Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
posted today at <A
HREF'"http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable</A>.
Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
might be surprised to learn that the laws of physic predict
the opposite.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com wrote:
> Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
> posted today at <A
> HREF'"http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable</A>.
> Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
> for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
> might be surprised to learn that the laws of physic predict
> the opposite.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

My god,
this article is complete bogus, the author is speculating, there is not a
single worthwhile conclusion to be found. It si on the same level as these
infamous "micro-diodes", in fact it seems that this guy has invented that
too. Sheer nonsense (some slow travelling wave inside the cable with 1/25 of
the speed of sound in air). Not a single measurement to confirm, in fact
that "wave" does simply not exist.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 30 Aug 2005 00:55:53 GMT, Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com wrote:

>Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
>posted today at <A
>HREF'"http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable">www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable</A>.
>Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow
>for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
>might be surprised to learn that the laws of physic predict
>the opposite.

I seem to recall that this article was thoroughly sliced and diced at
the time of its first appearance in HFN - perhaps you were too busy
sorting out your new job to notice? :-)

Yes John, all us 'techie' types are well aware that around 0.6mm
(roughly 24 AWG) is the ideal *theoretical* diameter for conductor to
avoid the perfectly real effects of skin depth at the highest audio
frequencies, hence this being a handy size for the construction of
such items as 'Litz' audio cables, very popu;lar in the '70s. Indeed
my own interconnects are made from 26AWG twisted-pair solid core wire
- but for different reasons to do with loop area.

None of the above theoretical optimisation however, has anything to do
with whether one cable is *audibly* different from another. As John
Dunlavy used to say, while his Z-6 speaker cable was *technically* the
best that money could buy, it didn't actually *sound* different from
common zipcord. He left it to his cuctomers to decide if they wanted
the theoretical best despite no assurances of sonic difference.

A somewhat different standpoint from the purple prose to be found in
Stereophile, no?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow for differences in
cable performance at audio frequencies might be surprised to learn that
the laws of physic predict the opposite."

Stereophile seems to be devoting alot of time these days, online at least,
in sandbagging the dike of the subjective enterprise.

First we were presented with your epiphany that if one subject themselves
to the conditions well known to create perceptions not existing in an
audio signal, those perceptions will likely occur as routinely as happens
in humans. Now we are asked to share in the slaying of a strawman.

I have never seen the above statement made, it is ridiculously easy to
make a wire that does change sound, using the laws of physics. But we
don't want such a thing and why we seek to keep the electrical measures of
wire below those levels that are likely to do so to the degree they become
audible. The wire matter rests still after the straw is cleaned up as
before. First we demonstrate the validity of the truth claims of wire
advocates by listening alone tests. If a difference, any difference can
be shown to be identified then we can proceed to finding what electrical
element caused that difference to rise above the threshold of audibility.

But just to be sporting about the matter, use the optimum wire size of the
article and another wire off by 10 percent (just to pick a number) and see
if by listening alone the difference will appear. As another says, he is
on about skin effect which has been demonstrated to have about a .2 db
effect at 20k and never demonstrated to be audible.