Topic: James Randi Posts $1M Award On Speaker Cables

[Nick's Picks]

but you can't do it yourself and be impartial.
thats what i'm saying carl.  the brain plays a HUGE role in this when you know the answers ahead of time.
thats the problem.
and its not just you.  I could do the exact same thing and probably hear the big difference too.  maybe its there, maybe it isn't.  but I wouldn't go claiming fact.
I'd just smile and tell myself it was money well spent.

[Tim]

I hear ya Nick... there is definitely an inherent bias that would exist if not a blind test. That doesn't mean though that there's no difference in wires.

[Nick's Picks]

nope. and i'm certainly not claiming that.
I'm just saying that to claim "facts" when you have no good science...
is bad science.

i am a believer in wire, personally.  but to a point.
I dont think that Chris's statement of wire costing a certain amount to match the rest of the components price tags means much.  at least not to me.
but I do believe that not all wire is equal.

[cshepherd]

It's not about the price, it's about the quality of wire.  The magical $150 interconnect doesn't exist, contrary to what many wish were true.  When the quality goes up, price will follow. 

Conversely, a cheap, unrevealing interconnect on the phono stage is going to marginalize any upgrades made to the cartridge because the front end is producing more fidelity than the cable can transfer.  The system's owner thinks the new cartridge is not worth it and becomes frustrated because his expectations weren't met.  It's all about system matching.  If someone put a $500 interconnect on a system with zip cord radio shack speaker cable, they'd be disappointed as well.

Chris

[SparkE!]

Chris, if you sold jewelry, you'd probably be on here telling us that there's good reason to spend 2 months' salary on the diamond for your fiancée and that it's a matter of how much you want her to love you.  Some might not be able to tell the difference between $150 love and $7000 love, but if you had truly good equipment you could easily tell that $7000 love was better.

I'm a strong believer in the notion that differences in wire exist and that they can be measured.  What I don't believe is that it's possible for humans to perceive the subtle differences that exist.  They only fool themselves into believing that they can tell the difference, a side effect of knowing which cables they are listening to and wanting (either consciously on unconsciously) one cable to outperform the other.  If that were not the case, people could pass double blind tests when they are comparing cable.  The fact is that people aren't that perceptive.

That being said, I still see no harm in trying to do the best you can do when purchasing speaker cables.  It's a matter of deciding what's good and implementing it.  To some, it is mechanical durability.  To others it is getting the absolute lowest series resistance.  To others, it's about creating topologically balanced interconnect.  To others, it's about minimizing the capacitance of the wire.  To others, it's about minimizing the potential coupling to other sources of EM signals.  Each of these aspects of cable designs carries its own cost and you can't get them all at once.  And again, you couldn't tell the difference between zip cord and your ideal solution in a double blind test anyway.  It's only about what makes you happy that you've done the right thing and expended the appropriate amount of effort and money in installing your speaker cables.

Here's what one of the Electronic Engineering profession's leading authorities, Bob Pease, has to say on the subject of matching speakers and their cables to audio amplifiers:


Bob: Several years ago, an acquaintance bought a very expensive "high-end" audio system. The speakers were huge. The amplifiers were 350-W "mono blocks" using eight 6550s in a push-pull parallel configuration. The wires were about $100 per foot. Within a minute of first operating the system, the amplifiers were releasing smoke. He called the amplifier manufacturer. Their first question was "What cable are you using?" The strange impedance of the fancy cables interacted with the feedback system in the amplifier and caused an ultrasonic oscillation that destroyed them. So maybe the cable makes a difference, not because of its characteristics but its action on the amplifier and speakers. Not many amplifiers have a truly zero output impedance, especially vacuum-tube types.
• Bob Bodmer
• Pease: I have heard people say that low-impedance speaker cables have a lot of capacitance per unit length, if you just measure the cable open-circuit. "So when you run an amplifier that doesn't like capacitive loads, it can oscillate and cause great damage," these people say. First of all, vacuum tubes are supposed to be able to tolerate overloads in any good design. Second of all, a low-impedance speaker cable does not look like a capacitor unless you run it with no speaker. My favorite speaker cable is to parallel 20 strands of wire, going out to the speaker, and each wire serves as a twisted pair with one of the 20 (paralleled) return wires that come back to ground. If you run this with no 8-Ω speaker, it will indeed act capacitive, and the amplifier might be unhappy driving the many thousands of pf. It will look like an unterminated transmission line, and the reflections could be nasty. But when connected to an 8-Ω speaker, it looks like 7.5 Ω because it has the characteristics of a 7-Ω transmission line. So every amplifier should drive this cheerfully. The cable and load will act like 7 or 8 Ω at all frequencies, unlike lamp cord that acts like an 80-Ω transmission line at high frequencies. Audio amplifiers are not required to have a 0-Ω output impedance. Any low impedance that is consistent and predictable can work just fine. An audio amplifier that wouldn't drive an 8-Ω load sounds pretty flaky. And if a customer complains and the amplifier maker tells him "Oh, we forgot to tell you, our amplifiers don't like certain kinds of loads," but they didn't put it in their user's manual, that is a poor way to do business.

[RebelRebel]

The magical $150 interconnect doesn't exist, contrary to what many wish were true

Can't generalize. Perhaps to some,  it does. It all comes down to perspective, preference, and common sense. I always flinch when I hear that quality is always associated with with price. Why is a 150.00 interconnect always of lesser quality than a thousand dollar interconnect? Does the science/materials, etc behind the 1,000 dollar interconnect trump the science behind the lesser?? Do manufacturers that make multigazillion dollar cables know things that say...anti-cable, vampire wire, monster, (have to throw them in there because Telarc and Delos among others use some of their lines) Nick Georges or Todd Ramsden do not?? How does one make a statement like that with any authority?? If I say that my cable that was 50 bucks is much better than this guy's 3,000 piece of wire, am I wrong? (assuming everything else in the system is equal)Are his ears more right than mine? No. Authoritative statements like that need to have some sort of data to back them up. I am as guilty as anyone else is for spending a lot of money in my equipment, so please know that I am not trying to start a war of words or anything..I have no leg to stand on, but am honestly just curious about that statement. I know that you are not just interested in making a buck,  that you actually believe the things that you say, and I  respect that. I just want to know why the above statement is true.

It's not about the price, it's about the quality of wire.  The magical $150 interconnect doesn't exist, contrary to what many wish were true.  When the quality goes up, price will follow. 

Conversely, a cheap, unrevealing interconnect on the phono stage is going to marginalize any upgrades made to the cartridge because the front end is producing more fidelity than the cable can transfer.  The system's owner thinks the new cartridge is not worth it and becomes frustrated because his expectations weren't met.  It's all about system matching.  If someone put a $500 interconnect on a system with zip cord radio shack speaker cable, they'd be disappointed as well.

Chris

[Frank in JC]

What I don't believe is that it's possible for humans to perceive the subtle differences that exist.  They only fool themselves...

I knew should have kept those cheap-ass magnet-wire interconnects I made 10 years ago in lieu of the silver foil Alpha-Core ones I use now!  I feel so naive.

 

[boojum]

Cables can be built of varying capacitances and resistance.  This can affect the sound.  But revealing is not a measurable component, it is a marketing description.  This stuff can be reduced to science or fluffing.  I think Randi has made a reasonable challenge.  Let's see if anyone can claim the one million.  Easy money if what the audiophiles say is true.  This is where the rubber meets the road. 

[Tim]

except you have to "qualify" based on his arbitrary rules. If it was such an easy win for Randi why try and narrow the pool so greatly?

[jmz93]

I think what this comes down to is ... coloration. Do you like the way that expensive fat-looking cable, power cord, isolationplatform, etc. colors the soud or whatever else
colors/changes the sound of your system?

[L Ron Hoover]

I think what this comes down to is ... coloration. Do you like the way that expensive fat-looking cable, power cord, isolationplatform, etc. colors the soud or whatever else
colors/changes the sound of your system?

+T Now I think we're on to something.

[boojum]

I think what this comes down to is ... coloration. Do you like the way that expensive fat-looking cable, power cord, isolationplatform, etc. colors the soud or whatever else
colors/changes the sound of your system?

Has the distinct odor of snake oil to me.  Can it be measured in a double-blind test??  If it can't it is more than likely just wishful thinking from those guys in marketing.   

[boojum]

except you have to "qualify" based on his arbitrary rules. If it was such an easy win for Randi why try and narrow the pool so greatly?

I checked the rules (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html).  These are not arbitrary.  The test is open to anyone.  If you think you have a shot, go for it.  Quibbling about the rules doesn't feed the bulldog.  Either you take the test or you don't.  And you can bet that no one of the audio community will take the test.  Some may quibble about the ground rules.  Some will say that double-blind tests do not work, or, more laughably, do not work for audio.  Some will say that a double blind test cannot be devised for audio. But here it is: Randi has put up the cash and not one person has met the challenge.  Looks to me like Randi: 1, Audiophiles: 0.  As usual, YMMV   

[Tim]

I checked the rules (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html).  These are not arbitrary.  The test is open to anyone. 

Rule #12

12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.

Again, if this is such an easy win for Randi why all of these bizarre qualifications? Who could possibly meet these? What do they even mean? If it was as cut and dried as you like to think he'd offer the cash to any and all, he hasn't.

I'd say it's at best a draw for Randi

[boojum]

analysis-plus hollow oval technology

you can get it in oxygen free copper, silver pc, and gold pc.

It will leave pretty much anything else in the dirt, and has massive, real scientific documentation behind it, including solid white-paper research results.
http://www.analysis-plus.com/design_whitepaper.html

all of your favorite musicians are finding out about it and arming themselves with it.
don't get on the train too late.

shouldn't the shape of the signal at the amplifier be the same shape of signal recieved at the speaker?
anything else is distortion.

when I'm dead and gone, you all can pass around my bi-oval9's

They cite two papers from the 1930's and one from 1988.  Kind of dated supporting arguments.  I am surprised there is no recent research to support what he claims.  And, the manufacturer is making these claims.  Oh, that's a surprise.  When an independent third party or so starts to support this I will be interested.  As of now it is just the manufacturer, not possibly objective, and three obscure papers which are cited but not quoted.  That in itself is curious.  Oh, well.  Those folks in the audio world never cease to amaze me.  As usual, YMMV