John Dunlavy On "Cable Nonsense"


Food for thought...

http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html
plasmatronic

Showing 3 responses by pbb

It's amazing how many responses to the Dunlavy piece have been posted. It just goes on and on and on. Going against my own personal grain, I will make it brief: no you can't always believe your eyes and ears. You have to find objectivity somewhere or else you're just groping in the dark. Does anyone out there honestly think that Dunlavy could produce the speakers he does using the anti-scientific mindset exhibited by most cable promoters? Do you guys really believe that measurement and double blind testing is a waste of time and that some audio guru can conjure up the perfect whatever in a magical, mystical golden ear trance? There's a big difference between building something and sitting on one's duff listening to it and haphazardly commenting using buzz words. Science is what got us here, as we say in French; "don't spit in the soup".
Detlof, I have no qualms about anyone listening to anything and enjoying it. If someone gets pleasure from a Radio Shack or Wal-Mart rack system, that's more than fine with me. If someone thinks that a 12K cable is just the thing, so be it. My point being that things don't look the same, and are not the same, whether you are looking ahead, so to speak, and designing/building any element of a sound system or simply getting the end product and, ex-post facto, auditioning, analysing it. I think that it is dishonest to put out a product, make outlandish claims that cannot be substantiated and ask a price that is absolutely out of step with the cost of bringing the thing to market. When the upshot is that part of the ploy is to say that what you are selling is beyond any scientifically verifiable procedure, that nothing can prove or disprove your claims as a manufacturer, what you have is a situation where people will be had. Now whether they enjoy being had or not is another issue. I fully agree that live music is the yardstick against which to measure the performance of a sound system. I also agree that human hearing is the final arbiter of what constitutes a good system. What I cannot agree with is that our individual hearing is so different from one person to the next that anything goes. That we are not subject to so many vagaries in our ear/brain processor that any number of variables can be thrown in, helter-skelter, and that, somehow, the result will be of some value to more than the one individual listener. If someone wants to provide something significant to listeners in general (and I am not suggesting the population at large, but audiophiles in general) and make some contribution to advancing the state of the art, it has to be based on more than random possibilities and blind faith. Once the product is on the market, people are free to do what they want with it and to claim that it provides them with any manner of contentment. In closing, I have two thoughts: firstly, I believe that a guitar (and any other instrument, obviously) is just that, a musical instrument and, aside from the fact it needs to be tuned properly (and, hopefully, to stay that way for a while) has to be judged on its own merit, and that a sound system is not; the latter is a sound reproducing system and, therefore, there always is a standard to judge it by: the original sound, and, secondly, if cables are now seen as an acceptable means of fine tuning a system by, I guess, adding or subtracting something to make it more euphonic, why have audiophiles eschewed tone controls long ago as being low fi?
Every human voice has a different sound signature. I seriously doubt that any of the tenors mentionned would "measure" the same. I am not quite sure what type of measurement is implied or suggested though. Whatever note they sing (assuming they hit it just right, which they should on any given day)would have the same fundamental, but the harmonics would be different The harmonics are what gives each voice its character, its timbre. The harmonics would not measure the same. How this would help any of these fine singers perform is highly dubious. How any such measurement would increase the appreciation of their art by the listener is equally suspect. I hesitate to say the "tenor" argument is specious in this context, and leave it up to others to decide. If the example was between two guitars, at least the makers could attempt to duplicate the sound of a highly prized instrument on the basis of their findings, but since we can't manufacture singers the example is a bit wonky. No two guitars of the same maker would, if properly scrutinized, measure exactly the same anyway. Audiophiles might learn something by hearing the new modeling amps though. Ne less a guitar player than Buddy Guy felt that the new Fender could reproduce the tone of a vintage Fender Bassman. I wonder how Fender found the way to have digital circuitry mimic one of its own icons?