Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
June 4, 2007 - 11:03am
#1
How Stereo Review Skewed the Conclusions to Larry Greenhill's Blind Cable Test
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
It's amazing to me that this is still a controversial topic. I'm not talking about the value aspect of cables, but the audible differences.
From what I read, Stereo Review's article does not contradict your experiences. In fact, it explicitly says that increasing the thickness of the cable is audible in some circumstances. Depending on the thickness, resistance, etc of your lamp cable, it is completely reasonable to believe that the change you heard could have been backed up with ABX testing.
I'll admit I'm pretty firmly on the pro-blind testing side of the fence. (I'll also admit to having lead ears and no shame.) I understand that there is no clear-cut way to say that two speaker cables sound the same in an ABX test, but I also believe that when any possible differences are reduced down to the merest subtleties, those who don't have golden ears are better able to make such an inference.
Given that, and the results of your Secrets of Home Theater and Hifi test, as well as the Stereo Review, couldn't a non-audiophile safely conclude that high-end speaker cables are not worth the money compared to lamp cord of a suitably low gauge?
Absolutely. The differences in sound are only important to those who value them.
I agree.
It also looks like Archibald was just trying to fan the flames. The quote from the article says the same thing as the supposed quote directly from Greenhill.
You can hear the difference between long runs of 24 ga. wire and thicker wire.