You are here

Log in or register to post comments
tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
Tom, excuse me for picking on you, but I saw the title of this thread and ignored it for a long time. Now that it's gained such a history I thought I'd scan it to see what it's all about. Well, I can't tell. Evidently a bunch of key posts at the beginning got deleted by the postors or the moderators and it's total gibberish now.

Is there a real product or was the thread started as a troll and grew into something else, or what?

Sorry, but when the thread became 90% of the daily activity I finally thought that I should try to understand it, but there's no hope without help.

Dave

Yeh, why you pickin on l'il ole me?

Remember. T.S. Eliot said a poem is most effective when least understood

I think this thread started in manufacturers something or other.
It's about an esoteric cable that some consider snake oil and the cable rep:KBK has made some very big claims about the revolutionary design etc.

As a skeptical subjectivist the cable does smell of snake oil to me.

I don't know why some people get upset when their audio beliefs are challenged or even ridiculed .What does it matter what someone else thinks if you like something?

To JV, relax, have a single malt and chill. As long as no one is calling you names why get so upset?
Put on some good tunes and enjoy.

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 12 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
Is there a real product or was the thread started as a troll and grew into something else, or what?

This thread began here, and quickly developed into what it now is.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
As long as no one is calling you names why get so upset?

First of all, I'm not the one who is upset at the course of this thread.

Second, you really don't get it, do you?

dbowker
dbowker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 days ago
Joined: May 8 2007 - 6:37am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Personally, I'm sorry to see my name as the "original" poster, which I know I was not. I think I was like the 3rd or 4th commenter... And no- I can't even remember what it was about except some guy going on and on about some secret new wire the world has never seen before. Like that would come out for audio before NASA or military? Anyway, we never have seen anything more about what these things are...

dcstep
dcstep's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2007 - 4:59pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:

Quote:
Is there a real product or was the thread started as a troll and grew into something else, or what?

This thread began here, and quickly developed into what it now is.

Thank you so much Stephen. The thread, as I was reading it, was missing its head. Now I see.

Dave

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:

Quote:
As long as no one is calling you names why get so upset?

First of all, I'm not the one who is upset at the course of this thread.

Second, you really don't get it, do you?

Oh, I get it .

Hey, why don't you call me a roach again, that is always pleasant and illustrates your true character.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Sure, if you like it so much. You're a roach.

Happy?

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 12 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
Personally, I'm sorry to see my name as the "original" poster, which I know I was not. I think I was like the 3rd or 4th commenter...

I'm sorry about that. You're correct. If I could have moved this thread in a better way, I would have. The result is just a consequence of the forum software. Sorry for any confusion.

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 12 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

There have been several attempts to get this particular thread back on course. Let's re-focus on the cables and their method of conduction.

Thanks.

Benonymous
Benonymous's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2006 - 7:22pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Back on topic. Good idea.

First let me thank those who have taken an intelligent view of what has transpired on this thead and the truncated version of it on the Manufacturers Showcase section on the board.

As I stated on another post. My intention was to call KBK on his statement that the cables that he has be "working on for 20 years" were going to rewrite the laws of physics.

His partners have released information pertaining to the composition of the "Teo" cables with their liquid conductors and I quickly researched the liquid conductor in use. This, I discovered, has much higher per-meter resistance than good old copper. Why should this be an improvement? From an electrical standpoint its a step backwards and for some amplifiers, it may push them into oscillation or some other unpleasent state.

However, we have KBK and his partners touting them as "ASOUNDING". This is actually my trigger word when it comes to Hi Fi . Astounding means "trust us! were salesmen!"

The simple fact is that the HiFi salemen are running out of things to sell you. You can already get all of the important components, cd/record player, pre-amp, amplifier and speakers in every price range. So its the era of accessories. Cables seem to be the most verdant field for the HiFi salesmen to frolic in at the moment. Despite the fact that Wired magazine put Pear cables on their "Vapour-ware" list and Gizmodo.com gave Pear a place in their "10 worst tech products" list.

It's this type of product that killed my interest in HiFi as a hobby and I really put the people that sell this stuff, for me, in the same category as used car salesmen.

There are two types of electrical conduction. Electron and ionic. KBK's cables work on the electron conduction not a "totally new method of conduction" principle. It would appear that nobody has used a Gallium/Indium/Tin alloy in a speaker cable before. That does NOT make it superior to copper by default. Until somebody has done a real technical analysis on the product, anything you hear is just salesmans talk.

However, my assetions against this untried novelty has ruffled some feathers. Particularly from those who are probably heavily comitted in such "wonder" products, flogged to them by unscrupulous individuals who are laughing behind your backs as you leave their store. "Come back soon, we have the Morpheus Orpheus Magnum Cum Louder cables coing in next week" hyuk! hyuk! *choke* *cough*

Don't believe me? Whip down to your local chain store where there might be a "Monster" versus "regular" RCA cable display. Observe the tiled display on the TV set. On one side the "regular" AV cable on the other the magnificence of "Monster" Dig a little deeper and you'll notice that the player has a composite output and a YUV output. Take careful note of which cable is plugged into where.

If you can't find a display like this, the Monster cable is plugged into the YUV and the regular into the composite. Do you think maybe the extra layers of processing and analog signal path have aything to do with the "regular" AV cable looking a little scratchy??????????

Folks, it's your money and I don't give a damn how you spend it. None of my business. However, know who you're dealing with. The fakers who spew jargon at you are no smarter than a used car salesman. They just want your money, pure and simple.

BTW. The liquid metal used in these cables (tubes?)will "wet" any surface including glass. That is, it spreads out rather than beading on the surface. This property would see it bind effectively to any metal surface. So if we were to fill a surgical rubber hose with it and seal it off with a couple of metal pins, that would make a perfectly suitable interface for electron conduction. It is this property,also, that makes it useful in its primary role as a low toxicty substitute for mercury in relays and contactors as a contact wetting substance and also as a heat sink compound.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

That's re-focused on the method of conduction?

Sounds like another rant to me.

Copper

Iridium

Tin

There! That should refocus the dicussion.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Thanks, Fresh Clip, I did not know that about a "wet" contact!

Kudos for the education you passed on to me!

Now, if I did pass signal through athis medium, even standard computer data...would the signal arriving at the other end be "the same" as if I has passed it through copper? Resistance issues aside.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
At what price point are interconnects no longer considered 'well made' and enter the realm of magic?


I would have said $20 for normal lengths of wire with normal (not 25-pin) connectors. But Alex's $50 argument is good too for the reasons he stated.


Quote:
iconoclasts on either side lose credibility in my book.


The two definitions I have for iconoclast are:

1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.

2. One who destroys sacred religious images.

For #1 I'll say that the magic cable sellers are the ones trying to overthrow traditional provable science by inventing new physics, and inventing nonsense words like pace and rhythm to describe the benefits of their products.

As for #2, I plead guilty as charged. Religion and science have always been at odds, and frankly I'm amazed that religious arguments still carry weight in an otherwise educated society. Who here still believes the sun revolves around the earth?

--Ethan

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Another great post, fresh clip.

And, yes, I think you refocused quite well

Cables are the last refuge of the snake oil crooks and that kind of nonsense drives away new audiophiles.

dwiggins
dwiggins's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 20 2007 - 1:45pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:

At what price point are interconnects no longer considered 'well made' and enter the realm of magic?

Same goes for other Hi Fi gear.

Can y'all please post the price points where Hi Fi stuff becomes 'magic?'

Buddha, An interesting question but I don't think there is a particular price point, in my opinion it depends on the product and the degree of BS that is being touted to try to sell it. Perhaps the better question is at what point does open mindedness tip over into gullibility.

It is the reality of our hobby that in the end it is what we hear and how we react to it that matters but unfortunately if we adopt an open minded approach where we implicitly trust what is being claimed about the sound quality of new products then we open up a gap into which the unscrupulous snake oil salespeople leap with enormous enthusiasm. To reign them in to some degree at least, and to enable a reasonable sharing of opinions of HiFi equipment, when they make claims that appear to defy known scientific principles or behaviours they should be rigourously challenged. Fresh Clip clearly took issue with the claims being made at the start of this thread and challenged them robustly, relentlessly and very politely. KBK wilted under the strength of Fresh Clip's reasoning and eventually cried foul having failed to substantiate any of his original claims.

In all cases (including KBK's cables) it is the sound quality that a potential purchaser recognises from the product and the value that they attribute to it rather than the cost that matters. If anyone wants to spend any amount on any product that is their business not mine but if I see claims being made for a product where I believe what I know contradicts the claims then I will challenge them. I get very irritated by the claims for magic potions to apply to CD's to make them sound better and the nonsense describing how/why they are supposed to work. As recently as November a Sterophile reviewer was waxing lyrical about the improvements he heard after applying such a product to his discs. If he understood digital better and how to objectively test if the data stream from the disc was accurate he might have arrived at a different conclusion.

What we hear is unique to each of us and is open to many influences; where we have applicable rules that can be brought to bear in assessing the performance of a product they should be applied and if necessary defended. We can then confidently maintain open minds without falling into total gullibility.

My opinion for what it's worth
Dave

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
Cables are the last refuge of the snake oil crooks and that kind of nonsense drives away new audiophiles.

I'll ask you the same question you asked of me a while back; got any proof for that statement? The first half sounds like hyperbole driven by unwarranted (and easy) cynicism. The second half, well ... it just sounds like you made that up 'cause you could.

I'd like to see proof that cable prices or claims for cable performance drives away new audiophiles. I'm thinking that would be a hard case to make in the light of reality.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:

Quote:
Cables are the last refuge of the snake oil crooks and that kind of nonsense drives away new audiophiles.

I'll ask you the same question you asked of me a while back; got any proof for that statement? The first half sounds like hyperbole driven by unwarranted (and easy) cynicism. The second half, well ... it just sounds like you made that up 'cause you could.

I'd like to see proof that cable prices or claims for cable performance drives away new audiophiles. I'm thinking that would be a hard case to make in the light of reality.

Jan, are you maybe able to prove the opposite?

We are in the land of opinion here, I don't think he needs to "prove" anything.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Thank you, buddha

I don't think I need to prove anything either.

However I base some of my opinion on trying to convert friends to the high end. I realy lose them re cables.

IME I ditched my 3,000 cable when I bought anti cable at 100.00.

I "thought" the anti cable sounded better but it is likely there is no difference.
Except the price

I have a friend who has the new nordhost at 20,000+

I heard it in his system but I don't know his system well enough. He might bring them by for grins.

I would happily report a difference if I hear it, although I would never spend that much on cables.

And to clarify, I don't think all cable people are snake oil crooks. But it does seem like many of them are, with their pseudo science marketing.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
It is the reality of our hobby that in the end it is what we hear and how we react to it that matters but unfortunately if we adopt an open minded approach where we implicitly trust what is being claimed about the sound quality of new products then we open up a gap into which the unscrupulous snake oil salespeople leap with enormous enthusiasm.


Quote:
In all cases (including KBK's cables) it is the sound quality that a potential purchaser recognises from the product and the value that they attribute to it rather than the cost that matters.


Quote:
If anyone wants to spend any amount on any product that is their business not mine but if I see claims being made for a product where I believe what I know contradicts the claims then I will challenge them.


Quote:
I get very irritated by the claims for magic potions to apply to CD's to make them sound better and the nonsense describing how/why they are supposed to work. As recently as November a Stereophile reviewer was waxing lyrical about the improvements he heard after applying such a product to his discs. If he understood digital better and how to objectively test if the data stream from the disc was accurate he might have arrived at a different conclusion.


Quote:
What we hear is unique to each of us and is open to many influences; where we have applicable rules that can be brought to bear in assessing the performance of a product they should be applied and if necessary defended. We can then confidently maintain open minds without falling into total gullibility.

I have a very hard time following the logic of these ideas. If it is the sound quality that matters, then the product must produce results. If the product produces results, then what's the problem? IMO, the "problem" is that not enough people have any idea what an improvement is and merely settle for a difference. If they "thought" they made a "difference" but probably they didn't, then who is to blame there? If live music is what we are trying to reproduce, then we should have a reference to compare against when judging results. If we settle instead for what makes things sound the way we want just because that's easier and more convenient than knowing the sound of live music and how to use that as a reference for improvement, then we have ignored our part of the shared responsibilty of the deal. If we let our cyncism or our arrogance guide our judgement, then we have to accept the responsibility of poor judgement. Our own poor judgement, not the judgement of the person who put the product in front of us or the person who took our money when we said that's what we want. If we make the decision to merely accept "different", then the blame cannot be placed on another party. No matter how much that would make us feel better. If we are ready to abrogate our portion of the responsibilities in this matter, then we have only ourself to blame. And, therefore, we should only be talking about the thing that we screwed up and not pointing fingers at someone else. What was it Alex complained about, "self-appointed moralists"? Just what do you guys consider yourself? "Other-guy appointed moralists"? We can easily hate the militant Islamo-fascist terrorist but we cannot forget who helped create him. Placing blame seems all too easy and the lazy person's way out.

If it is, as dwiggins suggests, the "the sound quality that a potential purchaser recognises from the product and the value that they attribute to it rather than the cost that matters", then what are we complaining about? The value someone else attributed to a product we haven't heard?

Puh-leeeeeease!

I have no idea why you would want to challenge the idea that someone else hears something or finds value in something you don't and haven't heard or seen. What a waste of time and energy. What self appointed moralism! What a bunch of old hens clucking about what the neighbor woman did after church last Sunday! How would you like it if someone told you the new house you bought isn't worth the money you paid? Would you be comfortable if they gave an opinion of your spouse? Your children? Gentlemen, it is none of your damn business. Put your energy and opinions into something that matters.

I will ask again for the name of one audio product that has remained on the market that is based on unethical marketing. Anyone? Anything? Surely someone must have something they can name other than some as yet unmarketed cables.

"If he understood digital better and how to objectively test if the data stream from the disc was accurate he might have arrived at a different conclusion." And, if we knew how amplifiers operate, we might pick the one with the lowest T.H.D. spec.

My, my, my! The things we fall back on when we want to sound important. Didn't you just say it is the sound quality that matters, dwiggins? Please explain which it is, subjective or objective? Why get your hackles up over what someone else does?

Is that the only argument that any of you can make? That you must defend the code of the audiophile? That you must tell others what is good and what is bad? That you alone have the clarity of vision to make that decision?

Where is the Taliban when you need them?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
Jan, are you maybe able to prove the opposite?

Wiat a minute! You ask me to prove what he said? And then say he doesn't have to prove anything?

Buddha!


Quote:
We are in the land of opinion here, I don't think he needs to "prove" anything.

If he wishes us to take him at his word, he does. If we should just know he is talking out of his ass, then that's another matter.

My opinion is this is not the refuge of anyone other than self-appointed moralists and that this is what drives new audiophiles away. Seeing old audiophiles and people talking out of their ass is not what anyone wants when they are new to a hobby. Seeing black and white opinions of equipment is not what a music lover wants when they read this magazine and forum.

If you want to hear others discuss music - which is what we say we love and why we are here - what does this squabbling about what someone else does or buys or builds matter to you? You want to hear more music and less BS. And this is the BS that no one wants to hear.

This is purely ridiculous and serves no purpose other than making those who want to impose their opinion on others feel good about themself. A few here claim that is what I want. Then they turn around and do exactly what they complain about only they do it to everyone who will listen.

What crap!

bjh
bjh's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 12 2005 - 2:33pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Children stop yer talking and bickering this minute else I'll come up there with the belt, ye hear!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Hey! We're re-focussing here, fella! So back off!

This what you meant, right, Stephen?

piinob
piinob's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Aug 14 2007 - 11:31pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

I wonder if "skin effect" applys to liquid conductors, or does the signal see it all as "core"? Is the flux field around the liquid media constant, or does it change, even minutely, as the liquid moves around? Is the flux field greater or less or equal to a solid conductor. These things may not affect the sound, but they would be interesting to know. (I know what I am trying to say but I am not sure I am saying it)

dwiggins
dwiggins's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 20 2007 - 1:45pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Jan,

Ouch!!! I'm sorry that you didn't follow my logic, I tried hard to make myself clear but obviously failed. I'm also sorry that you took my comments on the efficacy of magic CD fluids as wanting to sound important. Important to who I might ask? As you can see it was only my 4th post and I'm not very good at it yet.

You ask which it is subjective or objective and my point was that the objective is required to challenge the subjective (or vise versa) and what can't be can't be no matter how golden one's ears.

No wish to engage with you further, I've seen where that leads.

Thanks for the feedback
Dave

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
Hey! We're re-focussing here, fella! So back off!

Hey! Have some chocolate darlin'!

RG

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
I wonder if "skin effect" applys to liquid conductors, or does the signal see it all as "core"? Is the flux field around the liquid media constant, or does it change, even minutely, as the liquid moves around? Is the flux field greater or less or equal to a solid conductor. These things may not affect the sound, but they would be interesting to know. (I know what I am trying to say but I am not sure I am saying it)

Now we're getting somewhere.

An excellent question.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

JV,
I kindly ask you to be civil with your posts. Saying someone is talking out their ass hardly leads to civil discourse.

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:

Quote:
At what price point are interconnects no longer considered 'well made' and enter the realm of magic?


I would have said $20 for normal lengths of wire with normal (not 25-pin) connectors. But Alex's $50 argument is good too for the reasons he stated.


Quote:
iconoclasts on either side lose credibility in my book.


The two definitions I have for iconoclast are:

1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.

2. One who destroys sacred religious images.

For #1 I'll say that the magic cable sellers are the ones trying to overthrow traditional provable science by inventing new physics, and inventing nonsense words like pace and rhythm to describe the benefits of their products.

As for #2, I plead guilty as charged. Religion and science have always been at odds, and frankly I'm amazed that religious arguments still carry weight in an otherwise educated society. Who here still believes the sun revolves around the earth?

--Ethan

Ethan, As a follower of the Immutable Laws of Science and a religious iconocast I would expect you to possess the critical thinking skills necessary to fairly assess audio issues.

This cable "debate" is not only about means of conduction, but the conduct of those who have decided for everyone what price points are deemed reasonable and which represent larceny, and even which will scare away prospective hobbyists!

So let me repeat this scenario from The Entry Level last week. A newbie writes that he has a ($79) pair of Polk R30 speakers, three Bose Acoustimass ll's for center and surround and a Harmom Kardon AVR 130 receiver (their cheapest model) in an 18' X 40' X 12' room. He wants to upgrade. What's a reasonable response? Here's yours:

"This is a no-brainer. You already have perfectly fine gear. Room acoustic treatment will do more to improve the quality of your system than anything else you can get."

--Ethan

--------------------
www.realtraps.com
The acoustic treatment experts

Given your acoustic treatments start at $800 for a small room (effectively doubling the value of his system) and can go up to $6K-$7K for larger rooms (8640 cubes is a LARGE room), do you feel from an objective, scientific standpoint that this much money thrown at a budget set-up is reasonable? Or efficacious? I don't deny the scientifically sound engineering of your products, but your audio advice seems self-serving, IMO. Is it possible the sun revolves around the cash register in your world?

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

hmmmmmm,
let's see, ethan is known for polite, well reasoned posts. He is an accomplished cellist, has a well respected business, has recording experience,

I think I will have to go with Ethan on this.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
JV,
I kindly ask you to be civil with your posts. Saying someone is talking out their ass hardly leads to civil discourse.

Neither does just making stuff up to act as cover for your own cynicism. You say you loose new audiophiles when you begin discussing cables. However, in the same sentence you refer to cables as "nonsense". If you approach cables with the idea they are "nonsense", it's no wonder you loose new listeners. If you can't suggest low cost, viable alternatives and let them find their own way in the cable wars, then yes, I would expect you to loose them. But, saying this drives away new audiophiles ignores the fact that you tell them all of this cable business is just nonsense, the audiophiles who buy expensive cables are lunatics and the people who make and sell them are charlatans and thiefs. Now there's a big welcome to your new hobby if ever I saw one!

And really, fella, don't pull this "civility" stuff on me. Remember when I asked you and your little band to be civil and you turned me down and then insulted me? I can pull up the thread if you don't. And when I asked again, you still turned me down. So don't get hinky about "civilty" unless you intend to practice it yourself. That suit doesn't fit you well.

Benonymous
Benonymous's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2006 - 7:22pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Jan, can you put your cards on the table. It was suggested in a previous post that you had been involved in HiFi retail, is that true?

If so, it would explain your venal tone on the thread.

Shade, you posed a question about "skin effect" and how a liquid conductor may affect this property in a speaker cable. I will answer your question as an engineer not as a Hi Fi salesman. Prepare yourself.

Skin effect is a phenomenon whereby the current being conducted in the conductive element tends to concerntrate to the outer periphery of the conductor. This effect is related, most strongly, to the frequency of the signal. The phenomenon is most pronounced at gigahertz frequencies and above and is one of the reasons why it is necessary to use "waveguides" instead of cables at frequencies commonly used in the microwave band. My professional experience covers this type of equipment at a construction and troubleshooting level. "Skin effect" in it's simplest expression is the relationship between the frequency of the signal and the depth at which most of the conduction occurs in the conductor. At microwave frequencies this depth can be microscopic but at audio frequencies it is....... wait for it.....meters, yes, meters. To observe skin effect in a conductor at even the highest audible frequency the conductor would be meters thick. And you thought your cables were chunky

To sum up, "Skin effect" as regurgitated by so many Hi Fi salesmaen is a complete load of tosh. It would be impossible to measure and even if you could it would be a grain of sand in the universe.

Phase coherence is another catchphrase beloved by the HiFi sales charlatan. What does it even mean??? In electrical terms, an AC generator run through a 12' length of copper wire will have perfect phase end to end minus the infantessimal amount of time it takes the signal to get from one end of the cable to the other.

Also, Jan, really. Being told that you need a set of cables for your new HiFi that cost $4000 isn't a disencentive to people just entering the market?? Surely you jest!

I tell you what, just for a lark, I'll go to a High End shop here in Sydney and see wha the salesmen try to pull on me. I'll bring back a list of recommended equipment and a price. The best scenario is for me to be the kind of customer who's "ready to take the next step" ie a sucker who's got Hi Fi envy, I'll invent a friend who's got a really incredulously overpriced setup, but whom I admire for his desire for "sonic purity" and "honesty in sound" Should be a great prank!

Finally, Jan requested some true audio rip-off type products and for your viwing enjoyment I give you, without doubt one of the most insane audio product companies ever.

PWB electronics, home of the quantum (there's that word) clip.

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/quantum/quantum.html

Enjoy.

Ben.

P.S Also, I think rvance was concerned that my nick Fresh_Clip was some sort of allusion to a murky obsession with firearms. Incorrect. Fresh_Clip is the name of my video production business. But just to give rvance a bit of a boost, I am a target shooter and I specialize in military caliber rifles and long range marksmanship. I only own bolt action guns as anything else is banned here in the Republic of Aussie.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Another great post , Clip. Thanks for that.

BTW, JV was a salesperson at Omni Sound in Dallas Tx.
They went out of business in the 90's but they had some good lines and nice showrooms.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

http://fermi.la.asu.edu/w9cf/skin/

"The skin depth in copper is about .005 centimeters for the 160 meter band,....."

(160 meter band is approx 1.8mhz (megahertz), not just the gigahertz range.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect#Examples
Another chart of examples here.

http://www.bcae1.com/trnsfrmr.htm

"Skin Effect:
..... If, for example, you are using 14g wire at 100khz, the wire will not be able to carry the same amount of current as it could if it were passing DC. If your calculations told you that you needed to have ~4120 circular mils, you'd have a few choices. You could use 1 strand of 14g wire, 3 strands of 17g or 6 strands of 20g. All would have the same current carrying capacity if you were using it in a DC circuit but... If you were using it for AC, the 14g would only be suitable for frequencies below ~6000hz. Above that frequency, the voltage losses and power dissipation may be unacceptable (it would still work above 6000hz but not efficiently). The maximum frequency that you'd want to use with the 17g would be about 11,000hz. For 22,000hz the 6 strands of 20g would be a good choice."

http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/wired-4-sound/rwf-lampen2.shtml
"What this means is pretty simple. At 20 kHz, small wires are used completely; that is, the skin depth is equal or greater than the diameter. For a large wire, such as a 10 AWG speaker cable (diameter 0.115 inches), the entire wire is used as a conductor until you get to 2 kHz.

At 2 kHz the signal begins to migrate to the outside of the wire. At 20 kHz, generally the analog audio frequency limit, 68 percent of that 10 AWG wire is being used."

Seems there is a large discrepancy between the links and what Fresh posted with Tom agreed with. Big difference between kilohertz, megahertz, and gigahertz.

Hope this helps.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Actually I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but I am thanking you both for the educational info you are posting

And again, to clarify, I don't think all cable manufacturers are snake oil. It does seem to me, however, that cables are more prone to pseudo-scientific claims than other areas of audio.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
If so, it would explain your venal tone on the thread.

According to Merrian Webster's Collegiate dictionary;

Venal; 1) capable of being bought or obtained for money or other valuable consideration: PURCHASABLE; especially : open to corrupt influence and bribery: MERCENARY 2) originating in, characterised by or associated with bribery.

That's a very strong accusation you made there, Freshclip, particularly since you don't know me from Adam. Why don't you rephrase that sentence. Or, better yet, apologize.


Quote:
Should be a great prank!

Only an asshole would consider that to be a prank. Is that your vocation or avocation, freshclip? It's plain to see you don't engage in it only as a hobby.


Quote:
Also, Jan, really. Being told that you need a set of cables for your new HiFi that cost $4000 isn't a disencentive to people just entering the market?? Surely you jest

Of course being told you "need" a set of $4k cables is a disincentive to anyone. Just for your information, I began a thread on this forum asking why there were no entry level cables in the recommended components listings. So, please, take your accusations and firmly place them in the most uncomfortable location within your body that you can imagine.

Being told you need $4k cables is a disincentive to anyone. Just what mentality am I dealing with here? Did you simply miss where I stated a newcomer should be made aware of inexpensive, viable alternatives? If you cannot do that for anyone on any budget, you really have no business discussing this hobby with anyone. If you cannot or will not do that, or if you tell the story by detailing how you were ripped off when you chose (of your own free will) to make the purchase of $2500 cables, then you are doing everyone in this hobby a disservice and it is you who has become the disincentive to the newcomer and the product is just a product.


Quote:
Finally, Jan requested some true audio rip-off type products and for your viwing enjoyment I give you, without doubt one of the most insane audio product companies ever.

Finally, read my question!

I asked for any product that had remained on the market when its value had been disproven. You've latched onto a Peter Belt concept. I'm sorry to disappoint you but there are hundreds if not thousands of listeners who believe many if not all of Peter Belt's gadgets and tweaks actually do improve the sound they hear. Do you want me to pull some testimonials? I can. There are hundreds of them from listeners who won't play music without their gadgets and tweaks in place. They believe what they hear. And they don't care what you think. They believe what they hear!

And PWB products have remained on the market for over twenty years. Hardly a faltering enterprise. Whether you agree with the "theory" of the product, or believe those who listen with them in place to be fools or madmen, it doesn't matter. So don't start off on how these can't work or are merely placeboes. I don't want to hear it. I asked a question. You did not answer that question. These products remain on the market and listeners (some with very high quality systems and some with decades of experience listening to live music) want them and use them. You would have a very difficult time getting any of these listener to agree they are the one being foolish.

Therefore, your "proof" is no proof at all. It proves you believe people to be fools when they do not ascribe to what you believe. It proves nothing else. The products remain on the market, which was my qualifying phrase for this test. You cannot prove the products do not improve the listening experience for those who use them. We have agreed it is the sound quality you hear and not the price nor the "silliness" nor the unscientific nature of the product that counts.

The PWB products remain on the market and listeners claim improvement when they are employed. And they continue to sell to those who are willing to listen. You fail the test, freshclip. And you display your distain for those who do not agree with you and those who are there to serve you in some manner with an incredible audacity and arrogance.

At this point, I'm thinking you're a professional at this.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

I wonder if Fresh copied Dan Banquer's exaggerated claim a few years ago?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
BTW, JV was a salesperson at Omni Sound in Dallas Tx

I am very tired of you making references to my personal live. My personal live and history is no one's business on this forum.

Stop it and stop it now. This is out of bounds on this forum. If I want something told, I will tell it, not you.

Got it?

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:

Quote:
BTW, JV was a salesperson at Omni Sound in Dallas Tx

I am very tired of you making references to my personal live. My personal live and history is no one's business on this forum.

Stop it and stop it now. This is out of bounds on this forum. If I want something told, I will tell it, not you.

Got it?

No

You have already said you were an audio salesman.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

There you go name calling again.
I have been alerting the moderator everytime you descend to this level, JV. I hope others will as well.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
I wonder if Fresh copied Dan Banquer's exaggerated claim a few years ago?

I do not know that story.

Can you catch me up?

Thanks for the posts, SAS Audio. I am as confused as ever, but slowly learning. Your info is much appreciated.

Also, this thread is making progress; Jan is now fighting with someone besides AlexO!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
You have already said you were an audio salesman.

And that is all that needs to be said. My personal life is off limits unless I choose to let anyone know anything more. And, yes, I will also complain to Stephen if you insist on this childish game. Enough is enough.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:

Quote:
You have already said you were an audio salesman.

And that is all that needs to be said. My personal life is off limits unless I choose to let anyone know anything more. And, yes, I will also complain to Stephen if you insist on this childish game. Enough is enough.

Well, at least you didn't call me an a-hole, so I guess I should be thankful

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

Also, this thread is making progress; Jan is now fighting with someone besides AlexO!

LOL!

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
It does seem to me, however, that cables are more prone to pseudo-scientific claims than other areas of audio.


Just as bad are magic hockey pucks, too-small room treatments that defy all that is known about physics, power "conditioner" products, amplifiers that claim to use no negative feedback (I guess the designers enjoy 10 percent distortion?), cryogenic products and processes, and so forth.

--Ethan

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:

Quote:
It does seem to me, however, that cables are more prone to pseudo-scientific claims than other areas of audio.


Just as bad are magic hockey pucks, too-small room treatments that defy all that is known about physics, power "conditioner" products, amplifiers that claim to use no negative feedback (I guess the designers enjoy 10

percent distortion?), cryogenic products and processes, and so forth.

--Ethan

so I should take that picture out of the freezer?

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
This cable "debate" is not only about means of conduction, but the conduct of those who have decided for everyone what price points are deemed reasonable


This is a great point. My goal is not to argue with believers who already spent too much (IMO) and want to feel good about their purchases, or who believe they enjoy better sound with their expensive wires. Rather, I aim to reach people who truly want to know what matters and what does not, and whether the claims of cable companies are valid. A typical newbie post is along the lines of, "I read that expensive wire sounds better than cheap wire, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this idea. Is it really true that I should budget 15 percent of my purchase for wire, as I was told by my dealer?" These are the people I hope to reach.


Quote:
Given your acoustic treatments start at $800 for a small room (effectively doubling the value of his system) and can go up to $6K-$7K for larger rooms (8640 cubes is a LARGE room), do you feel from an objective, scientific standpoint that this much money thrown at a budget set-up is reasonable?


It really depends on how much the guy wants to spend upgrading. I agree that $79 speakers are low end, and I wasn't aware of that at the time. Mea Culpa on that point. (However, I've heard $80 each speakers that are quite good.) More typical posters already have expensive gear, and they ask about buying even more expensive gear. Those are folks that most need to hear about room treatment.


Quote:
Is it possible the sun revolves around the cash register in your world?


Fair question, but the answer is No. I sell acoustic treatment because I truly believe in it, not the other way around.

--Ethan

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
ll, at least you didn't call me an a-hole, so I guess I should be thankful

I was happy to oblige you when you wanted to be called a roach. I can do more if you ask real nice.

BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:

Quote:
ll, at least you didn't call me an a-hole, so I guess I should be thankful

I was happy to oblige you when you wanted to be called a roach. I can do more if you ask real nice.

That's enough for me. I won't be reading this thread anymore.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.


Quote:
That's enough for me. I won't be reading this thread anymore.


Yes.

At least third-graders stop when recess is over.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Completely new audio cables-different method of conduction.

I wanted to put in my 2 cents before this thread gets retired.

Having read a number of Jan's posts, I think I got a good handle on the approach Jan takes to hi-fi audio. These are stances Jan takes as I understand it:

1. Always pay the asking price at a dealer. If you don't, you're an asshole

2. Never try to negotiate a price. The price is always fair. If you try to negotiate, you're an asshole.

3. Do not buy from the Internet. Internet based dealers are evil. If you do, you're an asshole.

4. Do not buy used on Audiogon. People who sell their used gear on Audiogon are evil and they undermine the dealers. If you buy on Audiogon, you're an asshole.

5. Do not price the products at different dealers and try to get a better deal by pricing one against the other. If you do, you're an asshole.

6. Do not question the value of expensive gear and cables. All claims about enhanced performance are valid. Questioning these claims makes you an asshole.

7. Do not bring up the fact that Jan was/is a hi-fi salesman whose opinions and perceptions may not mesh with the buying public. Bringing these subjects up makes one an asshole.

8. Do not point out Jan's constant attempts to ban people from the forums while engaging in the most inappropriate behavior him/herself. Pointing such things out makes you an asshole.

9. Any attempt to violate rules 1-8 will cause Jan to run crying to mommy and complain about evil assholes beating up on poor Jan.

10. AlexO and Tomjtx are assholes.

I hope I was able to accurately summarize Jan's sentiment on all things audio.

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading