John Dunlavy On "Cable Nonsense"

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.

Something I don't get here.Check the Dunlavy website and see that John has just introduced a new reference speaker cable-
the Ultra.Go figure!

Yes, but that's a different matter entirely. Let's not confuse apples and oranges with wire and , well, wire.

THAT is the VERY reason that he got his ass "bbq'ed" over on the Asylum. Saying one thing and doing another is what made him the "poster boy" for hypocrisy on this subject. Sean
>