In Reply to: I am not saying cables don't make a difference. posted by Tony Montana on June 16, 2003 at 22:41:05:
Just as the 55 MPH speed limit is an arbitrary limit, set in this case, by the governement, so is your personal interpretation of the "Physics law" more of a personal limit rather than an absolute.Despite an huge amount of posturing and posting, not one person has ever provided the data for how what we hear fully corrrelates with what has been measured or what has been determined to be our thresholds and limits of hearing. That is the case for a reason, the fact that no researchers have actually done this yet!
The codec people have come the closest, but even they are not 100% on target with correlating what can be measured with what we hear. The typical audio magazine component review measurements (THD, FR, S/N, etc.) are so far away from this, that it is a joke. BTW, the infamous James Johnston (also known as jj) of ATT codec fame has posted this many times, that typical limited measurements DO NOT fully define the audio performance of a component. Let's just say he is light years ahead of folks like mtrycrafts, et al.
[ The difference between cables becomes indiscernible when a cable address all of it specification as cable (such as quality shielding, low loss and capacitance, quality connections and tight grip on both ends). ]
No cable has 100% shielding at all frequencies, despite what a spec sheet might say. So how much is enough? What about the guy next to a radio transmiter, like Dan Banquer?
How low of a loss, and how low of a capacitance?
Some folks say that anything over 17 pF per foot is way too high, and there are interconnects with a 6 dB loss, yet many folks regard these as some of the finest sounding connecting cables out there.What is a quality connection, and why is a tight grip required?
You do not seem to be aware that just because you have a list of cable parameters that you will ultimately judge as "good enough", this is not necessarily the SOTA (State-Of-The-Art) in signal transfer.
What is "good enough" for a Dept. store rack system is NOT "good enough" for a really fine playback system. Yet folks with nothing more than Home Theater In A Box systems want to limit what others will achieve, via this "good enough" frame of mind.
RE your car analogy, it is highly flawed. What about acceleration? The car that can ONLY just do 55 MPH, will NOT be able to accelerate as well as the car that can do 100 MPH. It is also likely that the car that can do 100 MPH will be able to corner better, etc., even at 55 MPH.
Should we all settle for the Hyandai's of the cable world, just because _you_ feel that is "good enough"?Your interpretation of what the limits of the "Physics laws" mean in terms of cable parameters and sonic performance does not seem to be springing from a font of experience.
How many esoteric audio cables have you actualy listened to on a fine system? And Monster Cable on a Best Buy 'Sale of the Week' system does not count.
Until you have heard what can occur with decent cables on a fine system, what you post is mere extrapolation based on a decided lack of experience with high end audio, as well as common audio technical issues. Obviously, to say that coax is the ultimate interconnect, and that a twisted pair with an overall shield is worse, points to a decided lack of real world experience and exposure to what actually happens out there in the real world of high performance playback.
Jon Risch
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: I am not saying cables don't make a difference. - Jon Risch 10:31:05 06/17/03 (31)
- Re: I am not saying cables don't make a difference. - Monstrous Mike 12:34:13 06/17/03 (30)
- Re: I am not saying cables don't make a difference. - Jon Risch 20:28:31 06/17/03 (9)
- "...we have been fooling ourselves for years." - Monstrous Mike 21:33:05 06/17/03 (8)
- You do know that Newton was wrong, right? - Commuteman 08:49:19 06/19/03 (4)
- Interesting.... - Monstrous Mike 10:12:18 06/19/03 (0)
- So was Einstein and Maxwell. - jneutron 09:20:59 06/19/03 (2)
- Re: So was Einstein and Maxwell. - Commuteman 23:58:30 06/19/03 (1)
- Re: So was Einstein and Maxwell. - jneutron 04:58:40 06/20/03 (0)
- " with regard to the limitations of the human ear" - Jon Risch 22:27:21 06/17/03 (0)
- Re: "...we have been fooling ourselves for years." - Jon Risch 22:24:03 06/17/03 (1)
- Simply unbelievable....I can't comment further....nt - Monstrous Mike 08:42:18 06/18/03 (0)
- That is a good question concerning twisted pair vs Coax.. - Tony Montana 15:24:50 06/17/03 (19)
- Re: That is a good question concerning twisted pair vs Coax.. - Jon Risch 21:41:01 06/17/03 (18)
- Re: That is a good question concerning twisted pair vs Coax.. - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:53:35 06/19/03 (10)
- Re: That is a good question concerning twisted pair vs Coax.. - Jon Risch 10:38:21 06/19/03 (9)
- GO FOR IT THEN! WE'RE WAITING!!(nt) - Jitter_by_Coffee 05:20:28 06/20/03 (0)
- Re: That is a good question concerning twisted pair vs Coax.. - jneutron 10:46:16 06/19/03 (7)
- Now you're being deliberately obtuse - Commuteman 00:22:26 06/20/03 (2)
- Re: Now you're being deliberately obtuse - Jitter_by_Coffee 05:24:49 06/20/03 (0)
- Sorry. I was not trying to be so.. - jneutron 04:24:00 06/20/03 (0)
- Re: That is a good question concerning twisted pair vs Coax.. - Jon Risch 20:45:07 06/19/03 (3)
- Hi Jon - jneutron 04:37:08 06/20/03 (2)
- Re: Hi Jon - Jon Risch 15:44:54 06/21/03 (1)
- Well now. - jneutron 17:23:10 06/22/03 (0)
- "the gospel of no audible differences" - Markw* 07:02:10 06/19/03 (0)
- Hi Jon - jneutron 06:36:18 06/19/03 (5)
- Re: Hi Jon (Re-post of a reply on the 19th) - Jon Risch 08:30:37 06/22/03 (1)
- Re: Hi Jon (Re-post of a reply on the 19th) - jneutron 06:45:34 06/23/03 (0)
- Re: Hi John - Rod M 08:00:48 06/19/03 (1)
- Hi Rod - jneutron 09:04:03 06/19/03 (0)
- Tsk, tsk, John - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:46:34 06/19/03 (0)