General Forum

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

Jandyt — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:01:35 GMT

Mr10Percent:
MrT:
The science defines earths shape as very close to an oblate spheroid—a rounded shape with a bulge around the equator—although the precise shape (the geoid) varies from this by up to 100 meters. The average diameter of the reference spheroid is about 12,742 km. More approximately the distance is 40,000 km/π because the meter was originally defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris, France.
I think my point was clearly missed here.
However, would it not also be true that if something a complicated as a 12,500-odd km diameter geoid (which in the earth's case has had extensive topological, mineralisation, magnetism, denisometric, and other eugenic measurements) has been characterised in some detail,.
10%

Do y' know, I was just thinking the same thing!

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

Mr10Percent — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:39:11 GMT

MrT:
The science defines earths shape as very close to an oblate spheroid—a rounded shape with a bulge around the equator—although the precise shape (the geoid) varies from this by up to 100 meters. The average diameter of the reference spheroid is about 12,742 km. More approximately the distance is 40,000 km/π because the meter was originally defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris, France.
I think my point was clearly missed here.

A nice eloquent scientific characterisation of the geometry of the earth. However, would it not also be true that if something a complicated as a 12,500-odd km diameter geoid (which in the earth's case has had extensive topological, mineralisation, magnetism, denisometric, and other eugenic measurements) has been characterised in some detail, that it is unlikely that science also has not made similar characterisations and measurements to that of a 3m length of copper wire?

You are I fear, confusing the religion and revelation of audio cables with that of the science of audio cables.

10%

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

camshaft — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:43:40 GMT

MrT:
camshaft:
MrT:

Well, I do not want to start a cable debate. If you believe that science is 100% right then that´s the case for you. But there might be other people out there that thinks otherwise. So the secundary part of my post was only to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Alex is right. Electronic sound reproduction is based solely on the principles of science, from the beginnings of the most basic radios, all the way to the most complicated sound systems today. You'll find it quite difficult to construct even the most basic crystal radio without using the principles of science. Sound reproduction only enjoys its position today because of many years of scientific research that it has been fortunate enough to benefit from. To claim that you may have ears that can go above and beyond the principles of science is to belittle all the work that has gone into the history of electronic sound systems. If you really did have hearing that was so sensitive that it could detect differences in electrical connections not otherwise measurable within the range of human hearing, then you'd be the subject of many new research journal publications. There are many cases in electronics where the connections matter. More often it's when dealing with signals in the MHz or Ghz range, to which the snail-slow frequencies of the audio range are insignificant. Furthermore, the differences in the connections, especially at those speeds, are definitely measurable. Even if the difference in a connection is measurable, the question is whether within the audio spectrum it will make any difference. You mention the connections looking "cheap." It's true that if the quality isn't as good, then you can run into contact issues down the road as the connections can't withstand as much physical stress or can't make as good of a contact. But as long as the contact is actually working properly, you won't notice a difference in sound quality.
Science isn't something that can be right or wrong. It's a means of analyzing and understanding the world. I think opinion in this sense is being used very loosely. It's like saying that people are entitled to the opinion that the world isn't round. Sure you can find some people in the world who think that's the case, but that doesn't mean it's worth considering.
Hahahaha, for your info; According to science the world isn´t round. All, but the flat-earth-society, (as far as I know ...) of the educated part of the population consider it round.
The science defines round as something that has exactely the same radius from the centre. That is not the case with earth.
The science defines earths shape as very close to an oblate spheroid—a rounded shape with a bulge around the equator—although the precise shape (the geoid) varies from this by up to 100 meters. The average diameter of the reference spheroid is about 12,742 km. More approximately the distance is 40,000 km/π because the meter was originally defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris, France.
So is the earth round according to science? No! Does it have a roundish shape? Yes! Is it more round than flat? Yes! But it is still not round according to science...I think it is ok that you believe that the earth is round...
Over and out

I think my point was clearly missed here.

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

Alex — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:10:02 GMT

soundproof:
Is it something in the water?

Either way - the men in white coats are on their way.

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

soundproof — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:59:47 GMT

Is it something in the water?

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

MrT — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:06:06 GMT

camshaft:
MrT:

Well, I do not want to start a cable debate. If you believe that science is 100% right then that´s the case for you. But there might be other people out there that thinks otherwise. So the secundary part of my post was only to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Alex is right. Electronic sound reproduction is based solely on the principles of science, from the beginnings of the most basic radios, all the way to the most complicated sound systems today. You'll find it quite difficult to construct even the most basic crystal radio without using the principles of science. Sound reproduction only enjoys its position today because of many years of scientific research that it has been fortunate enough to benefit from. To claim that you may have ears that can go above and beyond the principles of science is to belittle all the work that has gone into the history of electronic sound systems. If you really did have hearing that was so sensitive that it could detect differences in electrical connections not otherwise measurable within the range of human hearing, then you'd be the subject of many new research journal publications. There are many cases in electronics where the connections matter. More often it's when dealing with signals in the MHz or Ghz range, to which the snail-slow frequencies of the audio range are insignificant. Furthermore, the differences in the connections, especially at those speeds, are definitely measurable. Even if the difference in a connection is measurable, the question is whether within the audio spectrum it will make any difference. You mention the connections looking "cheap." It's true that if the quality isn't as good, then you can run into contact issues down the road as the connections can't withstand as much physical stress or can't make as good of a contact. But as long as the contact is actually working properly, you won't notice a difference in sound quality.
Science isn't something that can be right or wrong. It's a means of analyzing and understanding the world. I think opinion in this sense is being used very loosely. It's like saying that people are entitled to the opinion that the world isn't round. Sure you can find some people in the world who think that's the case, but that doesn't mean it's worth considering.

Hahahaha, for your info; According to science the world isn´t round. All, but the flat-earth-society, (as far as I know ...) of the educated part of the population consider it round.

The science defines round as something that has exactely the same radius from the centre. That is not the case with earth.

The science defines earths shape as very close to an oblate spheroid—a rounded shape with a bulge around the equator—although the precise shape (the geoid) varies from this by up to 100 meters. The average diameter of the reference spheroid is about 12,742 km. More approximately the distance is 40,000 km/π because the meter was originally defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris, France.

So is the earth round according to science? No! Does it have a roundish shape? Yes! Is it more round than flat? Yes! But it is still not round according to science...I think it is ok that you believe that the earth is round...

Over and out

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

Alex — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:55:39 GMT

MrT:
Do you have information of all blind cable test ever made? Of course not, so you can´t say no 'blind cable test' has ever produced results which amount to 'evidence' of audible difference, and scientific measurement has reinforced this.
What you can say is no 'blind cable test' that I know of has ever produced results which amount to 'evidence' of audible difference, and scientific measurement has reinforced this.
There is no general absolute truth in music reproduction, there is only individual truth. And that is the point I am trying to make.
What interests me is reading about experiences from catboy420

No, but I can comfortably say that if there had been a cable test with results which amounted to anything, then I would know about it.

Soundproof is right, if there had been ANY 'proven' advantages of 'good' cables in terms of sound - then it would be all over the 'hifi forums' and literature...

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

soundproof — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:06:40 GMT

Mr. T - this is an instance where one can use a very elegant tool of elimination.

I do not have knowledge of every valid blind test carried out as far as cables are concerned.

The cable industry has fought tooth and nail against blind tests as a format for judging cable performance.

If there was one - just one - statistically significant and procedurally valid cable blind test in the world that showed the advantages of expensive cable, then that test would be trumpeted across advertising in hifi-magazines everywhere.

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

MrT — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:55:25 GMT

Alex:
MrT:

Well, I do not want to start a cable debate. If you believe that science is 100% right then that´s the case for you. But there might be other people out there that thinks otherwise. So the secundary part of my post was only to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion

Of course, but you must also bear in mind that sound reproduction is a science. Without the input of scientific research, speakers would still sound similar to those of <1950.
If the OP wants to use 'upgraded' cables, then that's absolutely fine. I personally wouldn't though - no 'blind cable test' has ever produced results which amount to 'evidence' of audible difference, and scientific measurement has reinforced this.

Do you have information of all blind cable test ever made? Of course not, so you can´t say no 'blind cable test' has ever produced results which amount to 'evidence' of audible difference, and scientific measurement has reinforced this.

What you can say is no 'blind cable test' that I know of has ever produced results which amount to 'evidence' of audible difference, and scientific measurement has reinforced this.

There is no general absolute truth in music reproduction, there is only individual truth. And that is the point I am trying to make.

What interests me is reading about experiences from catboy420

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

soundproof — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:16:17 GMT

My cable confession.

I'm the kind of guy who likes gadgets, and who loves tweaking. I've moved around a lot, which means I've divested myself of quite a few acquisitions during the years - if not, I would have a "Smithsonian" of tech gadgets in the garage, loft and basement of whatever place I'd been living in.

Here it's not unusual, but most people would wonder why a person needs three complete sound systems, two with video, within ten meters of one another, in an apartment. My willingness to pay for a/v, and to have a/v is probably undisputed. My friends know me as a gadget freak.

I love stuff that works, and that works well. This is one reason why I've been a B&O fan for many years. Given that I've at times crossed over into non-B&O a/v you'd think that one result from that would be a completely different set of cables than those B&O provide. However, I've never been able to find a single person who is able to confidently distinguish "straight wire" from fancy cable, either as signal or loudspeaker cables. Unless there's a serious design flaw in the cable (or the manufacturer has hidden sound modifying components in the cable makeup) you can buy inexpensive cables and they'll do what they can do well: transfer an electronic signal suitable for the faithful reproduction of sound and image.

I happen to know that B&O frequently gets queries from manufacturers of fancier cables, who want B&O to upgrade their interconnects. On a few occasions B&O have asked persistent manufacturers to come and pick out their cable from a blind comparison to B&O's cable -- invariably without success.

One of the original component designers of McIntosh audio, Roger Russel, considers fancy wire to be an enormous scam, and actually congratulates the wire industry with having been able to perpetrate this scam on gullible customers.

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#thetruth

Being a scientist, and an electrical engineer of the highest order, Mr. Russel is incapable of accepting the wild claims of wire wizards - he knows they are ridiculous. And he has an amusing anecdote:

Despite the effectiveness of Gordon's cable demonstration and the truth about speaker wire, people visiting the McIntosh room at the shows, who had not experienced the cable demonstration, were disturbed that we were using ordinary heavy zip cord instead of one of the popular brands of speaker wire. Instead of listening to the McIntosh speakers and electronics, they recalled "bad" things they had been told about "common" speaker wire and this promoted questions about the "inferior" wire being used. When we changed the wire to a popular brand of wire, customers were happy with the setup, and directed their attention to the McIntosh equipment.

As a manufacturer of very high-end and very expensive audio equipment, why would Roger Russel handicap his equipment by using sub-standard wire? Only because he knew that more expensive wire would not improve upon the sound - but since that choice distracted customers from the purpose of the demonstration, they ended up using a popular brand, in order to be able to focus on the sound from the critical McIntosh components.

Do also remember that a direct comparison of B&O signal wire and other manufacturers' loudspeaker wires is invalid, as B&O uses active speakers, and their wire only carries the signal, and not the power required to drive the speakers.

And please do remember that when Mike Lavigne, who is in possession of what's considered the finest listening room in the US, compared Monster Cable against Transparent's Opus MM cable, he was unable to distinguish the USD 50 wire from the USD 48.000 wire in a valid double blind test. Audioholics who insist on spending silly amounts of money on cables, or who fear looking silly after having spent silly amounts of money on cables, are hoping against hope that Lavigne will declare that there was something wrong with the test. So far, no luck.

As you can see here, there's nothing wrong with Lavigne's listening room: http://www.aca.gr/pop_lavigne.htm

http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/post/67317.aspx

Roger Russel strongly recommends that one spend the money on the speakers and components.

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/audiocables.htm

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

camshaft — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:06:32 GMT

MrT:

Well, I do not want to start a cable debate. If you believe that science is 100% right then that´s the case for you. But there might be other people out there that thinks otherwise. So the secundary part of my post was only to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion

Alex is right. Electronic sound reproduction is based solely on the principles of science, from the beginnings of the most basic radios, all the way to the most complicated sound systems today. You'll find it quite difficult to construct even the most basic crystal radio without using the principles of science. Sound reproduction only enjoys its position today because of many years of scientific research that it has been fortunate enough to benefit from. To claim that you may have ears that can go above and beyond the principles of science is to belittle all the work that has gone into the history of electronic sound systems. If you really did have hearing that was so sensitive that it could detect differences in electrical connections not otherwise measurable within the range of human hearing, then you'd be the subject of many new research journal publications. There are many cases in electronics where the connections matter. More often it's when dealing with signals in the MHz or Ghz range, to which the snail-slow frequencies of the audio range are insignificant. Furthermore, the differences in the connections, especially at those speeds, are definitely measurable. Even if the difference in a connection is measurable, the question is whether within the audio spectrum it will make any difference. You mention the connections looking "cheap." It's true that if the quality isn't as good, then you can run into contact issues down the road as the connections can't withstand as much physical stress or can't make as good of a contact. But as long as the contact is actually working properly, you won't notice a difference in sound quality.

Science isn't something that can be right or wrong. It's a means of analyzing and understanding the world. I think opinion in this sense is being used very loosely. It's like saying that people are entitled to the opinion that the world isn't round. Sure you can find some people in the world who think that's the case, but that doesn't mean it's worth considering.

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

Alex — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:21:59 GMT

MrT:

Well, I do not want to start a cable debate. If you believe that science is 100% right then that´s the case for you. But there might be other people out there that thinks otherwise. So the secundary part of my post was only to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion

Of course, but you must also bear in mind that sound reproduction is a science. Without the input of scientific research, speakers would still sound similar to those of

If the OP wants to use 'upgraded' cables, then that's absolutely fine. I personally wouldn't though - no 'blind cable test' has ever produced results which amount to 'evidence' of audible difference, and scientific measurement has reinforced this.

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

MrT — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:35:38 GMT

Well, I do not want to start a cable debate. If you believe that science is 100% right then that´s the case for you. But there might be other people out there that thinks otherwise. So the secundary part of my post was only to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

camshaft — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:38:00 GMT

MrT:
I didn´t say that the cables are cheap. I said that the connections are cheap, which they in fact are.
I think that weather or not a cable does make a difference or not is something that should be up to the user. In my opinion there are no right or wrong in this, only personal opinions.

It's not really an opinion though when it's scientifically provable that a certain cable will make no audible difference.

Re: Beolab9 and source/cable upgrade

MrT — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:25:26 GMT

I didn´t say that the cables are cheap. I said that the connections are cheap, which they in fact are.

I think that weather or not a cable does make a difference or not is something that should be up to the user. In my opinion there are no right or wrong in this, only personal opinions.