Clarification on a statement.

[markw]

This is the text of a question on the speaker asylum.

"I recently purchased a paradigm pw 2200 v2, and I am hearing differing info as to go with a high end subwoofer cable or go with an average cable because some argue that the sound quality difference between cables is minimal. What do you think?"

Several responses, including mine, pretty much agreed with the "minimal" position. Someactually sais there is no difference in subwoofer cables, save styling price.

Then, one poster responds with this direct quote "I've found cables to make fairly obvious differences regarding PRAT, frequency extension, resolution, etc."

Now, that's a lot of buzzwords and purple prose, particularly for a subwoofer cable.

First off, virtually knowledegble people have always maintained that cable differences are subtle at best and, even then, is extremely system dependent. So, in light of the use of the word "obvious" in this blanket statement, it's only good, common sense to question the validity (or even possibility the truth?) of such advice, is it not?

Science would truly question the differences between interconnects of similar gauge, length and construction. I've even heard differences myself but they could be explained when the circumstances were examined but, believe me, with functonal cables, "obvious" is not a word I would use to quantify them.

Secondly, does this response reflect the resopndents experience with subwoofer cables?

If so, this response is truly evidence of extra normal hearing abilities, heretofore unmatched by any other mortal. If not, then it's just supposition and has no basis in their experiences and is simply jargon from a magazine.

I'll assume it's his actual experience. Since such comments indicate results unmatched by others, one would assume that further proof could be obtained.

That's kinda like someone telling me they could jump off a building and fly. I certainly would ask to see that! And, unless they could do it I would be within my rights to doubt them and that's all well and good. End of subject as I walk away chuckling.

But, if that person were to suggest that other could also and they should try it, then it would become an issue, would it not? Should not such advice be questioned?

Unfortunatly, that response was from a moderator and when I rebutted him, the post was deleted.

Comments anyone?

I'll be posting this at several other boards. They could use a good laugh..

[E-Stat]

First off, virtually knowledegble people have always maintained that cable differences are subtle at best and, even then, is extremely system dependent. So, in light of the use of the word "obvious" in this blanket statement, it's only good, common sense to question the validity (or even possibility the truth?) of such advice, is it not?...I'll be posting this at several other boards. They could use a good laugh..

Well this is the place for you to present the scientific proof to suggest otherwise, but your post is devoid of any.

rw

[markw]

Well this is the place for you to present the scientific proof to suggest otherwise, but your post is devoid of any.

rw

I really expected better from you, E-stat. You've always seemed to try to fly above the ground.

Actually, I do allow for the possibility that subtle audiable differences are possible.

If, as the poster states, the differences are so "obvious", hoccum there is nothing to support that besides anecdotal stories and marketing hype? Since this is a mature technology, I'm sure studies have been done.

[E-Stat]

I really expected better from you, E-stat. You've always seemed to try to fly above the ground.

Mark, I'm simply pointing out that your post does not exactly illustrate the intended purpose here. Instead of providing scientific data to back assertions, it consists of your opinion, an anecdotal story, a veiled character attack and a facetious logical "comparison".

If, as the poster states, the differences are so "obvious", hoccum there is nothing to support that besides anecdotal stories and marketing hype? Since this is a mature technology, I'm sure studies have been done.

Now you've got it. Let's evaluate the data, if such exists.

rw

[markw]

Let's evaluate the data, if such exists.

True. I'm waiting. So far, it's an unsubstantiated rumor. Since one of the moderaters made such a blatent statement, one would hope he could provide some backup.

Instead, he deletes my post?

I think you've got a loose cannon you need to either bolt down or jettison here, rw

[E-Stat]

True. I'm waiting. So far, it's an unsubstantiated rumor. Since one of the moderaters made such a blatent statement, one would hope he could provide some backup.

I read the thread to which you refer and believe you took that observation out of context. My take is that it was made about cables in general, not specifically limited to subwoofers.

Whatever. Anyone got some data they would like to share?

rw

[markw]

I read the thread to which you refer and believe you took that observation out of context. My take is that it was made about cables in general, not specifically limited to subwoofers.

Unfortunately, the post was specificaly asking about subwoofer cables, not cables in general. One would hope a moderator would be able to interpert the original question and answer it.

loose cannon, guy... Check out the response at AudioKarma if you want to see what others think about this site...

[Monstrous Mike]

Instead of providing scientific data to back assertions, it consists of your opinion, an anecdotal story, a veiled character attack and a facetious logical "comparison.

I would tend to think that this is the modus operandi of all people who have claimed to have heard differences in audio cabling although the veiled character attack is not used by the more civil people.

Let's evaluate the data, if such exists.

I doubt that any exists. As a matter of fact, people like markw and myself are waiting for somebody to show us some data we can evaluate. But don't expect us to search for something we don't think exists or ever will exist. That doesn't make sense.

People who claim to hear cable differences are putting forth a hypothesis. It is up to them to convert it into a theory and eventually into scientifically acceptable fact.

[E-Stat]

Check out the response at AudioKarma if you want to see what others think about this site...

Ok, I did. First I kinda looked around to get the overall feel. I randomly read several posts all of which characterized the equipment in - completely observationalist terms. The guy reporting better results with a cable wasn't attacked. The guy with the SET didn't get any grief for the distortion curves.

And then I found yours with this response:

"The change in direction at AA was handled pretty poorly by the new sherrif, but lordy, what whining.....reminds me of a bunch of Great Danes sniffing around a chihuaha in heat."

rw

[E-Stat]

I doubt than any exists. As a matter of fact, people like markw and myself are waiting for somebody to show us some data we can evaluate. But don't expect us to search for something we don't think exists or ever will exist. That doesn't make sense.

Really? By reading Mtry's posts, one would be led to believe that such evidence abounds.

rw

[markw]

And then I found yours with this response:

"The change in direction at AA was handled pretty poorly by the new sherrif, but lordy, what whining.....reminds me of a bunch of Great Danes sniffing around a chihuaha in heat."

rw

And this proves, what? I would not be too proud of the first part of this quote if I were you.

I don't see this so much whining and merely pointing out by example the misdirection that has taken place here lately. To ignore it would to be turning my back on what has been a fairly decent site for all around information. To simply allow it to become a one sided marketing tool would be a waster of a valuable resource. Unless that's the ultimate goal.

Gotta wonder who is the Great Dane and who is the chihuahua.

BTW, is Todd ever going to respond here? Is he going to let you continue to fight his battles for him? Again, great moderater... loose cannon, guy. Shoots from the hip and right into his own foot. He's doin' y'all proud. ...kinda like Billy Carter did for his brother Jimmy.

[Monstrous Mike]

Really? By reading Mtry's posts, one would be led to believe that such evidence abounds.

rw

I believe the evidence he is pointing includes opinions of other learned scientists and engineers. For example, Dr. Floyd Toole has scientifically proven that sighted listening is fraught with bias and cannot be used to determine small sonic differences. Mtry lists other tests and whatnot which show some null results. There are other tests where people "preferred" one cable over another when they were in fact the same cable.

As we both know, nobody is going disprove cable sonics. That would be proving that something doesn't exist and that sort of approach is next to impossible. What Mtry is doing is showing evidence which "points" to the hypothesis that cables do not sound different. He does this in reaction to people who bring home a fancy new cable and then claim their sound is significantly improved and every penny was well spent. The fact is this sort of claim has not be verified regardless of how happy the audiophile is.

Cable sonics have not been proven either true or false. Mtry is simply in the false camp quite solidly. I am also in the false camp but logically, since there is no proof either way, I can't really say for certain.

But what is certain is that if somebody came up with a test which showed a repeatable difference between two cables and could be verified and analzyed, then the debate would be over.

The naysayers would have to test every cable on the planet under every condition using every peice of sound gear for a conclusion to be reached while a yeasayer would only have to complete one test using two valid cables and some good equipment. So you can see the job is a lot easier for the yeasayers.

As of today, the yeasayers have absolutely nothing concrete and Mtry has about 100 peices of evidence where 100,000,000,000,000,000 are required. From a scientific standpoint, I would say he has a slight lead although he does try to make the most of it.

[Woochifer]

I don't always agree with you, but in this case I think you're spot on correct in both your original post and your rightful questioning over how fair and applicable to the forum rules the deletion of your post was. Nowhere did you berate anyone, ask for proof, use inflammatory language, insult anybody, or present anything that was outside the rhelm of an audio hobbyist's expertise to explore for themselves. I thought that THOSE were the types of things that the new rules were supposed to eliminate.

Interpreting a technical response to the technical terminology that Todd used in his original post as an indictment of someone's sensory perceptions goes beyond a logical lapse. Todd brought up the issue of frequency extension, which can be easily measured. I've done them, and found absolutely no change in the amplitude of low frequency test tones after a cable swapout. My own subjective evaluations found no difference after a cable swapout. So, it seems that so long as I stick with my listenings, the post is fine. But, if anyone bring up the subject of measurements and technical details, then it's off limits. If I bring up the measurements as a rebuttal to someone else's "obvious differences" argument, then the insinuation is that I'm insulting the hearing and making sensory perception presumptions about someone who disagrees with me.

Your response was not a berating-ask-for-proof naysayer response, yet Todd deleted a very rational and relevant response from you because he viewed it as some kind of personal affront, and it's not like he maintained a civil and respectful tone throughout the rest of the thread either. Earlier I was also singled out as an example of what's wrong with this board. Anyone who's interested can go through the threads and draw their own conclusions.

I have a problem here . . .
Cable quality on subwoofer

Eric has at least admitted that he got off on the wrong foot with the approach that he initially took when he assumed control over the board, and is learning as he goes along and at least trying to set a more civil tone. I think if more of the posters (and moderators) follow his lead, this board will indeed be a better place to visit.

[kexodusc]

Chalk me up as another who got upset at markw being censored. I even comlained to eric about it personally.
While I generally respect what Eric's trying to do, and the moderators he's chosen, Todd has lost my confidence in his ability to remain impartial, and to moderate a web forum.
Instead he resorts to the kinds of tactics that we are supposedly trying to limit on these boards.

He's been rather silent since then, too.

[Norm Strong]

Since you use the word in your signature file, you should know that the word is spelled "supersedes"

[markw]

Since you use the word in your signature file, you should know that the word is spelled "supersedes"

Speling nevur was a strong point, but I'm pretty good with puns.

Thanks.