My Discussion got closed

11tsteve

kevintomb wrote: »

I still think a lot of this has to do with some people simply wanting to feel good about something they like or bought.

No one ever wants to hear, the could be wrong, might have wasted money, or maybe made a choice that was based on simply things other recommended or someone tried to justify based on "Shaky" science or electronics.

Mantis, myself and Xcapri to name a few, are simply expressing a view, opinion, or things we have learned through our experiences.

I am not so sure, others are so disgusted simply cause our ideas or experiences are not the same as theirs, or more disgusted that it makes them have to consider how valid or confident they are in their own beliefs and purchases.


I keep thinking of Dr. Zaus on the original Planet of the apes.

Expressing your ideas and experiences is fine. It seems to be the part where you discount other peoples' views and experiences which makes people disgusted. You completely discount other's ability to distinguish cables.

It is really that simple.... and it has been said many times. The irony of the bolded text eludes you.

tonyb

The premise that YOU have the ability to tell people what is wrong, what they can possibly hear, and how they wasted THEIR money is probably the height of arrogance in audio.

I'd like to hear exactly how you know that people wasted their money. Only one person can make that distinction, the person who's money it is.

F1nut

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

Now, Mantis is STRAIGHT UP a learned person. He is, I believe, as are you, of the same INSIDE THE BOX group: "The wire/cable has transmitted to the load the EXACT input signal so it has done all it can do".

I would disagree. Here's why:

The signal goes to the load (speaker).
The speaker cone moves in response to the signal (got your magical magnetic stuff at work there).
The signal ends,

NOW: is the speaker still a load ? Or does it briefly act like something else ?
Maybe ..,,,,,, as a supply ? You have a coil, still moving however slightly (let's call it "ringing") through a magnetic field. What's that produce ? A signal.
Long story short: the speaker is both a load and a supply. How it is connected to the original supply (amp) will be affected by the characteristics of that connecting medium. When the original supply signal disappears and the reflective speaker signal shows up on the wire/cable, what happens next will, IMO, affect the long term sound.

An excellent point. I know that issue is addressed by one speaker cable company.

F1nut

kevintomb wrote: »

I am the one that uses Monster Cable!

I was given a big roll of it from this really cute Monster Cable Rep, way back when I sold stuff. I won it as a prize, and she was this really cute redhead, and she got paid to travel all around and give us stuff, and told us why Monster was a viable alternative to the really high priced cables we sold.

You must be talking about the clear jacketed cable as there is no way they gave you a big roll of the solid jacketed stuff. Way back when it first came out I purchased the solid jacketed cable, which was definitely better than the clear jacketed it replaced. However, as the years went by and I tried other cables I found the solid jacketed Monster presented a veiled sound that I was previously not aware of.

Furthermore, the clear Monster cable jacket either has a chemical reaction with the copper wire or it allows oxygen to permeate, perhaps both. This results in the copper turning a dark color, even green, which seriously affects its ability to conduct a signal.

The bottom line, you need new cables.

cnh

F1nut wrote: »

kevintomb wrote: »

I am the one that uses Monster Cable!

I was given a big roll of it from this really cute Monster Cable Rep, way back when I sold stuff. I won it as a prize, and she was this really cute redhead, and she got paid to travel all around and give us stuff, and told us why Monster was a viable alternative to the really high priced cables we sold.

You must be talking about the clear jacketed cable as there is no way they gave you a big roll of the solid jacketed stuff. Way back when it first came out I purchased the solid jacketed cable, which was definitely better than the clear jacketed it replaced. However, as the years went by and I tried other cables I found the solid jacketed Monster presented a veiled sound that I was previously not aware of.

Furthermore, the clear Monster cable jacket either has a chemical reaction with the copper wire or it allows oxygen to permeate, perhaps both. This results in the copper turning a dark color, even green, which seriously affects its ability to conduct a signal.

The bottom line, you need new cables.

Have to agree here. I have an OLD pair of the clear jacketed Monsters that are turning GREEN, especially at the ends. When I first got them I thought they sounded better than what I had before, but over time I realized that that was NOT the case. Rather than DOUBLE BLIND, you should do TIME tests. Over a large enough time period with enough changes in your mind and moods, you will weary of most things and come to DOUBT yourself and your perceptions. If you DO NOT, then that is a better test than the so-called double blind since it occurs over an amazing amount of TIME and EXPERIENCE-which levels out the subjective factor! And this is what a lot of the guys above are trying to tell you. In the end, "you" are the person who hears with your ears, not the ears of "another". The problem of "other minds" is as OLD as Philosophy and the Double Blind Test does NOT resolve it. It merely adds more controversy to the ongoing "debate"!

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

You need to take this up with DK since he used this characteristic to justify high priced cables. Why not try to be fair about it?

I have quantitative cable evaluation threads going back ten years on this forum, so there is no need to take it up with me because I have documented my position with regard to the cables evaluated, associated equipment, testing methodology, and performance metrics.

You and Kevin, on the other hand, which is typical of cable naysayers, only offer that you tried some high priced cables once and they offered no benefit.

I put the same question to you that I put to Kevin:

What was your experimental methodology?
What cables did you use?
What associated equipment did you use?
What stereophonic performance parameters did you evaluate?

kevintomb wrote: »

I still think a lot of this has to do with some people simply wanting to feel good about something they like or bought.

No one ever wants to hear, the could be wrong, might have wasted money, or maybe made a choice that was based on simply things other recommended or someone tried to justify based on "Shaky" science or electronics.

Name one person on this forum who brags about how much money they spent on audio gear. All of the audiophiles I know personally are cheapskates who seek the best deals they can find. Over and over again, the members here have encouraged buying used and demo gear as substantial savings.

For example, I recently bought a Cary DAC-100 for my office rig. I could have paid $2,500 for a brand new unit. Instead, I bought a demo unit with full 3 year warranty for less than half of the retail price.

I have a few PS Audio Statement SC power cords that retailed for $859. I paid $125 a piece for them because I bought them after they had been discontinued. Even at $125, I know the dealer still made a profit. Prior to these cables being discontinued, they could be found on the used market for about 1/3 of their retail price.

Most of the power cords in my two channel system are 2 meter length PS Audio PerfectWave AC-12 cords. The retail price is $1,200. Brand new AC-12s can be purchased at significant discounts for around $400. Four hundred dollars is a fair price to pay for a high performance power cord of the AC-12's construction quality and electrical performance.

You guys are so upset about the prices being asked for high performance audio cables when really, no one with any sense is paying anywhere near the retail prices.

Again:

Why Are You Mad At Cables You Can't Afford?

kevintomb wrote: »

Mantis, myself and Xcapri to name a few, are simply expressing a view, opinion, or things we have learned through our experiences.

Mantis has some credibility on this forum because he describes his testing methodology, the cables evaluated, and the associated equipment. He goes into detail about what he did or didn't hear. He backs up his opinions with repeatable experiential details. That is why I can respect his opinions. You and xcapri79, on the other hand, just offer that you tried something and it didn't work, therefore you don't believe others when they say they had a different experience.

kevintomb wrote: »

I am not so sure, others are so disgusted simply cause our ideas or experiences are not the same as theirs, or more disgusted that it makes them have to consider how valid or confident they are in their own beliefs and purchases.

The disgust comes from your lack of transparency on how you came to your conclusions. Again, saying something didn't work, without providing details of the test, does not lead to credibility.

Disgust also comes for people who try to twist theory to fit their agenda. For example,
@xcaprii79 said that cables can't possibly be directional because AC reverses direction. However, he is intellectually dishonest because he knows, or should know, since he is an electrical engineer, that the work done by an electrical signal does not depend on current direction, but on energy direction. In other words, it does not matter whether someone swings a hammer clockwise or counter-clockwise toward your head. The thing that matters will be the direction of kinetic energy flow from the hammer to your head.

Again I ask @xcapri79 if energy flows from source to load, wouldn't it make sense to design a cable with better electrical properties in the direction of energy flow?

vcwatkins

F1nut wrote: »

Furthermore, the clear Monster cable jacket either has a chemical reaction with the copper wire or it allows oxygen to permeate, perhaps both. This results in the copper turning a dark color, even green, which seriously affects its ability to conduct a signal.

The bottom line, you need new cables.

This happened to me. Big clear Monster cable nicely terminated by a local dealer in '94 maybe. Didn't realize the degree of degradation in sound until I moved the speakers to HT rears a few years ago and ran unaffected cable. BIG improvement. Wish I had thought of trying a different cable instead of listening to crummy sound for several years. I mistakenly blamed the gear.

BlueFox

xcapri79 wrote: »

If I'm the one to save him from his folly, then I have done a great deed.

There you have it. A self-confessed zealot with the one true knowledge who is out to save others from themselves.

polrbehr

xcapri79 wrote: »

Sorry to say, but DK loves to promulgate engineering quackery with respect to power flow and cables. He has been so caught up in his engineering quackery and looking important to his friends that he seems to have forgotten the basics of electricity. To anyone who understands the basics, he is looking extremely foolish. Of course to many in the forum he is a "god". But he is a false "god".

If I'm the one to save him from his folly, then I have done a great deed.

If all the extensive testing, experimenting, and reporting about all the items DK's tried over the years is quackery, well, sign me up for that funny farm. I know he's posted more about the intricacies of electricity as it relates to audio than I will ever be able to understand, but I enjoy reading his threads anyway, if for no other reason than it makes me want to think about trying new things in my setups. And since he really never promotes anything even if he likes it, I cannot believe his motivation is anything but pure hobbyist enthusiasm, encouraging people to simply think outside the box.
But a God? Methinks you are somewhat misguided there...but good luck in your self-appointed role as savior.

tophatjohnny

I will only step in here one more time. This X-79 person seems to have real issues, so I see is many of his negative replies here kn the forum. I;m thankful I listen to people here on the forum and promise I don't have crap cables. Good cables do make a difference and if this naysayer can't hear it, so be it. Just wish he'd find a different group to bother. BTW..loving my overall sound and no desire to fix a thing!!

vmaxer

Kevin and X, DK has more credibility in his little toe than both of you together.

Just the way it is

Since you all rub everyone here the wrong way, why not just leave??

vmaxer

I don't really mean that in a bad way either. I have been on other forms where I thought who are these people and where did they come up with this stuff......

Instead of posting, I just left.

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

Sorry to say, but DK loves to promulgate engineering quackery with respect to power flow and cables. He has been so caught up in his engineering quackery and looking important to his friends that he seems to have forgotten the basics of electricity. To anyone who understands the basics, he is looking extremely foolish. Of course to many in the forum he is a "god". But he is a false "god".

Who here, other than you, has referred to me as any type of "god"?
Are you jealous?
Are you envious?
Do you want to be a "false god"?
Are you projecting your desire to be seen as a "false god" onto me?
Do you want to be seen as an "authority" on the high performance audio cable market?

I have asked you to describe your audio cable evaluation methodology and you have refused. You expect people to just take your word for what you say without offering scientific evidence to support your opinions. That is true quackery.

Then there is this:

xcapri79 wrote: »

He doesn't appear to understand that electrical current means electron flow which is caused by a difference in potential i.e. voltage. Power doesn't flow per se, it is current under the influence of voltage that actually flows and this current is alternating as the voltage is alternating due to the source generators.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I didn't say anything about power flow. I talked about energy flow. Power and energy are two different things. It appears that you do not understand the important differences between power and energy.

Electrical power is the rate of amount of electrical energy transferred.

Electrical energy is the energy generated as the result of the potential difference in a circuit which causes current to flow through it.

Energy is measured in joules (J) or kilo-watt-hours (kWh).

Electrical power is measured in Watts (W) or Kilowatts (kW).

My electric utility company does not charge me for the amount of current I use during a month, nor for the amount of voltage, nor for the amount of power. I pay for the amount of energy, measured in kilo-watt-hours used. That energy flowed in one direction from the power company to my home.

Your understanding of electricity is apparently constrained by your thinking of electricity as having only a single important dimension: current. Electricity is multi-dimensional in nature and those other dimensions must be understood pertaining to how they interact with an audio component. In addition to the sinusoidal voltage and current waveforms, there is the electromagnetic field, and, very importantly, the noise content.

xcapri79 wrote: »

If I'm the one to save him from his folly, then I have done a great deed.

Thank you for your generous offer to save me from my folly. You can start by explaining how you conducted you cable evaluations that lead to your believe that the entire high performance audio cable industry is snake oil. Be specific pertaining to:

1. Cable(s) evaluated.
2. Associated audio equipment.
3. Test equipment.
4. Test methodology.
5. Audio performance metrics.

Here is a power cable evaluation that I did in 2013. Notice that I said considerably more than "I tried an expensive power cable and it didn't work as claimed". Are you able and willing to provide similar documentation to support your opinions? If not, why not?

shunyata-anaconda-zitron-power-cable-first-impressions

This is my evaluation of my AudioQuest Everest speaker cables from 2008:

to-the-mountain-top-audioquest-everest-speaker-cable

This is my evaluation of my AudioQuest Sky XLR interconnect cables from 2008:

audioquest-sky-interconnects-vs-audioquest-niagara-interconnects

Feel free to point out any technical errors you find and I will make appropriate corrections.

DarqueKnight

kevintomb wrote: »

Trying new things, can always be fun, and can at times be good.

So, since you are so critical about the conclusions that others come to when they try new things (audio cables), when are you going to explain how you try new things (audio cables)?

Why is getting you to do this like pulling mule's teeth? Aren't you a man of measurement and science?

txcoastal1

maybe I'm talking about the wrong threads, but DK actually put O-scopes which shows differences in signals

txcoastal1

^^^Because there was a serious drop off with the new Vanilla and to be quite honest as I speak with some of the old schoolers they are tired of the BS trolling threads like this one

vmaxer

Nobody is God on here. DK is very highly respected though, he doesn't try to be God or sell us anything. He has helped a lot of members.

As for the forum, it has died down a lot since the change to Vanilla.

I am hopeful it will pick up again, but the type of posts "your group" are adding won't help that any.

Try being open minded some. Everything I've tried hasn't been successful, but I am glad I didn't give up and am glad I have been able to upgrade my system due to the people here.

Not hating anyone, just some of the comments.

ZLTFUL

The one thing I have concluded from xcrappy...it really doesn't take much of an intellect to get an EE degree...at least not from the clearly esteemed institutionalization er I mean institute she attended.

StevieB

The thing about cables is, you never know until you try. Doesn't even cost any money to check out something different. Just go to your local hi fi dealer and they will be glad to loan you some different flavor cables to try in your system at home. It's a win win situation.

ZLTFUL

StevieB wrote: »

The thing about cables is, you never know until you try. Doesn't even cost any money to check out something different. Just go to your local hi fi dealer and they will be glad to loan you some different flavor cables to try in your system at home. It's a win win situation.

Unfortunately, you have to have an open mind and be willing to try. Those who don't know don't know they don't know.

DarqueKnight

kevintomb wrote: »

Nothing is set in stone. I am not highly critical, though I am sure I come off as an arse at times, I simply am skeptical, and question things. \

Nothing wrong with skepticism. I'm a huge skeptic myself. That is why I continue to ask you how you conducted your evaluations of audio cables. Isn't this a reasonable question?

kevintomb wrote: »

Not everyone is open to all new ideas, and often some require proof, explanations etc.
Frankly your stance somewhat puzzles me.

What "stance" are you referring to and what is puzzling about it?

There is nothing wrong with asking for proof. I have been very forthcoming with how I arrive at my audio evaluation conclusions. You continue to duck, deflect, and hide when asked how you came to your conclusions about high performance audio cables.

kevintomb wrote: »

I have known several EE's and a few PHd's and most have a view quite different than yours.
I do applaud your ability to think outside the box, truly.

There has never been a time in science when scientists were a monolithic block. Usually, when a scientist thinks out of the box, they are attacked by those who hold, and are benefitting from, the prevailing view.

With regard to stereo audio evaluation, my thinking is not "outside the box". It is well within the design parameters set forth by the people who invented home stereo systems. Get a clue:

a-survey-of-early-stereophonic-system-subjective-evaluation

a-historical-overview-of-stereophonic-blind-testing

kevintomb wrote: »

Are you only in an academic setting, or in real world also?

Academia is not the real world? Please explain what is unreal about academia?

I have an office. I get a paycheck. I have work assignments. I have a supervisor. I have performance evaluations. I work within an organizational structure. I have professional colleagues. I had all these things at every other job prior to entering academia.

Prior to entering academia, I spent 16 years in the corporate sector. I was a communications engineer with AT&T for 12 years, then, when AT&T spun off its manufacturing and research and development divisions, I spent a year in enterprise network manufacturing and 3 years in broadband systems research and development. In addition to my academic work, I own a licensed professional engineering practice and I am a contract research engineer with a branch of the U.S. military. Does any of that count for the "real world" in your mind?

Whether I live in what you consider to be the "real world" or the "Twilight Zone" is irrelevant. Either my ideas have rational and scientific merit or they don't.

kevintomb wrote: »

I do not think others though are coming to conclusions, but I tend to think of what I read here and on any forum for that matter, as simply thoughs about what someone believes they hear.

I see. So, since someone else's experience does not correlate with yours, they must be having aural hallucinations, they must be falling victim to expectation bias?

kevintomb wrote: »

A conclusion would obviously require far more rigorous data and proof to ascertain a definite answer.

Your refusal to answer my questions about stereophonic performance indicates to me that you do not understand how stereo works nor do you understand the proper scientific methods for evaluating sensory phenomena such as a stereophonic sound field.

Again, you mentioned that you and others did some audio cable testing and the conclusion was that differences could not be discerned under blind testing.

I also would like to know the stereophonic performance parameters evaluated in the test(s) and what are the stereophonic performance parameters most important to you?

Why do you refuse to divulge the particular details of the test(s)?

Are you incapable of discussing audio equipment evaluations in terms of stereophonic performance?

kevintomb wrote: »

Crossovers are more where I think gains can be made. But more in the overall redesign OF the crossover, not simply upgrading parts.

Redesigning the crossover means redesigning the speaker, since a particular crossover is designed to work with specific drivers and specific cabinets. If you are going to end up redesigning the entire speaker, why not just find a speaker that already has the performance attributes you desire?

Is it your opinion that speaker performance can be improved by simply replacing a speaker's crossover and leaving other parts the same? If so, what is the scientific basis for such thinking?

I upgraded every part of my SDA SRS 1.2TL's crossovers, including a redesign of the circuit boards, because I liked the speaker and wanted to enhance its stereophonic performance. I did not want to end up with something totally different from the SDA SRS 1.2TL.

improvements-to-modified-sda-srs-1-2tl-crossover/p1

sonic-barrier-damping-material-for-sda-srs-1-2tl-crossover

upgrade-high-frequency-inductors-for-the-sda-srs-1-2tl

upgrade-low-frequency-inductors-for-the-sda-srs-1-2tl

txcoastal1

ZLTFUL wrote: »

The one thing I have concluded from xcrappy...it really doesn't take much of an intellect to get an EE degree...at least not from the clearly esteemed institutionalization er I mean institute she attended.

No you don't have to be an EE. I order a million feet a year of 10 different types of communication cable. I have dealt manufacturers. Had many types spec out good at 3' and fail at 10'. Even some of the big guys ie GE, Honeywell etc have caused me grief over the years.

I understand the snake oil effect. Snake oil to be is when you take some off the shelf and cover it up with a nice dress. Now I have been fortunate over the years to spend some time with Colleen Cardas, Ray Kimber, Greg over at MG audio and several others and actually discuss manufacturing, architecter and testing of cables.

He'll half the machines in at Cardas and Kimber are nearly 100% special order and hand made.
So if there is a failure the part has to be made and forged etc by hand. I'm sure that several others custom cable manufactures are I the same or as like boat. Kimber has actually had a smaller machine active at RMAF so he produce cables for a charity given at a discount.

I also know all the big comm companies ie Verizon att put a crap load in R&D in there signal cables. Which include the dialectic properties of their coverings.

I deal with signal in a real world including data, mic/speaker recording and delivery, as I am an integrator

When I choose to demo cables I research their architecture before spending a dime. I have also taken cable from my stock of all kinds (stuff I use at work) and tried to push the envelope and see if there were audio differences... Most come out like c-rap

Anyway long story short I have experienced many failures in as like comm cables in the field and for a fact know there are differences in delivery in audio signal in my systems of different types not all are audible differences to my ears ... I repeat systems as I have several and repeat to my ears.

I have also seen people heads turn at audio show after cable swaps. Some attendees that couldn't give a hoot about our audio stuff that didn't even know what actually had been done say WoW


But I will also be the first to say it's not all about the higher end and can conclude there is the law of dimensioning returns, ie 5k cables and 100k speakers that sound like b-utt. At the same time being open minded about speakers that were $700 and say wow great bang for your buck and then some.

Siund is an emotion and some of that comes into play but when you take the time to run your reference music time and time again like I have at all the gatherings, shows, and showrooms over the years you become a custom to what you want to hear. Therefore I have tweaked my gear including cables to the sound I want and expect to hear.


Well that's all folks

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

There you go again with more foolishness. They are not two different things, they are very much related to each other. Power is what happens instantaneously. Energy supplied or consumed reflects power over a time interval. Your tone makes it out to be the difference between Venus and Mars.

I didn't say power and energy weren't related. I said they weren't the same thing and they are not. Joules (energy) and Watts (power) are not the same thing. I even provided you with basic definitions since you seemed to have forgotten. Lastly, I reminded you that power customers are charged for the energy they use during a month, and not for power.

You said I spoke of power flow and I clearly pointed out that I was discussing energy flow. Your long-winded effort to save face was quite amusing and entertaining.

Getting back to audio, are you going to write a similarly long treatise on your audio cable testing methodology? Again, please tell us about the following pertaining to the audio cable tests you have done:

1. Cable(s) evaluated.
2. Associated audio equipment.
3. Test equipment.
4. Test methodology.
5. Audio performance metrics.

This question is very pertinent to your belief that the high performance cable industry is run by crooks. Why do you avoid this question?

xcapri79 wrote: »

I have in the past and do at present commend you for the effort you have put in and on your writing skills, however that said, to review all your work for errors is a rather hellish sentence is it not?

Your reading comprehension issues are quite tragic. I didn't ask you to review all my work. I asked you to critique three short cable reviews. However, considering your blunders in being fooled by that misleading Audioholics article on dielectric absorption, it's probably best that you not further embarrass yourself.

forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/comment/2137824#Comment_2137824

mantis

Last week I spent 2 days with Electrical engineers from Lutron.
I'm now officially Radio RA2 Level 2 Certified.
I have much respect for Electrical Engineers, they are a very good group of people.
My son is going to college and is studying to be a Mechanical Engineer, I'd love to see him one day working for a company like Lutron or another well respected Engineering company. In many ways if I could do it all over again, I would have stayed in college and got my Engineering degree. I love what I do for a living don't get me wrong but sometimes when I'm sitting in those kinds of classes , I get that strong feeling that I should have been one of them.

mantis

xcapri79 wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I didn't say power and energy weren't related. I said they weren't the same thing and they are not. Joules (energy) and Watts (power) are not the same thing. I even provided you with basic definitions since you seemed to have forgotten. Lastly, I reminded you that power customers are charged for the energy they use during a month, and not for power.

You said I spoke of power flow and I clearly pointed out that I was discussing energy flow. Your long-winded effort to save face was quite amusing and entertaining.

It is more interesting to note that DK describes someone else's writing as long winded. Ookay. My response was made to better educate DK himself and the other readers of the thread as to what the nature of alternating current is and what the relationships are between voltage, current, charge, time, power and energy.

Again DK brings up quantities, Joules (energy) and Watts (power) to draw a huge distinction to understood related quantities. I can only surmise that he does this to create a straw-man argument to deflect from his bogus theory of cable directionality.

Simply put a Watt is a Joule per second. So one Watt-second is one Joule. DK seems to like to draw huge distinctions to confuse his readers.

As I have said, It isn't clear that DK really understands AC properly based on his belief in audio cable directionality. DK has completely failed to show the following:
- How cable directionality supposedly works quantitatively,
- How dielectric absorption contributes in a meaningful quantitative way to affect the performance of a typical piece of audio cable,
- Measuring the energy transfer between the dielectric and the signal, effect on noise, etc. to show it is meaningful.

I would suggest that while dielectric absorption may be considered for long cables operating at RF, it isn't an issue for a 3 ft power cable or audio interconnect, or a 8ft speaker wire. This is where DK's and or the cable manufacturer's theories have a grain of truth, but get misapplied to power and audio cables to justify the ridiculously priced cables that he tested.

Anecdotal subjective listening doesn't really constitute a test as it does a personal opinion that is more than likely influenced by expectation bias and the placebo effect.

This question is very pertinent to your belief that the high performance cable industry is run by crooks.

Despite your excellent writing style, your feigned skepticism does show and you don't do a great job defending them with a literary fiction sounding review.

Ok so I read what you wrote here about Cable directionality and dielectric absorption.
Before I say what I'm gonna say, I'm no engineer but I have talked to engineer's about these things as I wanted to understand why so many cable companies talk about these issues.
As I was talking to an engineer about these issues he told me that a lot of what you read on many of these cable companies boxes are designed to be fluffed up so people would buy their products. He said that if brand A is exactly like Brand B why would anyone switch to Brand B from A if they are exactly the same? He further went and said that many things they talk about have no importance at all in the real world of signal transfer.
Ok I listen as these people went to school and learned deeply about these things so without studying it myself , I have to take him on his word.
But when you start hearing the same things from different engineers saying the same thing who are not in the same room or zip code, I start to believe there is some truth to the things they say.
So with directionality what they all agree on is cable grain. The way the metal has been drawn and sending the signal that way seems to be more consistent when testing then when you don't pay attention to it.
They all also agree that the material used as a dialectic is very important to the overall consistency of the cable to perform the same way over and over.
When I refer to Engineers, I'm referring to NON Wire company Engineers. How I learn what is truth and what is bull crap is by talking to Engineers who have NO vested interest in what I'm asking about other then for what their needs are for their own products to be developed.
So I have to disagree with you that these things don't matter , they actually do. Maybe not at the extent many cable companies will lead you to believe that you need this special dielectric from some undiscovered Island but again the truth is the truth.
So Instead of going back and forth with DK which by the way I find to have tons of creditability in my book, why not fully explain your views without being a jerk.
I'm not calling you a jerk but over this thread some of the things how you comment on them make you look like one.
So I ask you to call a truce here and leave your jerk like comments at the door. Make your point and let it be what it maybe. People would respect you more if you did so, I would.

mantis

kevintomb wrote: »

I can see, it really is not possible to have a discussion.

If all you guys were as intent on tearing each other's silly posts apart, as you are with Mine and Xcapri79's you would come to a quick conclusion.

I don't agree with either side of the fence here man, take 2 to tango.
I read all this mess and when you past the finger pointing , there is actually some good points on both side of the fence.

Again I'd love to be apart of one of these debates live, we should have a Club Polk Wire cable theory get together and see if all this madness happens in person.

motorhead43026

Is it time to close this discussion about a discussion that was closed. Or will that turn into a discussion about a discussion, that was about a discussion that was closed, and the bear went over the mountain.

tonyb

motorhead43026 wrote: »

Is it time to close this discussion about a discussion that was closed. Or will that turn into a discussion about a discussion, that was about a discussion that was closed, and the bear went over the mountain.

LOL....your not the only one with that observation. We do however enjoy some entertainment every so often and a few in this thread don't disappoint.

I find it funny how a few are here to save us from ourselves, to educate us....about subjective matters. Whats next ? Will they educate us on which cars to buy ? Which shoes to wear ? Which beer tastes best ?

Such a relief knowing I no longer have to think for myself or waste money trying new things when I have a few to tell me straight up.

tonyb

nbrowser wrote: »

Ok it may be early Monday morning here but gent's...take a breath, walk away from the keyboards and go have a refreshingly cold beverage (non alcoholic mind you....). I think a select few need a bit of a break from preaching. Now just go fire up your stereos if your at home unlike me who's at work and crank it up a bit will ya!

I would....if I can just get this knot out of my panties.

vmaxer

I really hope this thread doesn't get closed. There are some good points being made.

I know cables make a difference from my own experience, can't explain why, but they certainly do.