0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 2665 times.
I can only speak for my own system, but IME the law of diminishing returns sets in pretty fast, once you get past a certain level of quality. For cables just like anything else. Even more odd? I also find that as the rest of my system has improved, the less overall effect cables seem to have. I know, weird, right?
Wow this is just opposite of my experience.
Yup, this is exactly what Deulund does. If you try out their silver wire with silk/oil insulation you'd be shocked at how much of a difference it makes. Cables are much more complicated than simple LCR values.
Nothing like a good cable debate to get the blood circulating.
Just like all other cable debates from the past and I am sure many more in the future. It is just an audio hobby for goodness sake.
Cleaned up and restored as requested by facilitator.
After a question/comment or two, I did get somewhat complicated in my explanations in post #32. Some of the points are difficult to explain. Let's look at just one of the points I previously posted and hopefully I will be able to simplify and clearly explain.When one nulls, there is going to be some cancellation of every part of the music, dynamics, frequency response differences, inner detail of all types etc etc. Now suppose there is a difference in amplitude of inner detail X between cables A and B. Some of that inner detailX is going to cancel out by nulling. Some of inner detail X will be left (residue).However, if residue X is not perceived, we have a problem. The problem lies in the fact that the null tester leads us to believe there is no cable/component difference. However, when the music and inner detail X are returned to normal volume (no nulling), a sonic difference is again perceived.The "null tester" gave us a false idea/claim that the cables/components A and B were the same, when in fact there is a difference in musical information between cables/components A and B. The "null tester" could only tell us that inner detail X was buried in the noise, not that A and B cables/components were different sonically.This is just one reason why I cannot call the "null tester" accurate. My other points also add weight to the problems of the null tester. I wish I could have brought better news, but science is science.cheerssteve
The "null tester" gave us a false idea/claim that the cables/components A and B were the same, when in factthere is a difference in musical information between cables/components A and B. The "null tester" could only tell us that inner detail X was buried in the noise, not that A and B cables/components were different sonically.
Ok....."Fact".......from wiki:A fact is something that is consistent with objective reality or that can be proven with evidence. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability — that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Sorry Steve, your post cleared up nothing for me. It led me to believe one of us has no idea what the null test is all about. And I'm certain I understand it. Please try again.
Page created in 0.05 seconds with 28 queries.