The disappearance of darkness

On 14/05/2013 12:29 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they
can
be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).

i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
wire.

there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.

Not quite true.

it's definitely true. it's all snake oil with a huge price tag for
suckers who fall for the deceptive marketing.

For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

oxygen free copper is not that recent, has no significant difference in
resistance and most copper wire is oxygen free *anyway*, whether it's
specifically listed that way or not.

if less resistance is the real goal (which it isn't), the easy solution
is get a larger gauge wire, or use silver instead of copper, which is a
better conductor. the drawback of course, is the word 'silver' doesn't
sound as impressive as 'oxygen free copper'. price isn't an issue
because these idiots will spend thousands and thousands of dollars on
all sorts of stuff thinking it will improve their sound.

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#oxygenfree
However, as indicated above, most C11000 common copper sold today
meets or exceeds the 101% IACS conductivity and overlaps C10200
³oxygen free² that has a minimum of 100% IACS conductivity. In
practice, there is no significant difference in conductivity between
all three of the grades as far as audio use is concerned.

"Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.

any difference they can measure is completely insignificant (fractions
of an ohm) and won't have any audible effect. period.

according to this calculator, 25' of 14 ga wire is 0.063 ohms, which is
less than 1% of a typical 8 ohm speaker impedance. a slightly higher or
slightly lower resistance won't make *any* difference whatsoever. drop
down a gauge to 16 ga and it's 0.1 ohm, a whopping 0.04 ohms more, into
an 8 ohm load. even that won't make a difference.

http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html

(The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

that's the entire point.

One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by
a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm

Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.

In article , Me
wrote:

One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by
a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm

Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.

not only does that improve sound but it increases horsepower. amazing
what technology can do.

just be sure your vinyl records are fully demagnetized before
listening. otherwise you won't obtain the full effect of shatki.

http://www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200702.htm
Well, according to Furutech, the material added to vinyl to color it
black has magnetic properties, and demagnetizing LPs makes them
sound better.

On 14/05/2013 2:40 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Me
wrote:

One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by
a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm

Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.

not only does that improve sound but it increases horsepower. amazing
what technology can do.

just be sure your vinyl records are fully demagnetized before
listening. otherwise you won't obtain the full effect of shatki.

http://www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200702.htm
Well, according to Furutech, the material added to vinyl to color it
black has magnetic properties, and demagnetizing LPs makes them
sound better.

Even better - they claim that the paint used to print CDs and the
aluminium used in CDs itself is slightly magnetic, and that outfit
recommends using the "demag" for CDs...

Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.

That said, a friend of mine has some B&W Nautilus Signature speakers,
powered by Krell monoblocks and preamp, all inter-connected with very
expensive cables. It does sound pretty good (and so it should as the
system cost at least as much as a new Porsche 911). It also draws over
6KW when turned up a bit - he needed to have his house re-wired before
installing the 300kg or so sound system.
On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between
normal CD and SACD.

"Me" wrote in message
...
That said, a friend of mine has some B&W Nautilus Signature speakers,
powered by Krell monoblocks and preamp, all inter-connected with very
expensive cables. It does sound pretty good (and so it should as the
system cost at least as much as a new Porsche 911). It also draws over
6KW when turned up a bit - he needed to have his house re-wired before
installing the 300kg or so sound system.
On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between normal
CD and SACD.

Surprising since most SACD's are remixed or remastered specialy to make sure
they sound different to the CD. Either better or worse depends on your
opinion of course.

Trevor.

On 14/05/2013 5:23 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"Me" wrote in message
...
That said, a friend of mine has some B&W Nautilus Signature speakers,
powered by Krell monoblocks and preamp, all inter-connected with very
expensive cables. It does sound pretty good (and so it should as the
system cost at least as much as a new Porsche 911). It also draws over
6KW when turned up a bit - he needed to have his house re-wired before
installing the 300kg or so sound system.
On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between normal
CD and SACD.

Surprising since most SACD's are remixed or remastered specialy to make sure
they sound different to the CD. Either better or worse depends on your
opinion of course.

This could well be true. I didn't choose the CDs, and music I don't
particularly enjoy is "device independent" - it can't be improved.

On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:32:22 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.05.09 02:28 , nospam wrote:
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they can
be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).

i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
wire.

there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.

Not quite true.

For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

It's not a recent fad: I've been using it for +25 years.

"Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.

(The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference. It's not
blindingly obvious but using any one of several (vinyl) test records I
was able to demonstrate an audible difference via several double blind
tests. If you can't hear the difference it may say more about your
equipment than the cables.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 14 May 2013 14:24:58 +1200, Me wrote:

On 14/05/2013 12:29 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they
can
be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).

i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
wire.

there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.

Not quite true.

it's definitely true. it's all snake oil with a huge price tag for
suckers who fall for the deceptive marketing.

For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

oxygen free copper is not that recent, has no significant difference in
resistance and most copper wire is oxygen free *anyway*, whether it's
specifically listed that way or not.

if less resistance is the real goal (which it isn't), the easy solution
is get a larger gauge wire, or use silver instead of copper, which is a
better conductor. the drawback of course, is the word 'silver' doesn't
sound as impressive as 'oxygen free copper'. price isn't an issue
because these idiots will spend thousands and thousands of dollars on
all sorts of stuff thinking it will improve their sound.

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#oxygenfree
However, as indicated above, most C11000 common copper sold today
meets or exceeds the 101% IACS conductivity and overlaps C10200
³oxygen free² that has a minimum of 100% IACS conductivity. In
practice, there is no significant difference in conductivity between
all three of the grades as far as audio use is concerned.

"Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.

any difference they can measure is completely insignificant (fractions
of an ohm) and won't have any audible effect. period.

according to this calculator, 25' of 14 ga wire is 0.063 ohms, which is
less than 1% of a typical 8 ohm speaker impedance. a slightly higher or
slightly lower resistance won't make *any* difference whatsoever. drop
down a gauge to 16 ga and it's 0.1 ohm, a whopping 0.04 ohms more, into
an 8 ohm load. even that won't make a difference.

http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html

(The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

that's the entire point.

One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by
a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm

Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.

The fad which used to irritate me was the use of large rubber rims to
increase the rotational inertia of CDs with the aim of reducing wow
and flutter. The fact that the data on the CD was read into a buffer
from which it was released at a precisely controlled rate meant
nothing to the supporters of this fad. They wanted to reduce the
effect of rotational speed errors which they were certain must exist.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-05-13 12:26:51 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-08 21:15:54 -0700, PeterN said:

BTW by most standards, the word "most" has a very well understood and
BASIC meaning.

Yup! More than "some" less than "all".

Much more fun is "almost all" and mathematicians.

That could be translated as "all, except for that guy".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Me wrote:

Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.

While it is true that you can't hear ultrasonic harmonics, the same
distortion mechanisms produce intermodulation distortion. It is
probable that most tweeters produce audible IM products in the
midrange based on high frequency input signal in at least some
real world conditions. Practically any tweeter will have audible
IM under contrived conditions. (Feed the tweeter with 19khz and 20khz
at a fairly high level and while you may not hear those tones, you
will hear the 1khz difference tone.)

Peter.
--

In article , Me
wrote:

On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between normal
CD and SACD.

Surprising since most SACD's are remixed or remastered specialy to make sure
they sound different to the CD. Either better or worse depends on your
opinion of course.

This could well be true. I didn't choose the CDs, and music I don't
particularly enjoy is "device independent" - it can't be improved.

if that's true, then the difference is with the mastering, not that one
is cd and the other sacd.

for the same source material, there is no audible difference between cd
and sacd.