John Dunlavy On "Cable Nonsense"

I think we are loosing focus here. What John Dunlavy is saying, I think, is that yes there is basic princpals, as described earlier in his letter, and measuring tools, methods to varify if the cable is designed right.If all manufactures understand these principals and implement this COOK book manufaturing technique, ther would /shouls not be significant change in sound among diffrent makes. It is the methods used other than then the BASIC, like termiation boxes, diffrent weave techniques that different make claim to have invented that IMPROVES (actually it changes) the sound is BUNK( Cable Nonsense). That change in sound is what we here and prefer or not among different makes. I do hear changes in cables and chosen my cables accordingly. But I am not proponent of expensive cables-mine range between $300-800 price range.
I love Dunlavy's speakers (have V'S , II'S and I)and their speaker cable. To me their speaker prices are justified, however to some it may sound poor value. Similar analogy to Cable pricing. It is case of supply and demand. Like few posts above said, in this limited demand market, there is high cost of 'Research', manufacturing in lower qualntity, limited distribution and to be profitable, Cable makers have to charge accordingly. They believe in ' there is sucker born every minute' theroy. Some buy in the cable nonsense claims and here the difference in THIER systems, some don't.

Let me make another point. They say they all very well designed amplifier sound same, then why there are amplifiers costing megabucks. It is little bit of improvement and LOT of marketing technique.

1. John Dunlavy is in his early 70's not 80's. And while he might have "senior moments" like many folks do, I can tell you from recent personal experience that he is anything but "loosing it".

2. John's philosophy of cable design is to insure that "loudspeaker cables possess all the electrical properties required to ensure that no audible degradation of complex musical waveforms and transients can occur between the output terminals of a power-amp, and the input terminals of a loudspeaker." (from his website)

3. John claims he can always 100% of the time hear the difference in sighted test and never in blind test.

4. He also claims that no one has ever figured out which cable was playing when he performed his blind test in his office.

5. Never has he said "no one can hear a difference"

6. I know folks who claim they have never missed identifying which cable was playing when doing the test blind and I believe them.

7. Lest we forget, this hobby is supposed to be fun but based upon some of the posts on this thread, it appears that some have yet to figure that out

8. I actually hope John Dunlavy is correct. Look how much money we can spend on music (novel idea)

9. You can take some of the mega buck wire and get estimates on cost to manufacture and you will find that the margins are in the bazillioin digits !!

Following up...

I've debated JD many times on rahe - and if Deja.com still worked, I'd suggest that you check out those goings on...
In brief - JD does some nice work, but fall short of being able to make a *definitive* statement as to what is audible and what is not. I believe that he is wrong in his conclusions only because his tests do not reach far enough.
See below.

John Dunlavy On "Cable Nonsense"


2. John's philosophy of cable design is to insure that "loudspeaker cables possess
all the electrical properties required to ensure that no audible degradation of
complex musical waveforms and transients can occur between the output
terminals of a power-amp, and the input terminals of a loudspeaker." (from his
website)

Yeah, sure. The problem is the term "audible degredation" - this is problematic. The limiting factor(s) in determining audible degredation are 1) YOUR EARS/BRAIN & 2)THE ULTIMATE QUALITY OF THE SYSTEM. Unfortunately, both represent real and measurable compromises (even JD's speakers). So, just because the "literature" has not yet published tests that have found "differences" it does not mean that they are not there. The published tests are flawed IMHO, which is why the results are what they are.

3. John claims he can always 100% of the time hear the difference in sighted test
and never in blind test.

Then he is not hearing the difference at all. Few if any men of the age that John is CAN hear particularly well. :- (
That's bad for all of us. When I was 16 I could easilly hear the TV horizontal freq AND ultrasonic motion detectors (some of them). No more.

4. He also claims that no one has ever figured out which cable was playing when
he performed his blind test in his office.

He probably only used musical selections to do the tests - this makes zeroing in on the "differences" VERY difficult in the SHORT TERM. The real test of any system is simply stated making it *easier* for your brain to 'figure out' what it is hearing (less internal processing to extract and decode). You CAN listen to a 2" TV speaker and still hear music and recognize voices, right? There are other test signals that are much better suited to spotting instantaneous differences, oddly these "objectivists" and "scientists" never seem to manage to find or use them (as far as I am aware).
5. Never has he said "no one can hear a difference"

But manages to bash anyone who thinks they do?




_-_-bearlabs (bearlabsUSA.com)

I'm about to embark on an interesting experiment. Here's my thinking:
I'd like to have an extrememly accurate wire, something that will transmit data (thats the electrical signal right?)really well... So I start thinking about nordost- they claim they came from aerospace- probably making extremely accurate cable for some high tech electronics. That sort of reminded me of the ribbon wire in my computer, the stuff that connects the hard drive and all sorts of stuff in there.
So I do a little research and I found out that there are HUGE differences in the amount and accuracy of data that ribbon cable can transmit. I could buy stuff at the local electronics store for $10.00 to have 20 feet of poopy cable, or can spend roughly $250 to get the cable that might be used in a server or extremely fast data intensive computer of some other sort, this expensive stuff is copper plated with silver and insulated in teflon. Sound familiar?

Now this cable is more mass marketed than any audio stuff, but still comes in around $250- without termination, directly from the dealer. Just like with audio it turns out the termination is the most expensive part.

Now I'm not sure if it will sound good, but I'm going to try it as soon as I get the money together (still paying off speakers...) In any case, with at least computers (transmitting data just like us) there are very measurable differences in cable. we just aren't doing the right tests yet.

Now I don't claim it would be great- but I can see how a cable manufacturer could charge $350 doing exactly what I am going to do. We'll see!

Dunlavy's argument is that people can not distinguish between cables better than chance IN BLIND TESTS. His support is the result of many tests conducted at his facilities.
If you want to argue against Dunlavy, prove that people can sucsesfuly distinguish between cables IN A BLIND TEST, or that his sample was not statisticaly strong enough to make the generalization.

Mentioning that you can discern differences under other circumstances is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what he claims is the placebo effect which he is so frustrated by.

And even if under his circumstances YOU can, that does not refute the claim, you would also need a reasonably statisticaly valid sample of people to perform the same way.