Speaker cables and system quality

[QuestForThe13thNote]

davedotco, what make and model were the speakers in your Hi-fi Choice blind test?

It's quite possible that the speakers that were "highly rated" before the test had simply been over hyped and weren't all that. As in the example of the B&W vs JPW Hi-fi Choice blind test.

this is the problem that David is not stating how it was actually done. Any science would do that. And no I don't buy how our ears suposedly can't discern differences in dynamics, clarity and all these variables, with non matched volume levels. Our ears are good enough audio devices to do so. But I agree it would make sense to eliminate the variable as much as possible or totally. But where for instance is the test that shows that level matching is important to reduce errors in double blind (or not). Again there isn't one. Which is what makes this hard to believe.

I don't actually see what his system is too. In my experience those that believe you can't discern differences with speaker cables as being with the cables themselves have multi faceted reasons why they think that. Drill these down and you find out. But those who believe the opposite have pretty much one reason, they hear it with their ears.

I never suggested the tests referred to were scientific, they were anything but.

The speakers were all medium sized standmounts in what was then a mid price range. The listening panel knew which speakers were in the group and were familier with them by experience and reputation. They had practically decided the 'winners' before listening.

The speakers included models from B&W, Kef and Monitor audio along with some less well known models, there was no attempt to make the switching double blind.

Each speaker was played in random order and the panel made notes, after the round was completed some speakers were listened to again at the request of the panel. Some members, on occasion, identified the speaker they were listening to, often wrongly.

The results taken from the notes showed a clear disparity from the expected results with unfancied speakers often doing better than the more highly regarded models. When sighted tests were later carried out (before the panel knew the results of the blind test), preferences went to the more favoured models and an unfancied speaker that did well in the blind test was consistently marked down.

I came away from this experience rather chastened, simply because the huge differences that we hear in speakers in everyday use and the preferences formed were completely at odds with the much smaller differences heard in controlled tests.

no I know you didn't suggest they were scientific (although you did in one post before you changed) but what I'm getting at is you need to know why people reach those judgements and can they be considered founded or not. If you test speakers at the same price it's probably not surprising. Also we asked how well did they know the speakers. Did they listen to them in a shop or at home etc. Did they own them for a while. I'd expect the inability to pick them out due to this.

But your point in a previous post was to say that there is no difference in any speakers that anyone can pick out, and that's frankly a flawed argument. You can't transpose an idea of similar prices speakers not being picked out, to say the best rated £500 floorstanders versus best rated £5000 floorstanders in an a-b non blind test first, then picking them out in abx test. This is what you did. Maybe you had that written wrong?

 

[Leif]

Your observations on your demo get right to the point of this issue. In a normal demo there is no attempt to accurately match levels, any ad hoc adjustments that you make are subject to all kinds of error, the more sensitive speaker invariable sounds more detailed, more open and often just better. It only takes a a small difference in level to make this work and it is very difficult to make sensible decisions in this case.

I understand that this is difficult, it goes against everything that we experience in everyday listening, but my experience of listening to loudspeakers blind and level matched shows that the listeners preferences are often very different from that of sighted tests.

To be honest, had I not been involved in such testing, I would not believe this either, speakers sound so different in everyday use that it is easy to see which we prefer.

Freddie, in your specific case, the MAs are very slightly more sensitive than the kefs, hence their enhanced detail and percieved livelyness. That you chose the Kefs in such a demo is interesting.

This might be true for decent speakers, I find it hard to believe for cheapers ones. I have some Mission 771e speakers, unused for 15 years, which I recently tried. The sound is awful. My MA Silver 1 speakers have an exaggerated bass lacking detail, best described as boomy. Measurements of the MA S2 show a very exaggerated bass. Measurements of the PMC twenty.21 show an increased treble response. I have not blind tested the last two, but I would be astonished not to recognise them.

The differences are sometimes huge for headphones, I cannot listen to a Beats Solo due to the lack of detail and huge bass.

exactly so if you did blind test speaker cables and decided to go for much better electronics at some stage, you would find a difference. It stands to reason.

Your sentence does not make sense. Frequency reponse plots for speakers show significant deviations from neutral, whereas those I have seen for amps show almost neutral frequency response. Clearly a frequency response plot is only one measure of performance but important.

Your use of the phrase 'much better electronics' shows that you are a fool since you have never listened to my system and hence you have absolutely no idea how it sounds, but don't let that stop you continually posting derogatory remarks.

 

[Leif]

davedotco, what make and model were the speakers in your Hi-fi Choice blind test?

It's quite possible that the speakers that were "highly rated" before the test had simply been over hyped and weren't all that. As in the example of the B&W vs JPW Hi-fi Choice blind test.

this is the problem that David is not stating how it was actually done. Any science would do that. And no I don't buy how our ears suposedly can't discern differences in dynamics, clarity and all these variables, with non matched volume levels. Our ears are good enough audio devices to do so. But I agree it would make sense to eliminate the variable as much as possible or totally. But where for instance is the test that shows that level matching is important to reduce errors in double blind (or not). Again there isn't one. Which is what makes this hard to believe.

I don't actually see what his system is too. In my experience those that believe you can't discern differences with speaker cables as being with the cables themselves have multi faceted reasons why they think that. Drill these down and you find out. But those who believe the opposite have pretty much one reason, they hear it with their ears.

I never suggested the tests referred to were scientific, they were anything but.

The speakers were all medium sized standmounts in what was then a mid price range. The listening panel knew which speakers were in the group and were familier with them by experience and reputation. They had practically decided the 'winners' before listening.

The speakers included models from B&W, Kef and Monitor audio along with some less well known models, there was no attempt to make the switching double blind.

Each speaker was played in random order and the panel made notes, after the round was completed some speakers were listened to again at the request of the panel. Some members, on occasion, identified the speaker they were listening to, often wrongly.

The results taken from the notes showed a clear disparity from the expected results with unfancied speakers often doing better than the more highly regarded models. When sighted tests were later carried out (before the panel knew the results of the blind test), preferences went to the more favoured models and an unfancied speaker that did well in the blind test was consistently marked down.

I came away from this experience rather chastened, simply because the huge differences that we hear in speakers in everyday use and the preferences formed were completely at odds with the much smaller differences heard in controlled tests.

no I know you didn't suggest they were scientific (although you did in one post before you changed) but what I'm getting at is you need to know why people reach those judgements and can they be considered founded or not. If you test speakers at the same price it's probably not surprising. Also we asked how well did they know the speakers. Did they listen to them in a shop or at home etc. Did they own them for a while. I'd expect the inability to pick them out due to this.

But your point in a previous post was to say that there is no difference in any speakers that anyone can pick out, and that's frankly a flawed argument. You can't transpose an idea of similar prices speakers not being picked out, to say the best rated £500 floorstanders versus best rated £5000 floorstanders in an a-b non blind test first, then picking them out in abx test. This is what you did. Maybe you had that written wrong?

He did not say there was no difference in speakers. He did say that tests have shown that preferences change according to whether or not the tests are blind. In other word, there is a significant bias from visual clues.

 

[davedotco]

I have never said nor implied that speakers sound the same when tested under contolled conditions.

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Freddy58]

I never suggested the tests referred to were scientific, they were anything but.

The speakers were all medium sized standmounts in what was then a mid price range. The listening panel knew which speakers were in the group and were familier with them by experience and reputation. They had practically decided the 'winners' before listening.

The speakers included models from B&W, Kef and Monitor audio along with some less well known models, there was no attempt to make the switching double blind.

Each speaker was played in random order and the panel made notes, after the round was completed some speakers were listened to again at the request of the panel. Some members, on occasion, identified the speaker they were listening to, often wrongly.

The results taken from the notes showed a clear disparity from the expected results with unfancied speakers often doing better than the more highly regarded models. When sighted tests were later carried out (before the panel knew the results of the blind test), preferences went to the more favoured models and an unfancied speaker that did well in the blind test was consistently marked down.

I came away from this experience rather chastened, simply because the huge differences that we hear in speakers in everyday use and the preferences formed were completely at odds with the much smaller differences heard in controlled tests.

I have to say that your findings are interesting. When I was auditioning speakers, some speakers were quickly ruled out, usually down to lack of bass. This seemed fairly obvious to me. That said, these were ruled out where I first heard them, at various dealers, so maybe not ideal conditions. Ideally, I suppose it would have been handy if I could have home demo'd lots of different speakers at home, but really not practical. It may well be the case that they weren't that far apart. For instance, I thought the LS 50's sounded 'boxy' and dull (sorry CNO *biggrin*)

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Your observations on your demo get right to the point of this issue. In a normal demo there is no attempt to accurately match levels, any ad hoc adjustments that you make are subject to all kinds of error, the more sensitive speaker invariable sounds more detailed, more open and often just better. It only takes a a small difference in level to make this work and it is very difficult to make sensible decisions in this case.

I understand that this is difficult, it goes against everything that we experience in everyday listening, but my experience of listening to loudspeakers blind and level matched shows that the listeners preferences are often very different from that of sighted tests.

To be honest, had I not been involved in such testing, I would not believe this either, speakers sound so different in everyday use that it is easy to see which we prefer.

Freddie, in your specific case, the MAs are very slightly more sensitive than the kefs, hence their enhanced detail and percieved livelyness. That you chose the Kefs in such a demo is interesting.

This might be true for decent speakers, I find it hard to believe for cheapers ones. I have some Mission 771e speakers, unused for 15 years, which I recently tried. The sound is awful. My MA Silver 1 speakers have an exaggerated bass lacking detail, best described as boomy. Measurements of the MA S2 show a very exaggerated bass. Measurements of the PMC twenty.21 show an increased treble response. I have not blind tested the last two, but I would be astonished not to recognise them.

The differences are sometimes huge for headphones, I cannot listen to a Beats Solo due to the lack of detail and huge bass.

exactly so if you did blind test speaker cables and decided to go for much better electronics at some stage, you would find a difference. It stands to reason.

Your sentence does not make sense. Frequency reponse plots for speakers show significant deviations from neutral, whereas those I have seen for amps show almost neutral frequency response. Clearly a frequency response plot is only one measure of performance but important.

Your use of the phrase 'much better electronics' shows that you are a fool since you have never listened to my system and hence you have absolutely no idea how it sounds, but don't let that stop you continually posting derogatory remarks.

Sorry but better amps will sound better. Are you disputing that? Let's say we put your solo system up with a naim pre and power amp around 3-5k. If you doubt that you are deluding yourself in so far as the issue of cables, and the debate on that. You seem to me inflexible to want to admit that a better system will be that as a justification to think your system probably isn't the benchmark to realise cables make a differnence, assuming you haven't tried other cables (which I think you haven't).

if you don't think people can make an educated guess of what your solo is like based on reviews, its price, similar ownership, hearing what's out there etc i think you are wrong too. There is no system which can compete with others double the price.

Why don't you just concede that better electronics would get more out of your speakers (as I would with mine as I doubt these pmc's have reached a plateau). Then you have to concede that you are unknown territory to cables making a difference, if they don't on your solo. You come at it with quite a bit of ego like, my system must be perfect hence differences cannot be discerned.

I notice one review put your solo at the price of a £1k receiver, and a receiver isnt typically as good as a dedicated stereo amp just doing stereo. So at best I reckon your solo is the equivalent of a £600 amp (max) also when you take into account it has a disc drive and the sound processing it does. You are using it on speakers originally 3 times the price that like good amps. Not wise.

 

[CnoEvil]

thought the LS 50's sounded 'boxy' and dull (sorry CNO *biggrin*)

No need to be....as what you heard, was almost certainly correct on that day.

There are so many variables in a speaker dem, that most speakers can, in the right (wrong) circumstances, end up sounding underwhelming.

Personal preference and subjectivity is always an important factor....but there are occasions, where a description is so contrary to how a speaker should sound....that something is usually amiss.

The LS50s are one of those speakers that sounds glorious when in the right set up and very underwhelming in the wrong one. IMO. It should be seen as a Mini Reference Monitor, rather than a budget(ish) standmount.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

davedotco, what make and model were the speakers in your Hi-fi Choice blind test?

It's quite possible that the speakers that were "highly rated" before the test had simply been over hyped and weren't all that. As in the example of the B&W vs JPW Hi-fi Choice blind test.

this is the problem that David is not stating how it was actually done. Any science would do that. And no I don't buy how our ears suposedly can't discern differences in dynamics, clarity and all these variables, with non matched volume levels. Our ears are good enough audio devices to do so. But I agree it would make sense to eliminate the variable as much as possible or totally. But where for instance is the test that shows that level matching is important to reduce errors in double blind (or not). Again there isn't one. Which is what makes this hard to believe.

I don't actually see what his system is too. In my experience those that believe you can't discern differences with speaker cables as being with the cables themselves have multi faceted reasons why they think that. Drill these down and you find out. But those who believe the opposite have pretty much one reason, they hear it with their ears.

I never suggested the tests referred to were scientific, they were anything but.

The speakers were all medium sized standmounts in what was then a mid price range. The listening panel knew which speakers were in the group and were familier with them by experience and reputation. They had practically decided the 'winners' before listening.

The speakers included models from B&W, Kef and Monitor audio along with some less well known models, there was no attempt to make the switching double blind.

Each speaker was played in random order and the panel made notes, after the round was completed some speakers were listened to again at the request of the panel. Some members, on occasion, identified the speaker they were listening to, often wrongly.

The results taken from the notes showed a clear disparity from the expected results with unfancied speakers often doing better than the more highly regarded models. When sighted tests were later carried out (before the panel knew the results of the blind test), preferences went to the more favoured models and an unfancied speaker that did well in the blind test was consistently marked down.

I came away from this experience rather chastened, simply because the huge differences that we hear in speakers in everyday use and the preferences formed were completely at odds with the much smaller differences heard in controlled tests.

no I know you didn't suggest they were scientific (although you did in one post before you changed) but what I'm getting at is you need to know why people reach those judgements and can they be considered founded or not. If you test speakers at the same price it's probably not surprising. Also we asked how well did they know the speakers. Did they listen to them in a shop or at home etc. Did they own them for a while. I'd expect the inability to pick them out due to this.

But your point in a previous post was to say that there is no difference in any speakers that anyone can pick out, and that's frankly a flawed argument. You can't transpose an idea of similar prices speakers not being picked out, to say the best rated £500 floorstanders versus best rated £5000 floorstanders in an a-b non blind test first, then picking them out in abx test. This is what you did. Maybe you had that written wrong?

He did not say there was no difference in speakers. He did say that tests have shown that preferences change according to whether or not the tests are blind. In other word, there is a significant bias from visual clues.

he said ; "As I have said before, hi-fi is a trivial subject so you are unlikely to get any tests or research that stands up to real scientific scutiney so we simply look at the evidence that we have. Amature/enthusiast conducted tests consistently show that differences described as 'obvious' in sighted tests, all but dissappear when tested blind. That is the reality."

So therefore as he has said we can't rely on scientific tests (I agree - there are not any), and because many of the amateur tests are not scientific, in the sense of appropriate controls, hypothesis, good sample size, statistically significant maths testing used, proper analysis and conclusions, Amateur tests are unscientific which he agrees with by inference. Therefore considering that he says 'they all but dissappear when tested blind', in other words any good speaker versus bad one, there is no basis to make his statement.

The study on the seperate thread on abx testing I posted supposedly shows the more expensive cables were picked out, but it actually doesn't if you look at it further by price, so playing devils advocate I wouldn't rely on that magazine test one iota. In fact it shows nothing, and they didn't even control each cable let alone use a bigger sample size. It's totally unreliable.

 

[Freddy58]

thought the LS 50's sounded 'boxy' and dull (sorry CNO *biggrin*)

No need to be....as what you heard, was almost certainly correct on that day.

There are so many variables in a speaker dem, that most speakers can, in the right (wrong) circumstances, end up sounding underwhelming.

Personal preference and subjectivity is always an important factor....but there are occasions, where a description is so contrary to how a speaker should sound....that something is usually amiss.

The LS50s are one of those speakers that sounds glorious when in the right set up and very underwhelming in the wrong one. IMO. It should be seen as a Mini Reference Monitor, rather than a budget(ish) standmount.

I wouldn't dispute any of that. It just goes to show what a minefield we have to negotiate.

 

[davedotco]

This is why I consider the evaluation of speakers to be so difficult. The differences in normal listening are so obvious that it seems easy but that is not always the case. This may help explain why 'living with' a speaker often gives a different experience than normal comparitive demonstrations.

It is easy to overcomplicate this, for most users simply buying the speakers you fancy or hear sounding good is as complex as it needs to get. Getting into the complexities of more 'scientific' evaluation is fun and interesting to some (me), but it is unimportant for most normal users choosing a setup.

Regarding the LS50s, most times I have heard them I have been underwhelmed, but once, at a show of all places, they sounded superb.

My only motivation here is simply to try and explain that things in hi-fi are often not quite what they seem, there are factors involved that can really be quite complex that few people know much about. It also helps explain why some things work for some people and not others.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

This is why I consider the evaluation of speakers to be so difficult. The differences in normal listening are so obvious that it seems easy but that is not always the case. This may help explain why 'living with' a speaker often gives a different experience than normal comparitive demonstrations.

It is easy to overcomplicate this, for most users simply buying the speakers you fancy or hear sounding good is as complex as it needs to get. Getting into the complexities of more 'scientific' evaluation is fun and interesting to some (me), but it is unimportant for most normal users choosing a setup.

Regarding the LS50s, most times I have heard them I have been underwhelmed, but once, at a show of all places, they sounded superb.

My only motivation here is simply to try and explain that things in hi-fi are often not quite what they seem, there are factors involved that can really be quite complex that few people know much about. It also helps explain why some things work for some people and not others.

we aren't debating whether it's interesting to a user in terms of choosing a set up, we are simply talking about the original post.

i think you are making complexities you can't explain

 

[Freddy58]

This is why I consider the evaluation of speakers to be so difficult. The differences in normal listening are so obvious that it seems easy but that is not always the case. This may help explain why 'living with' a speaker often gives a different experience than normal comparitive demonstrations.

It is easy to overcomplicate this, for most users simply buying the speakers you fancy or hear sounding good is as complex as it needs to get. Getting into the complexities of more 'scientific' evaluation is fun and interesting to some (me), but it is unimportant for most normal users choosing a setup.

Regarding the LS50s, most times I have heard them I have been underwhelmed, but once, at a show of all places, they sounded superb.

My only motivation here is simply to try and explain that things in hi-fi are often not quite what they seem, there are factors involved that can really be quite complex that few people know much about. It also helps explain why some things work for some people and not others.

we aren't debating whether it's interesting to a user in terms of choosing a set up, we are simply talking about the original post.

Nah, the original post and subsequent postings got boring ages ago.

 

[Freddy58]

This is why I consider the evaluation of speakers to be so difficult. The differences in normal listening are so obvious that it seems easy but that is not always the case. This may help explain why 'living with' a speaker often gives a different experience than normal comparitive demonstrations.

It is easy to overcomplicate this, for most users simply buying the speakers you fancy or hear sounding good is as complex as it needs to get. Getting into the complexities of more 'scientific' evaluation is fun and interesting to some (me), but it is unimportant for most normal users choosing a setup.

Regarding the LS50s, most times I have heard them I have been underwhelmed, but once, at a show of all places, they sounded superb.

My only motivation here is simply to try and explain that things in hi-fi are often not quite what they seem, there are factors involved that can really be quite complex that few people know much about. It also helps explain why some things work for some people and not others.

Cheers Dave

 

[CnoEvil]

Regarding the LS50s, most times I have heard them I have been underwhelmed, but once, at a show of all places, they sounded superb.

I have certainly come to the conclusion, that some speakers are better at hiding the deficiencies of a system than others....and I 100% agree with attention to detail, regarding set up.

 

[Vladimir]

For those that missed it:

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

 

[davedotco]

For those that missed it:

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

One of the Harman guys, he's very good.

 

[Native_bon]

For those that missed it:

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

 

You recently showed a graph of DNM Speaker Cables when trying to resolve a bass problem in your house if I remember correctly. Judging from that, what he said about speaker Cables in the video is not entirely true..

 

[Vladimir]

For those that missed it:

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

 

You recently showed a graph of DNM Speaker Cables when trying to resolve a bass problem in your house if I remember correctly. Judging from that, what he said about speaker Cables in the video is not entirely true..

The speaker cables weren't long enough to make a noticable difference. A 200ft spool would have probably.

 

[lindsayt]

For those that missed it:

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

That is one of his better lectures.

He is obsessed with frequency response. There's more to a speaker than flatness of frequency response with 2.83v sine waves.

 

[Vladimir]

For those that missed it:

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

That is one of his better lectures.

He is obsessed with frequency response. There's more to a speaker than flatness of frequency response with 2.83v sine waves.

You've obviously haven't watched any of it, otherwise you wouldn't comment this nonsense.

 

[Oldphrt]

one thing that lots of people bang on about is that speaker cables don't matter, or don't make discernible differences in sound quality terms, is because frankly their systems are not up to it.

you can't expect different cables to make a difference on a £200 amp right?, probably not even a £1000 one. But when you start spending lots more on amps and speakers, cables do make discernible sound quality differences. We are not talking expensive cables btw. Maybe only ones costing £6-7 per metre.

so it stands to reason the person will think cables don't make a difference if their kit is not up to it. It's all comparative of course. I've had systems costing £2000 (amp and speakers) and I couldn't really hear much difference at all with different cables, below that almost certainly. But when spending a lot more it's very definetly obvious when you make cable changes.

so this is the question - who is prepared to have a debate on this subject. No technicalities and x technical reason why there should be no difference, or a difference, but on the subject is system quality related to the discernible differences speaker cables can give and as a tweak.

There is no need for debate, the science is settled. A low resistance cable, regardless of cost, is the best one for that job. You can argue about your golden ears or sensational systems all you like, but your position will essential be a the equivalent of religious belief.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

one thing that lots of people bang on about is that speaker cables don't matter, or don't make discernible differences in sound quality terms, is because frankly their systems are not up to it.

you can't expect different cables to make a difference on a £200 amp right?, probably not even a £1000 one. But when you start spending lots more on amps and speakers, cables do make discernible sound quality differences. We are not talking expensive cables btw. Maybe only ones costing £6-7 per metre.

so it stands to reason the person will think cables don't make a difference if their kit is not up to it. It's all comparative of course. I've had systems costing £2000 (amp and speakers) and I couldn't really hear much difference at all with different cables, below that almost certainly. But when spending a lot more it's very definetly obvious when you make cable changes.

so this is the question - who is prepared to have a debate on this subject. No technicalities and x technical reason why there should be no difference, or a difference, but on the subject is system quality related to the discernible differences speaker cables can give and as a tweak.

There is no need for debate, the science is settled. A low resistance cable, regardless of cost, is the best one for that job. You can argue about your golden ears or sensational systems all you like, but your position will essential be a the equivalent of religious belief.

so you've ignored the post points old fart and gone onto something different. But you've made my point for me, as if it's all about resistance (and I'm sure other things in cable design too) then if cables can be of different resistance and sound different, which I don't deny, it adds to my position the right cables make a difference.

 

[lindsayt]

For those that missed it:

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

That is one of his better lectures.

He is obsessed with frequency response. There's more to a speaker than flatness of frequency response with 2.83v sine waves.

You've obviously haven't watched any of it, otherwise you wouldn't comment this nonsense.

I've watched all of it.

He calls the JBL M2 an exemplary speaker because it has a flat frequency response, which it achieves through the use of equalisation.

In this lecture he showed and discussed lots of frequency response charts for various speakers.

There wasn't a single time in which he discussed transient response. No measurements were made for example of single cycle sine waves fed through the speakers at bass frequencies. An area where the M2 would be rather less than perfect due to the use of ports.

 

[Oldphrt]

one thing that lots of people bang on about is that speaker cables don't matter, or don't make discernible differences in sound quality terms, is because frankly their systems are not up to it.

you can't expect different cables to make a difference on a £200 amp right?, probably not even a £1000 one. But when you start spending lots more on amps and speakers, cables do make discernible sound quality differences. We are not talking expensive cables btw. Maybe only ones costing £6-7 per metre.

so it stands to reason the person will think cables don't make a difference if their kit is not up to it. It's all comparative of course. I've had systems costing £2000 (amp and speakers) and I couldn't really hear much difference at all with different cables, below that almost certainly. But when spending a lot more it's very definetly obvious when you make cable changes.

so this is the question - who is prepared to have a debate on this subject. No technicalities and x technical reason why there should be no difference, or a difference, but on the subject is system quality related to the discernible differences speaker cables can give and as a tweak.

There is no need for debate, the science is settled. A low resistance cable, regardless of cost, is the best one for that job. You can argue about your golden ears or sensational systems all you like, but your position will essential be a the equivalent of religious belief.

so you've ignored the post points old fart and gone onto something different. But you've made my point for me, as if it's all about resistance (and I'm sure other things in cable design too) then if cables can be of different resistance and sound different, which I don't deny, it adds to my position the right cables make a difference.

Whatever.

 

[Oldphrt]

For those that missed it:

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

That is one of his better lectures.

He is obsessed with frequency response. There's more to a speaker than flatness of frequency response with 2.83v sine waves.

You've obviously haven't watched any of it, otherwise you wouldn't comment this nonsense.

I've watched all of it.

He calls the JBL M2 an exemplary speaker because it has a flat frequency response, which it achieves through the use of equalisation.

In this lecture he showed and discussed lots of frequency response charts for various speakers.

There wasn't a single time in which he discussed transient response. No measurements were made for example of single cycle sine waves fed through the speakers at bass frequencies. An area where the M2 would be rather less than perfect due to the use of ports.

I doubt you would hear any difference at very low frequencies apart from the increase in level that the port provides.