based on direct experimentation, but extrapolation of results with other gear.

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

  2. #27
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockwell
    Your interpretation doesn't make sense. I don't think you could find an undamaged cable that degrades the signal nearly as much as room acoustics or even loud speakers.

    Given the context of the statements that came before it and the mangled nature of the sentence itself, I don't think it's a stretch to reach my conclusion.
    I'm not interpreting anything. I'm reading what he said. You are having to read all kinds of things into his statement to conclude that by "bad" he means "damaged".

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

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

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

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockwell
    This is a product manual, right? Do you really think a VP(especially one over acoustic research) reads it before it goes out the door? Anyway, companies are about making money, and if it give audiophiles a warm fuzzy about their products, then I think they will do it.
    If he doesn't read product manuals that are designed to enable customers to maximize the benefit of their purchase, then WHAT THE HELL DOES HE READ?

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

    Your last sentence is pure, unadulterated, unsubstantiated specualtion.

  4. #29
    Forum Regular Swerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    185
    PCT, I expect better from you than this! Perhaps I shouldn’t. You frequently tell us you are a lawyer, but you are committing the worst kind of distortion by omission here. Perhaps that is what lawyers do for a living, but you probably are also aware that these are clearly not the only reasonable inferences, much less conclusions, that can be drawn from his statements.

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

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

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

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

    I would like to point out a web page that summarizes Toole’s career and some of his major contributions to acoustics. http://caa-aca.ca/PEIWEBpage/PEI_Toole.htm

    On this page is a list of some of his publications. Numerous titles appear to be on the subject of how to identify and control the variables in listening tests. This seems to be one of his main contributions. I have a pdf copy of #19 on this list, titled Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things. If anyone would like to read it, contact me and I’ll be glad to send it to you. I think it is a good example of how to scientifically approach the problem of conducting unbiased listening tests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Most listening tests are valid only at a specific time and place, for the specific recordings that were listened to, and for the people offering their opinions. This can be acceptable if it is you choosing your own system in your own home. It is not acceptable for a loudspeaker manufacturer, who is trying to design products that can sound good to many listeners, in many rooms, with many recordings. Consequently, we get scientific about it, and start to remove some of the variables that have nothing to do with the sound from the loudspeaker, letting the listeners focus as much of their attention as possible on the sound, and the sound alone. Purveyors of 'magic' in the audio industry find these double-blind tests very threatening."
    Last edited by Swerd; 03-09-2004 at 11:41 AM. Reason: unintended smileys appeared

  5. #30
    Forum Regular Rockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    If he doesn't read product manuals that are designed to enable customers to maximize the benefit of their purchase, then WHAT THE HELL DOES HE READ?

    Do you honestly believe he spends all the time he does in acoustic research and then doesn't ensure that his findings relating to factors that can affect sonic performance are incorporated into speaker product manuals.? How far out on the limb of intellectual dishonesty are you willing to go to defend your dogma at all costs?
    Depends on how big the company is and how many layers of management. My point is that just because this statement appears in a product manual of the company he works for, doesn't mean he endorses it. You don't know if he read it or wrote it or endorsed it.

    Your last sentence is pure, unadulterated, unsubstantiated specualtion.
    So true, but educated speculation.
    "You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers."

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    56

    Talking Quoting Dr. Toole on wires is like quoting PC Tower on garter belts --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  7. #32
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    Well, you what E-Stat? Cable sonic differences is an unproven assumption but you seem to be holding on to it pretty good.
    I assert no hard proof other than observations over thirty years of experience with some nice gear. And that of many trusted ears I have known over the years. Take it or leave it.

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

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

    rw
    Last edited by E-Stat; 03-09-2004 at 03:32 PM.

  8. #33
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I assert no hard proof other than observations over thirty years of experience with some nice gear. And that of many trusted ears I have known over the years. Take it or leave it.

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

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

    rw

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

  9. #34
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    You're twisting and turning even more than I thought you would on this one.

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

    What's the big mystery here?
    You contact him. It is about time yuou do some research.
    mtrycrafts

  10. #35
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Thanks for your great analysis and review.
    mtrycrafts

  11. #36
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I did. I find your lack of reading comprehension tiresome.



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

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

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

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

    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________


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



    See above notation for JBL's "speculations".


    rw

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

  12. #37
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Yes, I've skied Vail before. Great powder.

    rw
    I am glad I missed you there.
    mtrycrafts

  13. #38
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Montana
    It is not rocket science

    But it is a mystery to many/most audiophiles
    mtrycrafts

  14. #39
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerd
    PCT, I expect better from you than this! Perhaps I shouldn’t. You frequently tell us you are a lawyer, but you are committing the worst kind of distortion by omission here. Perhaps that is what lawyers do for a living, but you probably are also aware that these are clearly not the only reasonable inferences, much less conclusions, that can be drawn from his statements.

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

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

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

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

    I would like to point out a web page that summarizes Toole’s career and some of his major contributions to acoustics. http://caa-aca.ca/PEIWEBpage/PEI_Toole.htm

    On this page is a list of some of his publications. Numerous titles appear to be on the subject of how to identify and control the variables in listening tests. This seems to be one of his main contributions. I have a pdf copy of #19 on this list, titled Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things. If anyone would like to read it, contact me and I’ll be glad to send it to you. I think it is a good example of how to scientifically approach the problem of conducting unbiased listening tests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  15. #40
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You contact him. It is about time yuou do some research.
    I'll pass for the time being.

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

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

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockwell
    Depends on how big the company is and how many layers of management. My point is that just because this statement appears in a product manual of the company he works for, doesn't mean he endorses it. You don't know if he read it or wrote it or endorsed it.



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

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

  17. #42
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Greene
    Toole frequently writes about room acoustics, and sometimes about speakers (mainly acoustics after joining Harman)

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

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

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

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

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

    Toole = very interested in room acoustics
    Toole = no apparent interest in wires
    Dr. Tower's Definitive Works on The Garterbelts' Hidden Secrets is nearing the end of its final rewrite. Until the date (yet to be determined) of its simultaneous release in German and English, Dr. Tower is contractually prohibted from discussing any aspect of the subject.

  18. #43
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    It is all about multi amping speakers. Period, end of story.
    Last time I checked, the plural of "amplifier" is "amplifiers". Is English your second language?

    rw

  19. #44
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    It is unfortunate that you place rooms and treatment number 4. Your loss, really. shows how much more you have to learn after 30 years.
    While I expect you duck this question as you do all others when it comes to your direct experience (do you really have any?) and system, I will ask it anyway.

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

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

    rw

  20. #45
    Forum Regular Swerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    Dr. Tower's Definitive Works on The Garterbelts' Hidden Secrets is nearing the end of its final rewrite. Until the date (yet to be determined) of its simultaneous release in German and English, Dr. Tower is contractually prohibted from discussing any aspect of the subject.
    We are all eager to find out what DBT methodology you used in The Garterbelts' Hidden Sectets.

  21. #46
    Forum Regular Monstrous Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I assert no hard proof other than observations over thirty years of experience with some nice gear. And that of many trusted ears I have known over the years. Take it or leave it.
    rw
    For forty years, I had thought that it was absolutely necessary to wash your hands each and every time after you went for a piss. And I did this and observed I have never been sick and rarely even get a cold (knock on wood). Then I found out the facts regarding personal hygene and discovered that my forty year belief was unfounded.

    As a result, this made me investigate some of my other beliefs and I have changed somewhat.
    Friends help friends move,
    Good friends help friends move bodies....

  22. #47
    Forum Regular Rockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    For forty years, I had thought that it was absolutely necessary to wash your hands each and every time after you went for a piss. And I did this and observed I have never been sick and rarely even get a cold (knock on wood). Then I found out the facts regarding personal hygene and discovered that my forty year belief was unfounded.

    As a result, this made me investigate some of my other beliefs and I have changed somewhat.
    I think it is more of a courtesy to others, than a necessity. For my own personal health, I just make sure I wash before eating.
    "You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers."

  23. #48
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    ...went for a piss.
    Great segue as this analogy is piss poor. Did you ever experience sickness immediately after not washing your hands? Did you ever try?


    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    ...As a result, this made me investigate some of my other beliefs
    Hopefully, you will not cease to perform any other related hygienic tasks !

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

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

    rw

  24. #49
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Last time I checked, the plural of "amplifier" is "amplifiers". Is English your second language?

    rw
    Is that the best you can do?
    mtrycrafts

  25. #50
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    123

    But he is right Mtry....

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Is that the best you can do?
    "JBL Ti loudspeakers may also be connected to the power amplifier using several lengths of wire. The multi-wire connection method offers a number of options and advantages..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Well there is the bi-amping option, finally.

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

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

    FWIW 2:

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

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

    In other words YMMV - in simple terms.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •