We are both up to late, as I am in the same time zone... and waiting for glue to dry on a project. Exciting stuff... I hope you are having a fun evening.
Up late is the fate of someone who's got exams about to kick his *** @_@
So, to find the best-value parts, I have used what I know physics says about that type of product, about the effect its construction will have on the signal, and then choose among what seems to be the best, by making the same judgment calls that anyone would in their system, by changing that one 'wire-variable', and listening. I would prefer something more expensive would not be better, as to my bias. Acute listening easily betters DBT testing in my experience, as long as one puts expectations aside, which gets easier the more experience we have. I digress, sorry.
Double Blind testing and acute listening are
both flawed in that they look only to find differences. In the case of speaker wire and interconnects, these differences simply should not exist, as it is very much possible to find wire with the right physical properties to most effectively carry a signal with least alteration. If you are in fact discovering differences, the real question should be which measurable quality is producing these.
But it is wrong to think this particular wire can be duplicated economically.
I am sure he produces only a few thousand-foot rolls at a time (in the USA), and that does cost a lot when you look at the wire's delicate construction, which again, makes absolutely complete sense to avoid most everything advanced physics says about 'what goes wrong in wires'. Which was part of my graduate studies.
My thoughts on what goes wrong in wires are on our website-- and I'd be happy to clarify anything there, since I wrote this a few years back, and I'm not a very good writer.
I will in fact give it as unbiased a read as I can, however my expectations for a good, properly scientific methodology and explanation are in fact rather high.
Sorry, what agenda I would ask?
This agenda would be the one alluded to earlier, that reviewers for certain magazines do in fact get paid to review certain products. One particular magazine guilty off the top of mind to an extreme extent is called stereotimes. If you just scroll down to the second page of any given review it will have the ever-so-clever "My wife was amazed at how transparent she is, and she can't tell the difference between a chicken's cluck and a tiger's roar!" and a final paragraph saying "This is the best x i've ever experienced! Highly recommended!". my experience with 6moons reviews is much the same way.
Perhaps we should not read any reviews-- sorry you feel that way, and believe me, I do understand. I have heard many reviewers' systems, and I too wonder at what the heck they are hearing because it seems easy for me to hear only their gross problems, such as the room's poor acoustics and frequency response, a poorly-designed tube amp that muddies the bass, or poor speaker or listener placement...
The primary issue is that most of the time, there's literally zero attempt at true criticism in most, but not all audio reviews. It's usually fluff and advertisement.
But I don't know what we should expect to gain by the reviewer using any old cable. Your thoughts on that? If you were a reviewer, how would you approach that issue?
Any cable with the appropriate measured response for a given operating distance, and no real mention of it, really, is preferable. If I see a fire hose in the picture of a speaker, it implies to me that the reviewer is lost in a completely different world of fantasy where cables are dressed and given stands and amplifiers are given feet. I can not relate to someone seemingly more interested in the audiophile world than in actual performance.
As some may expect or already know, there are not that many 'superior' drivers, even with the wide range of seemingly 'high-tech' drivers available today. It's one reason we see the use of higher-order and complex crossovers- to 'fix' things in drivers that were not inherently right in their natural responses, such as the resonance of a metal cone being notched out. Many people, including experienced designers and reviewers, do not realize that this resonance will still be triggered by its subharmonics and by any wide-band, atonal transient (a noise burst, like from the whack on a snare drum or handclaps perhaps). This is a 'law' of the physics of resonant objects.
Hrm? As far my understanding goes, this would only occur with a high-distortion driver, hence why we search for drivers with mitigated harmonic distortion. Do you care to elaborate?
I have appreciated your input Dr., thanks!
You would be one of the very few to do so.
For a long time, I agreed with you and used wire that was built 'well enough' with pure copper and a teflon insulation. And other wires showed only minimal gains (or losses) in clarity and dynamics until I finally eliminated or minimized a lot of the other distortions common to speakers, such as cabinet-surface reflections, poor crossover parts (not very clear or dynamic), and made the speakers time-coherent with a very simple crossover (less parts count = more clarity). Then it became pretty easy to hear if there was a worthwhile difference between one high-quality wire and another. We were certainly shocked when we heard the difference this new wire made inside the speakers.
I don't disagree with this. Without the issues introduced by most inductors, and with the critically damped Q of .5 in a 1st order system - I suppose the impact of cable characteristics having more relative significance... perhaps. I still don't agree with the idea that fancy audiophile branded cable is necessary either way. I suppose in a cost-no-object world it's inconsequential, but my concern is moreso with the idea of listening to audiophile cable is, as a general rule, moreso an exercise in determining the most pleasing coloration. I feel that indeed speakers are such a complex beast, but cable in and of itself is pure simplicity - anything a cable does is able to absolutely be quantified properly with known measurements. This encompasses all losses associated. Most of the time, it's the "audiophile" cables which are usually single handedly most responsible for these losses - the sort which these forums disdain.
Ultimately most cable characteristics
should be so measurably minute, that audibility should still virtually impossible - regardless of relative loss magnitude.
With all that said, I still have one thing to add out of plain curiosity:
For someone understanding of the problems in passive loudspeaker design, have you ever considered development of a true FIR tri-amplified loudspeaker? I understand it's much the opposite of what you do build, and thus I'm somewhat curious if you would just discuss your feelings based on your experiences. Or even a more simple bi-amplified first order system. Does Green Mountain, (certainly no differently from the industry as whole mind you) stick with passive crossovers in general because the market dictates it, or is it a voluntary choice? Would you offer outbound analog crossovers/amplifier solutions for those interested in proper bi-amplification?
