Why use Monster as the reference cable?

[robinson]

Are you talking about Monster.com?

 

[robinson]

Wait, don't answer that. It would be considered off topic and you will end up in AAH.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Are you talking about Monster.com?

Don't know what sort of deal Monster Cable worked out with Monster.com. For a time Monster.com had a link on their main page to Monster Cable.

Oh, you remember Monster Garage on Discovery Channel? Monster Cable went after them and now they own all the trademarks for Monster Garage.

se

 

[bjb]

I thought using Monster cables as a comparison to Pear was a good choice because it is available everywhere and comes with connectors. The disadvantage of using cheap lamp cord is that the connectors need to be added later. Some people could then accuse Randi of using 'trick' cables in the test, which is what some people fear Pear would try to do Randi!

Another advantage of using off-the-shelf cables is that it would be a test that could be repeated by anybody else. I'm pretty confident in my own cable-making abilities, but someone else might mess up the job and wind up testing their inferior home-made cable against a properly made 'audiophile' cable. The home-made cable would lose the test and the speaker cable mythology would continue.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I thought using Monster cables as a comparison to Pear was a good choice because it is available everywhere and comes with connectors. The disadvantage of using cheap lamp cord is that the connectors need to be added later. Some people could then accuse Randi of using 'trick' cables in the test, which is what some people fear Pear would try to do Randi!

Another advantage of using off-the-shelf cables is that it would be a test that could be repeated by anybody else. I'm pretty confident in my own cable-making abilities, but someone else might mess up the job and wind up testing their inferior home-made cable against a properly made 'audiophile' cable. The home-made cable would lose the test and the speaker cable mythology would continue.

Off the shelf should not be "Monster" though

They are probably the largest purveyors of woo in the audio industry and probably spend more woo dollars than many medical woo companies. They are WAY overpriced, they are woo, and they really ought not to be used in this case.

 

[politas]

There is one advantage to using "Monster" brand cables as the "baseline", and that is that their quality is known to the testee. Buying random cables from Radio Shack leaves the JREF open to complaints by Fremer that they actually used some super-duper special cables instead of plain wire.

 

[metzomagic]

Mike, hi,

focusing on frequency response misses much of audible differences in cables. when i do cable comparisons; the differences are more a matter of clarity and texture, smoothness and nuance, or levels of ambience revealed. i personally cannot relate measurements to performance in cables.....but that relationship may exist. or it may be that either we don't yet have the proper measuring tools or that we don't yet know how to interpret our current tools.

Now we come to the crux of why this million dollar challenge exists in the first place. If you'll allow me to dispense with the paranormal stuff for a moment, what's left is all about science vs. pseudo science (a.k.a. junk science). There is actually a lot of concrete science behind the claim that there is no discernible *improvement in sound quality* between 16-gauge lamp wire (say, $5 worth) and a pair of inordinately expensive Pear cables at $7000+ (or for that matter, even a $150 pair of moderately expensive Monster cables. Not the same price differential, but the same false claim). You see, we as skeptics don't like to see people being parted with their money for disingenuous reasons.

Mike... you, being a reviewer of audio equipment, have a vested interest in saying that there is a difference, because presumably you get paid to sing the praises of these ridiculously priced cables (by virtue of getting paid to review them, and they undoubtedly advertise in your publication as well). So let's get down to basics here:

Fact: the whole idea behind speaker cable is that it's supposed to be as close as possible to having *absolutely nothing* between the output of the amplifier and the input of the speakers. It's that simple. You can't make it any simpler than that.

So... if your miraculous cables are adding "clarity and texture" or "smoothness and nuance" to the sound emanating from the speakers, then quite simply put, the cables are doing something THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO! If the sound at the output of the amplifier isn't right, then either it's not a great amplifier (which I doubt, because I will credit you with being able to at least review amplifiers with some degree of authority), or you don't have the bass and treble settings right for your tastes. A cable cannot possibly ADD anything to the listening experience. It can only CHANGE it. And since the optimal connection between an amp and the speakers is *nothing at all*, it can only change it for THE WORSE!

Now, back to the science to wrap this up. It can be scientifically proven (with instruments) that an up to 30-ft length of el cheapo 16-gauge wire has no discernible effect on the signal quality up to something like 50khz. And only a bat could hear that. In fact, you lose the ability to hear anything even remotely approaching the 20 - 22khz range at about the age of 16. And I'd wager you're a bit past that?

So yes, you can definitely produce a set of ridiculously expensive cables that will make the amplifier output sound *different*, but not *better*. And that is all I'm trying to say here.

Regards,
MetzO'Magic

 

[metzomagic]

And that is precisely why I think Randi should not accept this challenge any longer. One of the cheaper Monster cables will not alter the sound quality in any way detectable by the human ear, and neither would 16-gauge lamp wire. But an expensive cable will definitely change the sound quality in some way discernible by the human ear (in a detrimental way though). Hey, why would you pay megabucks for it if it didn't alter the sound? And being able to detect that difference would allow the challenger to walk away with the JREF million, but not for the right reasons. Bad all around :-\

MetzO'Magic

 

[Paulhoff]

And that is precisely why I think Randi should not accept this challenge any longer. One of the cheaper Monster cables will not alter the sound quality in any way detectable by the human ear, and neither would 16-gauge lamp wire. But an expensive cable will definitely change the sound quality in some way discernible by the human ear (in a detrimental way though). Hey, why would you pay megabucks for it if it didn't alter the sound? And being able to detect that difference would allow the challenger to walk away with the JREF million, but not for the right reasons. Bad all around :-\

MetzO'Magic

So what is Pear doing to mess up the sound, because it would only be a downgrade.

Paul

 

[metzomagic]

So what is Pear doing to mess up the sound, because it would only be a downgrade.

Paul

Paul, hi,

That was exactly my point. I was afraid that bad is still different, and the difference could be detected in a DBT. I e-mailed Randi about this concern, and... he actually replied. He assures me that no components of any type (capacitors, inductors, resistors et. al.) will be allowed in the cables being used. So that does rule out any colouring of the sound by active components.

In that case, the Pear ANJOU cables do qualify, because the are just cables (albeit very, very expensive ones). We (as in the collective 'we as skeptics') are betting the million dollars on the fact that there will be no discernible difference *to any human ear* between the Pear cables and a much cheaper, well-constructed cable of sufficient gauge, like Monster.

Here's hoping we're right

Regards,
MetzO'Magic

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, hi,



Now we come to the crux of why this million dollar challenge exists in the first place. If you'll allow me to dispense with the paranormal stuff for a moment, what's left is all about science vs. pseudo science (a.k.a. junk science). There is actually a lot of concrete science behind the claim that there is no discernible *improvement in sound quality* between 16-gauge lamp wire (say, $5 worth) and a pair of inordinately expensive Pear cables at $7000+ (or for that matter, even a $150 pair of moderately expensive Monster cables. Not the same price differential, but the same false claim). You see, we as skeptics don't like to see people being parted with their money for disingenuous reasons.

thanks for protecting us innocents.

Mike... you, being a reviewer of audio equipment, have a vested interest in saying that there is a difference, because presumably you get paid to sing the praises of these ridiculously priced cables (by virtue of getting paid to review them, and they undoubtedly advertise in your publication as well). So let's get down to basics here:

well; let's just say that my pay for the reviews/writing i've done is 'nominal'. i spend more most weekends on CD's and Lp's. i have a full time job managing a company with 150 employees.......and my life as a reviewer is not a matter of income. if i was in audio for business i would sell products.....but for now i don't want my 'fun' to be compromised by filthy lucra.

and no.....the cables that i prefer do not advertise in the online e-mag i write for.

in fact; there are very few audio reviewers that make living writing about audio. the best case you could make for some sort of conspiracy theory would be having review gear loaned for extended times influencing someone. i'm sure that happens to some degree and it is possible it could influence opinions. i have never had review gear loaned to me.

Fact: the whole idea behind speaker cable is that it's supposed to be as close as possible to having *absolutely nothing* between the output of the amplifier and the input of the speakers. It's that simple. You can't make it any simpler than that.

So... if your miraculous cables are adding "clarity and texture" or "smoothness and nuance" to the sound emanating from the speakers, then quite simply put, the cables are doing something THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO! If the sound at the output of the amplifier isn't right, then either it's not a great amplifier (which I doubt, because I will credit you with being able to at least review amplifiers with some degree of authority), or you don't have the bass and treble settings right for your tastes. A cable cannot possibly ADD anything to the listening experience. It can only CHANGE it. And since the optimal connection between an amp and the speakers is *nothing at all*, it can only change it for THE WORSE!

this is my subjective opinion; no, they add nothing......all other cables add or restrict something. i have no gear that has any sort of bass or treble adjustments other than speaker adjustments which allow room optimization.

but it's not worse.....it's better....way better. yes.....at high levels of resolution cables can be a limitation on performance. the best cables limit performance the least.

Now, back to the science to wrap this up. It can be scientifically proven (with instruments) that an up to 30-ft length of el cheapo 16-gauge wire has no discernible effect on the signal quality up to something like 50khz. And only a bat could hear that. In fact, you lose the ability to hear anything even remotely approaching the 20 - 22khz range at about the age of 16. And I'd wager you're a bit past that?

no. science cannot define music. science can measure what it's instruments can measure. numbers. numbers are a guide but not an answer.

at 56 years old i can hear test tones up to about 15khz.....but there is not much musical energy up there.

and high frequency hearing ability has little to do with judging performance. frequency extension is just one parameter of performance.....and really not particularly important. i can hear whether high frequencies are natural or distorted. i can tell whether a speaker extends to 25khz or 50khz. not that i can hear those frequencies.....but distortion at higher frequencies has effects on lower frequencies.

generally, a tweeter that extends to 50khz will be more linear and natural sounding in the audible range than a tweeter that extends to 20khz. i won't hear the higher frequencies but i will hear the benefit of the better, more linear tweeter.

what is more important than high frequency perception is how the harmonics in the bass effect the highs....and if a cable gets those correct the highs are much more harmonically complete. it is the nuances in the bass where the Transparent Opus separates itself from all other cables.

So yes, you can definitely produce a set of ridiculously expensive cables that will make the amplifier output sound *different*, but not *better*. And that is all I'm trying to say here.

Regards,
MetzO'Magic

my considerable experience listening and comparing tells me that is wrong.

regards,

Mike

 

[Dan O.]

Mike,

Would you be able to do your own blind A/B test between your best cable and generic hardware store wire that's been configured to match the same frequency and phase profile as far as scientific measurements can tell?

I've been trying to say that there could be a detectable difference between cables but I don't have the ear or equipment to test it myself. I do believe however that if there is a difference that is detectable by ear there will also be a difference that is detectable by scientific instruments. We may not know yet how to interpret what the instruments tell us so that is where the cooperation between the audio expert and science will help.

What I would like to see is for you to have your own engineers build a pair of speaker cables using hardware store wire and a matching network so they measure as close as possible to the cables you prefer to use. Then publish the frequency and phase plots for both cables in place on your audio system and the results of your own double blind test of the sound. I really want to see Randi's response to your test results.

 

[Yoink]

Shouldn't it be possible simply to establish certain basic benchmarks that the tested cables have to meet in an (independent) test and then forge ahead? I don't understand all this to-ing and fro-ing about particular brands of cable. I'd have thought that JREF could simply issue a challenge along the lines of "anybody who can reliably distinguish by ear alone between two different cables that pass the benchmark tests specified below is performing a paranormal feat and is therefore eligible for the MDC."

The more I think about the Transparent Opus cables, for example, with their "network" boxes the more I think they are probably just straightforward cables that pass through fancy looking blocks of solid resin. I doubt they have any actual "network" at all. But surely if they did it would be an easy thing to determine in a test, wouldn't it?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

Would you be able to do your own blind A/B test between your best cable and generic hardware store wire that's been configured to match the same frequency and phase profile as far as scientific measurements can tell?

i'm not technically trained and have no ability to do the match you mention. if someone wanted to measure my cables and attempt to match them i would be glad help with that process.

I've been trying to say that there could be a detectable difference between cables but I don't have the ear or equipment to test it myself. I do believe however that if there is a difference that is detectable by ear there will also be a difference that is detectable by scientific instruments. We may not know yet how to interpret what the instruments tell us so that is where the cooperation between the audio expert and science will help.

i do not consider myself an expert.....i am an experiened listener with a finely tuned system. i am open to looking for relationships between measurments and sonic performance.

i think lots of that has been done already by cable builders; although i don't have access to any data from that.

What I would like to see is for you to have your own engineers build a pair of speaker cables using hardware store wire and a matching network so they measure as close as possible to the cables you prefer to use. Then publish the frequency and phase plots for both cables in place on your audio system and the results of your own double blind test of the sound. I really want to see Randi's response to your test results.

i don't have any engineers....nor a scope to measure the cables with.

tonight i should start the discovery process with the Monster cables....the screw on proprietary spades for the Monster cables will arrive.

 

[metzomagic]

Mike, hi again,

thanks for protecting us innocents.

(sarcasm duly noted Yeah, call me altruistic if you want, but I just don't like to see people throwing money at stuff that has no basis in science, like homeopathy, fortune tellers, et. al. I realise the people that buy these ridiculously priced cables can probably afford them, and technically no one is harmed... but it's all a matter of degree. Much worse if some poor soul is under the illusion that a homeopathic 'remedy' can prevent malaria. Not to belabour the point; as I said before, it's all about science vs. junk science.

well; let's just say that my pay for the reviews/writing i've done is 'nominal'. i spend more most weekends on CD's and Lp's. i have a full time job managing a company with 150 employees.......and my life as a reviewer is not a matter of income. if i was in audio for business i would sell products.....but for now i don't want my 'fun' to be compromised by filthy lucra.

You just gotta love a philanthropist, eh?

and no.....the cables that i prefer do not advertise in the online e-mag i write for.

in fact; there are very few audio reviewers that make living writing about audio. the best case you could make for some sort of conspiracy theory would be having review gear loaned for extended times influencing someone. i'm sure that happens to some degree and it is possible it could influence opinions. i have never had review gear loaned to me.

But you still have a vested interest in people believing that you can hear a difference where there is no difference, because you would lose your credibility if it was *proven* there is no difference, right?

this is my subjective opinion; no, they add nothing......all other cables add or restrict something. i have no gear that has any sort of bass or treble adjustments other than speaker adjustments which allow room optimization.

but it's not worse.....it's better....way better. yes.....at high levels of resolution cables can be a limitation on performance. the best cables limit performance the least.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. Your high-end amp manufacturer doesn't put any bass or treble adjustment capability on the amp because the stuff is so high priced it ought to be perfectly reproducing what comes off the CD or LP. Let's continue that train of thought and extend it to the speaker cables. In your experience, "the best cables limit performance the least." But I'm betting (and so is Randi), that a cheapo piece of plain copper wire of the same length and sufficient gauge will perform just as well as something like the Pear ANJOU cables *in the human audible range* (and this is where I have to ask the obligatory question: you are human, right Mike?

Anyway, let's leave it at that and see how you get on with the Monster cables. Bring on that MDC application!

Regards,
MetzO'Magic

 

[Dan O.]

The more I think about the Transparent Opus cables, for example, with their "network" boxes the more I think they are probably just straightforward cables that pass through fancy looking blocks of solid resin. I doubt they have any actual "network" at all. But surely if they did it would be an easy thing to determine in a test, wouldn't it?

Have you seen the size of that network block in the Opus cables?

The manufacturer claims that the cables include a network so to sell the cables without a network would be prosecutable false advertising. In some case, the network can be necessary to keep the amplifier from melting down due to feedback in the megahertz range caused by the cable impedance.

 

[Yoink]

Have you seen the size of that network block in the Opus cables?

The manufacturer claims that the cables include a network so to sell the cables without a network would be prosecutable false advertising. In some case, the network can be necessary to keep the amplifier from melting down due to feedback in the megahertz range caused by the cable impedance.

I'm not sure how the size is proof that the block contains any functional circuitry. I'm also not sure that "contains a network" is a claim that would be specific enough to be litigated (what if there's a microchip embedded in the solid resin that I imagine but which isn't connected to anything--would that count as a "network"?).

I'd like one of the more technically knowledgeable people on the forum to address this: is it possible to imagine a functional noise-filter (which, after all, is the only thing that this "network" could possibly do to perform the task that Mike Lavigne describes) that would draw its power entirely from the speaker cables themselves? I don't think it is, but I'm not an electrical engineer.

By the way, the claim that this network could be "necessary to keep the amplifier from melting down" is self-evidently absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that people who do not buy Transparent Opus speaker cables regularly see their amplifiers "melt down" due to this feedback?

 

[Dan O.]

By the way, the claim that this network could be "necessary to keep the amplifier from melting down" is self-evidently absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that people who do not buy Transparent Opus speaker cables regularly see their amplifiers "melt down" due to this feedback?

I got that information from this site that was called a "rational account by a competent critic" by Randi in the SWIFT Commentary of Dec 10, 2004. Sufficient information was presented to verify that claim by repeating the simulation or working out the equations by hand. If it can be refuted I haven't seen such.

 

[Yoink]

I got that information from this site that was called a "rational account by a competent critic" by Randi in the SWIFT Commentary of Dec 10, 2004. Sufficient information was presented to verify that claim by repeating the simulation or working out the equations by hand. If it can be refuted I haven't seen such.

I can find nothing in the article you link to support your claim. Perhaps you'd like to quote the relevant text? Remember, we're talking solely about a network inserted into the path from the amplifier to the speaker here (not networks in the amplifier or in the speaker crossovers). You're saying that this is necessary to avoid amplifier "melt down." You further claim that the linked site supports this (bizarre) contention. Care to show where?

 

[Rolfe]

Sigh. It's all so subjective.

Some years ago I was persuaded (by my audio dealer) to change my Linn Toukan speakers to biwiring. The cables they produced were thick and impractical, but they were OK if I didn't try to move the system. But I was perpetually dissatisfied with the sound of the system as a whole, principally the turntable (a Sondek) even after reconditioning.

I did bugger-all about all this until I moved house six months ago. The cut-to-length Linn biwired cables were the wrong lengths for the new room, and their thickness and inflexibility made them impossible in the new situation, especially as the cable now has to run round a marble fireplace hearth. I did wire the system up, and I still wasn't crazy about the sound.

Finally I got off my backside and took speakers, cable and all to an Edinburgh dealer, ready to say, just put the speakers back to single wiring if you can, and sell me some basic budget speaker cable. But I didn't have the attachments which had been removed at the time the biwiring was introduced, and instead the dealer produced some Bose cable, suitable for biwiring, which was much thinner and more flexible than the Linn stuff.

Cough --- £10 a metre --- cough.

Well, I bought it, came to £116 for the set including connectors, partly because they recommended that the shorter cable be no less than half the length of the longer one. I was happy enough because I just wanted to get it put together with cable I could squirrel under the hearthrug and behind the amp, and this was suitable. But part of me did feel it was being had for a sucker.

I put it all together and put on a record. Sounded great. The Sondek was playing much better than previously, to my ears.

Now I don't know what's going on. I threw away the old cable so I can't compare it, and anyway it takes so long to change the wiring that it would be difficult to know what you were hearing. Surely it can't have been a cable fault that was behind my dissatisfaction with the system as it previously was? I mean, thick black sugarally with "Linn" emblazoned down its length?

Maybe I'm imagining it. But I wasn't expecting better sound, I just wanted cables that were physically practical for the room. Doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, opinions on biwiring? Is the game worth the candle at all?

Rolfe.