Hi Kuei,
First off you have made some very good points in your discussion.
I have found silicone insulated power leads make a very nice difference.
I have also wired a friend's big Marshall amp wired to two Marshall Quad boxes using 12-pair telephone cable, and this has effected a very nice improvement indeed - no high-mids glaring (ear bleeding) anymore, and the guitarist tells me that his hearing is improving (returning) accordingly.
So why did you expect or believe all cables to sound the same (make ABSOLUTELY NO audible contributions) ? - was it some college lecturer who forced that into you ?.
contentions do usually hold some truth.
I have tried once (at work) to try demagnetising a disc with my CRT demagnetiser (very high field), an although I need to experiment with this at home, I did find that the sound did change slightly to one that is a little more relaxed - I don't have the answers either !.
I consider Objective measurement as a means of correlating Subjective findings, and neither is fully justifying in isolation.
I have never understood why this subject causes so much discord.
I know that the answer is that there are plenty of measurement only types with cloth ears who force their instrument findings, and plenty of finely eared types with little proper technical knowledge, and from this springs different ways of saying the same things, but is lost in the language and ego barriers.
Cheers, Eric..
First off you have made some very good points in your discussion.
I would say that was a quite unique multicore.
I have found silicone insulated power leads make a very nice difference.
I have installed 12-pair in a disco permanent installation, and the improvement was night and day.
I have also wired a friend's big Marshall amp wired to two Marshall Quad boxes using 12-pair telephone cable, and this has effected a very nice improvement indeed - no high-mids glaring (ear bleeding) anymore, and the guitarist tells me that his hearing is improving (returning) accordingly.
Ahh, 'sucked in' as we Aussies would say.
So why did you expect or believe all cables to sound the same (make ABSOLUTELY NO audible contributions) ? - was it some college lecturer who forced that into you ?.
I agree that these seemingly weird and illogical inventions and
contentions do usually hold some truth.
Yup, I agree entirely - how come Paulinator has no grasp of this ?.
I have tried once (at work) to try demagnetising a disc with my CRT demagnetiser (very high field), an although I need to experiment with this at home, I did find that the sound did change slightly to one that is a little more relaxed - I don't have the answers either !.
Yes, absoloutely, and I would do the same if I had to.
Yes, and my position entirely too (perhaps to the surprise of those around here who so often read me incorrectly), and yes I take note of observations or claims made by others, but until I have tried the experiment for myself, I keep an open mind and do not form any solid opinion.
I consider Objective measurement as a means of correlating Subjective findings, and neither is fully justifying in isolation.
I have never understood why this subject causes so much discord.
I know that the answer is that there are plenty of measurement only types with cloth ears who force their instrument findings, and plenty of finely eared types with little proper technical knowledge, and from this springs different ways of saying the same things, but is lost in the language and ego barriers.
Cheers, Eric..
Koinichiwa,
For Pro-audio, yes. As cable it was simply a high spec (high temperature) cable to take signals from sensors near ovens (Electric Arc principle) that cooked a lot of steel to the air conditioned control centre where all electronics set.
It gets jolly hot near such ovens (PVC cable literally melts) and more than once I had to splice such a multicore after it had received a good splash of liquid steel (despite heavy silicon rubber sleeve and plated steel basketweave armouring below). Virtually all wiring we used there was high-temp stuff, very similar to the USAF/Navy/Army Mil-Spec stuff and for similar reasons I think.
I would think so, especially as the runs in such places tend to be very long, from remote large Amplifier racks. In our case for the state systems the Amp's where under 1m behind the PA Speaker statcks....
Not quite, but looking at the impedances involved and besic R/L/C/G parameters of the Cables I considered it to be "simply not possible". Remember, I was fresh out of the Poly...
So I can follow the train of thought that makes most EE's without extensive experience in the more esotheric sides of electronics and/or without 1st Hand experience of what cables really do to declare that all the expensive cables are bunk. The High End Cable industry in general and at large is also not doing itself any favours....
I agree on the role of measurements. I tend to say that measurements as such cannot tell you something you don't already know, they can only quantify the "how much" of what we already know.
So, to conventional, existing measurements to look for effects that are not sufficiently explained by the theories those measurements are based upon is like walking around in the dark and claiming because it is always dark no-one can see. All one actually needs to do is find the lightswitch. Yet some people are immensly fond of darkness.
Sayonara
mrfeedback said:
For Pro-audio, yes. As cable it was simply a high spec (high temperature) cable to take signals from sensors near ovens (Electric Arc principle) that cooked a lot of steel to the air conditioned control centre where all electronics set.
It gets jolly hot near such ovens (PVC cable literally melts) and more than once I had to splice such a multicore after it had received a good splash of liquid steel (despite heavy silicon rubber sleeve and plated steel basketweave armouring below). Virtually all wiring we used there was high-temp stuff, very similar to the USAF/Navy/Army Mil-Spec stuff and for similar reasons I think.
mrfeedback said:
I would think so, especially as the runs in such places tend to be very long, from remote large Amplifier racks. In our case for the state systems the Amp's where under 1m behind the PA Speaker statcks....
mrfeedback said:
Not quite, but looking at the impedances involved and besic R/L/C/G parameters of the Cables I considered it to be "simply not possible". Remember, I was fresh out of the Poly...
So I can follow the train of thought that makes most EE's without extensive experience in the more esotheric sides of electronics and/or without 1st Hand experience of what cables really do to declare that all the expensive cables are bunk. The High End Cable industry in general and at large is also not doing itself any favours....
mrfeedback said:
I agree on the role of measurements. I tend to say that measurements as such cannot tell you something you don't already know, they can only quantify the "how much" of what we already know.
So, to conventional, existing measurements to look for effects that are not sufficiently explained by the theories those measurements are based upon is like walking around in the dark and claiming because it is always dark no-one can see. All one actually needs to do is find the lightswitch. Yet some people are immensly fond of darkness.
Sayonara
Yes, in my comment I meant that both camps do have their attributes, however of course, neither explains all.
Some objectivists could be described as walking around with their eyes (ears) closed, and some subjectivists as walking around in the dark.
Both views ought to reinforce each other in my view.
Eric.
Some objectivists could be described as walking around with their eyes (ears) closed, and some subjectivists as walking around in the dark.
Both views ought to reinforce each other in my view.
Eric.
I can believe I even bothered to read this thread, guess I needed a laugh.
Anyway when I looked at the tiny little wire connecting the speaker terminal to the voice coil, combined with the tiny little wire on the resisitor/capacitor/inductor...well its all a bit of a joke really.
My wire costs 70 euro cents a meter and its the nicest blue cable I have ever seen, the white strip down the side is just the icing on top of the cake.
Tim.
Anyway when I looked at the tiny little wire connecting the speaker terminal to the voice coil, combined with the tiny little wire on the resisitor/capacitor/inductor...well its all a bit of a joke really.
My wire costs 70 euro cents a meter and its the nicest blue cable I have ever seen, the white strip down the side is just the icing on top of the cake.
Tim.
My experience with cables dates back to the seventies and eighties when after market cables were not a common accessory. Insted of taking for granted that cables make a difference we were simply astonished to hear that against all preconditioning by common engineering principles they actually sound different. Not two pieces of wire sounded the same. At the time it wasn't a matter of expense or prestige, just an apocryphal observation that cables make a difference. To my ears the effect of cables is not comparable to speaker positioning; it's sonic footprint is just different, not more or less significant. Today i listen to moderately expensive commercial cables as all my diy experiments sound worse. I like neither CAT5 nor pure silver in teflon and have no clue what actually makes good wire. The diy recipes i've tried (not many) certainly have advantages in some areas but overall my commercial cables are better.
Koinichiwa,
And? I personally for example do not advocate very thick cables in HiFi/High End Speaker cables.
But further, you may find re-wiring your speaker internally using good quality solid core wire, as well as bypassing the binding posts, bi-wiring where sensible and using the external wire also in some form of solid core wire/cable (the perennialy quoted Cat5 Computer Network Cable is a good and extremely cheap choice) will give a surprisingly large change in sound, compared to stock (stranded) Speaker Cable and internal wiring.
If such a change is neccearily an improvement is another question.
I know a number of Electronic manufacturers who "voice" their equipment with nasty, stranded wire and if you use what amounts in reality to actually less sonically "invasive" cable thanthat the systems starts to sound rather unpleasant and bright (I'd naim some companies here, but for peace's sake I shall not - but yes, most are arguably british).
Sayonara
tim_rule said:
And? I personally for example do not advocate very thick cables in HiFi/High End Speaker cables.
But further, you may find re-wiring your speaker internally using good quality solid core wire, as well as bypassing the binding posts, bi-wiring where sensible and using the external wire also in some form of solid core wire/cable (the perennialy quoted Cat5 Computer Network Cable is a good and extremely cheap choice) will give a surprisingly large change in sound, compared to stock (stranded) Speaker Cable and internal wiring.
If such a change is neccearily an improvement is another question.
I know a number of Electronic manufacturers who "voice" their equipment with nasty, stranded wire and if you use what amounts in reality to actually less sonically "invasive" cable thanthat the systems starts to sound rather unpleasant and bright (I'd naim some companies here, but for peace's sake I shall not - but yes, most are arguably british).
Sayonara
Well...... apparently I'm a little out of my league.
Or so it seems. I am told that because I think some of these things I have mentioned are a big waste of money, I must not be able to afford them in the first place, and therefore I am only taking the side that I have to justify my purchasing of cables and other items that.... well.... just aren't up to snuff.
Remember that I USED to buy all this stuff. I can afford it just fine.
Apparently I am not open minded because I cannot hear the difference between these items. Well, everybody else that I do these tests on must not be very open minded either. My mind is actually more open now than ever. It was a closed mind that caused me to think I was hearing such great differences.
I don't think that mentioning the prices of some of things is being unspecific of my point. It is simply a detail that I think helps my statement as a reminder of just what kind of dough people put down for this stuff. Did I confuse someone by putting a price tag next to it?
Remember, I was not trying to argue or force my opinion onto anyone, I just stated my opinion and was very curious to hear others. If someone were to show me, or prove to me that cables made a difference then I would not resist the change of sides at all. I simply have every reason to beleive, for myself, that they do not.
I think it is VERY interesting, though, that a few people seem to be getting a bit defensive about my thoughts. I feel (FEEL) that this may be a sign of the closedmindedness that I had when I was a cable beleiver. People would mention something like this at the store or on a forum, and I would get thet "How dare you suggest such a thing!" atitude. Perish the thought IMMEDIATELY that I may have spent thousands of dollars on something that is absolutely oblivious to my goal of perfect sound.
Remember, this is only my opinion. At the very most, I might hope to be a sort of town crier for someone out there who just blindly spends all his hard earned money on cables or other things when he could be using it on something that would make a substantial difference.
And please remember, I am not typing out this post and re-reading it a million times to make sure I do not folly or semi-contradict myself accidentally and draw nitpickers' fire. I think you understand what I am saying. Let's discuss the main point here, not stress over why I worded something this way, or why I was so crazy as to mention the price of something in the same sentence as I talked about it. This is not a Presidential address.
Or so it seems. I am told that because I think some of these things I have mentioned are a big waste of money, I must not be able to afford them in the first place, and therefore I am only taking the side that I have to justify my purchasing of cables and other items that.... well.... just aren't up to snuff.
Remember that I USED to buy all this stuff. I can afford it just fine.
Apparently I am not open minded because I cannot hear the difference between these items. Well, everybody else that I do these tests on must not be very open minded either. My mind is actually more open now than ever. It was a closed mind that caused me to think I was hearing such great differences.
I don't think that mentioning the prices of some of things is being unspecific of my point. It is simply a detail that I think helps my statement as a reminder of just what kind of dough people put down for this stuff. Did I confuse someone by putting a price tag next to it?
Remember, I was not trying to argue or force my opinion onto anyone, I just stated my opinion and was very curious to hear others. If someone were to show me, or prove to me that cables made a difference then I would not resist the change of sides at all. I simply have every reason to beleive, for myself, that they do not.
I think it is VERY interesting, though, that a few people seem to be getting a bit defensive about my thoughts. I feel (FEEL) that this may be a sign of the closedmindedness that I had when I was a cable beleiver. People would mention something like this at the store or on a forum, and I would get thet "How dare you suggest such a thing!" atitude. Perish the thought IMMEDIATELY that I may have spent thousands of dollars on something that is absolutely oblivious to my goal of perfect sound.
Remember, this is only my opinion. At the very most, I might hope to be a sort of town crier for someone out there who just blindly spends all his hard earned money on cables or other things when he could be using it on something that would make a substantial difference.
And please remember, I am not typing out this post and re-reading it a million times to make sure I do not folly or semi-contradict myself accidentally and draw nitpickers' fire. I think you understand what I am saying. Let's discuss the main point here, not stress over why I worded something this way, or why I was so crazy as to mention the price of something in the same sentence as I talked about it. This is not a Presidential address.
Koinichiwa,
So, what where your experiences for example with the $ 600 Cable burn in box? And with the CD Edge Pen?
What would consider sufficient "show" or "prove"?
How about I suggest a very basic, simple System that you should be able to find easily and probably have some use for in your Office or such, one that costs as a system a lot less than ANY HigH End Speaker Cable and I ten suggest a number of specific modifiaction (mostly internal re-wiring) of these items, plus then simple and inexpensive recipies for DIY Cables.
Then you can simply compare.
Or do you want to drop by at my place for a short, sweet (and blind) listening test comparing a pair of 1m Length Interconnects (my best DIY units against a pair of RCA cables that come in the box with cheap HiFi Gear)?
Funny. I seem to have failed to have noticed ANY thoughts (in the sense of original thought) in your comments. All you have been railing on about is the price of commercial cables and you have noted that in a given system under a given condition you felt there was no difference.
I have compared cables blind and sighted and find them to make a difference. BUT, my system in many ways has all the attributes of a studio monitor setup (that is my sort of background) and it tends to let you hear very small changes in all sorts of areas. So arguably, the kind of system I listen to and have listened to for most of my life tends to be one that will make you hear differences.
I once did a blind test with a few people from our audio club. I did not even change cables, I merely removed the Bias Batteries from the screens of the Cables I was using then. All present, even thouse not in the hot seat heard the switch clearly, except they did not know I had switched ANYTHING.
No I have no problem with anyone saying "I can't hear the difference" or "I don't care about the difference" and the like. If you cannot hear a difference, all the better for you. Saves money.
What I object to is the next step or two that you take, namely:
1) I cannot hear it so no-one can (and your blind tests really are very poorely implemented).
2) Because I cannot hear it and nobody can hear it anyone saying they can is a charaltan.
I repeat, all I hear you complaining about is $600 That, $ 500 or $ 2,000 This and "This or That are fraud".
Cables can be homemade quite easily, inexpensively and with often good results. Understanding the basics about cables will give you chance to find which cable PRINCIPLE works in your system and buy some inexpensive cables using these principles. Cables (just like good sounding stereos) do not have to be extremely expensive (unless you are in the US where it seems price is being equated with quality).
So I fail to see ANYTHING in your comments except "I paid a lot of money for cables and can't hear a difference" and a general line that seems to indicate that anything you do not consider valid is fraud. So, somehow I fail to see any original thought.
BTW, you have not comment on ANY of the specific points I quoted with regard to blind testing and any number of others.
Sayonara
The Paulinator said:
So, what where your experiences for example with the $ 600 Cable burn in box? And with the CD Edge Pen?
The Paulinator said:
What would consider sufficient "show" or "prove"?
How about I suggest a very basic, simple System that you should be able to find easily and probably have some use for in your Office or such, one that costs as a system a lot less than ANY HigH End Speaker Cable and I ten suggest a number of specific modifiaction (mostly internal re-wiring) of these items, plus then simple and inexpensive recipies for DIY Cables.
Then you can simply compare.
Or do you want to drop by at my place for a short, sweet (and blind) listening test comparing a pair of 1m Length Interconnects (my best DIY units against a pair of RCA cables that come in the box with cheap HiFi Gear)?
The Paulinator said:
Funny. I seem to have failed to have noticed ANY thoughts (in the sense of original thought) in your comments. All you have been railing on about is the price of commercial cables and you have noted that in a given system under a given condition you felt there was no difference.
I have compared cables blind and sighted and find them to make a difference. BUT, my system in many ways has all the attributes of a studio monitor setup (that is my sort of background) and it tends to let you hear very small changes in all sorts of areas. So arguably, the kind of system I listen to and have listened to for most of my life tends to be one that will make you hear differences.
I once did a blind test with a few people from our audio club. I did not even change cables, I merely removed the Bias Batteries from the screens of the Cables I was using then. All present, even thouse not in the hot seat heard the switch clearly, except they did not know I had switched ANYTHING.
No I have no problem with anyone saying "I can't hear the difference" or "I don't care about the difference" and the like. If you cannot hear a difference, all the better for you. Saves money.
What I object to is the next step or two that you take, namely:
1) I cannot hear it so no-one can (and your blind tests really are very poorely implemented).
2) Because I cannot hear it and nobody can hear it anyone saying they can is a charaltan.
I repeat, all I hear you complaining about is $600 That, $ 500 or $ 2,000 This and "This or That are fraud".
Cables can be homemade quite easily, inexpensively and with often good results. Understanding the basics about cables will give you chance to find which cable PRINCIPLE works in your system and buy some inexpensive cables using these principles. Cables (just like good sounding stereos) do not have to be extremely expensive (unless you are in the US where it seems price is being equated with quality).
So I fail to see ANYTHING in your comments except "I paid a lot of money for cables and can't hear a difference" and a general line that seems to indicate that anything you do not consider valid is fraud. So, somehow I fail to see any original thought.
BTW, you have not comment on ANY of the specific points I quoted with regard to blind testing and any number of others.
Sayonara
Throwing Pearls To Swine....
Kuei,
A lot of members around here have cloth ears, or lousy systems, or both.
You and I have monitor level systems, but a big bunch around here do not, and to them the world is flat.
Save your time and your effort for fruitful communications with those who do understand things like just breathing on a fader or eq knob radically changing the whole harmonic structure, ditto swapping cables changing sonics on a revealling system.
You mention polarised interconnects - can you give more details.
Eric.
Kuei,
A lot of members around here have cloth ears, or lousy systems, or both.
You and I have monitor level systems, but a big bunch around here do not, and to them the world is flat.
Save your time and your effort for fruitful communications with those who do understand things like just breathing on a fader or eq knob radically changing the whole harmonic structure, ditto swapping cables changing sonics on a revealling system.
You mention polarised interconnects - can you give more details.
Eric.
POLAROIDS...
Hi,
Eric,
If you like I could do that too, just be a little patient.
I need to dig up that document and...it's written in French.
Basically it prevents micro charges to build up beteen conductor and sheathing material.
Do you recal the " Cap Skinning" thread?
Basically I assume it's about the same phenomenon.
Cheers,
Hi,
Eric,
If you like I could do that too, just be a little patient.
I need to dig up that document and...it's written in French.
Basically it prevents micro charges to build up beteen conductor and sheathing material.
Do you recal the " Cap Skinning" thread?
Basically I assume it's about the same phenomenon.
Cheers,
Kuei Yang Wang said:
And how are those any more objectionable than:
1) I perceive it, therefore the only possible cause is some physical phenomenon in the equipment producing an actual audible difference.
2) Because I perceive it, those who don't must have cloth ears or lousy systems, or both.
Flip side of the same dogma if you ask me.
se
Mr Feedback:
**"What kind of 'unlistenable' do you mean ?"
I mean bright, irritating, harsh, muddied. Remember these were not brand new speakers, they were the store demo pair and were run in approximately as much as mine had been. ie, equivalent to I guess 6months of domestic use.
The fact that in order to counteract the gross flaws which I ****assume**** were from the internal cabling of the speakers (given that no other component was obviously different and two were absolutely identical) meant an upgrading of equipment to a level of around 3 times the price was proof that something was drastically wrong.
FWIW, other equipment from the store that I'd previously listened to there sounded the same so I don't believe I had my cloth ears on that day.
**"As a further note, I have never found a hifi store to be an optimum listening environment - noisey power, sub optimal room treatments etc, but despite that you can usually get a good enough idea."
Granted, I find stores far from a reference environment too but this one was farily much ok as it was basically the one rectangular room, had carpets all over and wall hangings on the sides at the equipment end andthe only glass in the place was a good 6 metres behind the listening position. Not a perfect example of "live end dead end" but nowhere near the "listen in this small nook" comparator chaos of some places.
**"BTW - What's a "Large Technology Conservator" ?"
Aha! Conservators are like book editors. If they do their job properly you'll never notice them. We're the little pixies in white lab coats (in my case blue overalls as I'm playing with bigger stuff) who hide in the back of museums, art galleries, libraries and archives preserving their collections and slowing down the deterioration.
I'm a specialist metals conservator who has spent the last 5 years at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. So far I've worked on a WW2 air warning radar station, a MiG 15, an A6M2 Zero, the stern of HMAS Sydney from WW1, a WW1 german field periscope (with lnses by Zeiss no less!) and at the moment I'm on the home stretch with "G for George", the Lancaster bomber we have.
It's a great place (and the radar station had some loverly NOS 833's in it) (they stayed in it!) :-(
Drew
**"What kind of 'unlistenable' do you mean ?"
I mean bright, irritating, harsh, muddied. Remember these were not brand new speakers, they were the store demo pair and were run in approximately as much as mine had been. ie, equivalent to I guess 6months of domestic use.
The fact that in order to counteract the gross flaws which I ****assume**** were from the internal cabling of the speakers (given that no other component was obviously different and two were absolutely identical) meant an upgrading of equipment to a level of around 3 times the price was proof that something was drastically wrong.
FWIW, other equipment from the store that I'd previously listened to there sounded the same so I don't believe I had my cloth ears on that day.
**"As a further note, I have never found a hifi store to be an optimum listening environment - noisey power, sub optimal room treatments etc, but despite that you can usually get a good enough idea."
Granted, I find stores far from a reference environment too but this one was farily much ok as it was basically the one rectangular room, had carpets all over and wall hangings on the sides at the equipment end andthe only glass in the place was a good 6 metres behind the listening position. Not a perfect example of "live end dead end" but nowhere near the "listen in this small nook" comparator chaos of some places.
**"BTW - What's a "Large Technology Conservator" ?"
Aha! Conservators are like book editors. If they do their job properly you'll never notice them. We're the little pixies in white lab coats (in my case blue overalls as I'm playing with bigger stuff) who hide in the back of museums, art galleries, libraries and archives preserving their collections and slowing down the deterioration.
I'm a specialist metals conservator who has spent the last 5 years at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. So far I've worked on a WW2 air warning radar station, a MiG 15, an A6M2 Zero, the stern of HMAS Sydney from WW1, a WW1 german field periscope (with lnses by Zeiss no less!) and at the moment I'm on the home stretch with "G for George", the Lancaster bomber we have.
It's a great place (and the radar station had some loverly NOS 833's in it) (they stayed in it!) :-(
Drew
DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.
Hi,
Yet another side of the coin?
A parameter that is critical in cable design is characteristic impedance. But because of its complexity, this important factor is often misunderstood.
The characteristic impedance of a cable is given by
Z = [(R + jwL)/(G + jwC)]1/2
where R is the series resistance, L is the series inductance, G is the shunt conductance, C is the shunt capacitance, and w is the angular frequency (w = 2pief).
Note that this is not a simple number for a cable, but one which changes with frequency. It is also important to note that R, L, G, and C also change with frequency, making the impedance of a cable even more frequency dependent.
Z is a complex number, and it is common practice in the cable industry to simplify the situation by assuming a loss less transmission line ( nice, but not real) and, in turn, assuming that R and G are zero.
While this may be a valid approximation at high frequencies, it is not valid at low audio frequencies if you plan to construct an accurate model of a cable.
For example, stating that a speaker cable has a constant, characteristic impedance of 10 ohms across the entire frequency range of 20 to 20,000 Hz, assuming that's your target, is a drastic oversimplification that, in the end, is simply untrue.
The same type of statement is also inaccurate when applied to loudspeakers.
A speaker only has a constant impedance of 8 ohms at a single fixed frequency.
To state otherwise is to ignore the complexity of impedance
changes as signal frequency changes.
The measurement brigade may have a field day once they finally lay their hands on an FFT analyser so they can actually SEE what's going on for that's apparently the only to convince them that what they may actually well be there.
Amazing what one can derive from Ohm's law, isn't it?
Cheers,
Bibliography:
Henry W. Ott, Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronics System (New York, NY John Wiley and Sons, 1988, p. 150)
Wilska, A.: Eine methode zur Bestimmung der Horschwellenamplituden des Trommelfells bei verschiedenen Frequenzen, Skandinav. Arch. Physiol., 72:161, 1935.
Sivian, L.J., and White, S.D.: On minimum audible sound fields, J. Acous. Soc. Am., 4:288, 1933
Hi,
Yet another side of the coin?
A parameter that is critical in cable design is characteristic impedance. But because of its complexity, this important factor is often misunderstood.
The characteristic impedance of a cable is given by
Z = [(R + jwL)/(G + jwC)]1/2
where R is the series resistance, L is the series inductance, G is the shunt conductance, C is the shunt capacitance, and w is the angular frequency (w = 2pief).
Note that this is not a simple number for a cable, but one which changes with frequency. It is also important to note that R, L, G, and C also change with frequency, making the impedance of a cable even more frequency dependent.
Z is a complex number, and it is common practice in the cable industry to simplify the situation by assuming a loss less transmission line ( nice, but not real) and, in turn, assuming that R and G are zero.
While this may be a valid approximation at high frequencies, it is not valid at low audio frequencies if you plan to construct an accurate model of a cable.
For example, stating that a speaker cable has a constant, characteristic impedance of 10 ohms across the entire frequency range of 20 to 20,000 Hz, assuming that's your target, is a drastic oversimplification that, in the end, is simply untrue.
The same type of statement is also inaccurate when applied to loudspeakers.
A speaker only has a constant impedance of 8 ohms at a single fixed frequency.
To state otherwise is to ignore the complexity of impedance
changes as signal frequency changes.
The measurement brigade may have a field day once they finally lay their hands on an FFT analyser so they can actually SEE what's going on for that's apparently the only to convince them that what they may actually well be there.
Amazing what one can derive from Ohm's law, isn't it?
Cheers,
Bibliography:
Henry W. Ott, Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronics System (New York, NY John Wiley and Sons, 1988, p. 150)
Wilska, A.: Eine methode zur Bestimmung der Horschwellenamplituden des Trommelfells bei verschiedenen Frequenzen, Skandinav. Arch. Physiol., 72:161, 1935.
Sivian, L.J., and White, S.D.: On minimum audible sound fields, J. Acous. Soc. Am., 4:288, 1933
Koinichiwa Eddy San,
I completly agree. I personally neither exclude the possibility that I am still deluding myself (if about nothing else at least about cause/effect - remember I'm a Hume'an) nor the possibility that the todays most outrageuous, most unbelievable and most extreme conspiracy theory are way to tame to come close to the truth.
What I do provide (other than a often scathing exposure of fundamental logical falws - not that logic in itself has any relevance) are empirical datapoints of what I have tried.
To actually remove the argument from the realms of audio and make it morally, financially and religeously neutral I shall propose a theory:
"When I poke myself into my eye it hurts!"
Empirically (if unwillingly) I have poked myself into my eye a few times and each and every time it hurt (luckily enough I have so far avoided doing the poking with heated soldering irons). Now I cannot infer from my data that ionvariably and automatically everyone poking themselves into the eye will feel pain.
But, if after appreciating my premise and poking themselves into the eye too many others say "For me it hurt too" we can draw the conclusion that for many people being poked in the eye is painful.
Now you may or may not feel pain when being poked into the eye and you or may not wish to aknowledge that you feel the pain if you do. That is fine. Keep poking yourself into the eye insisting "there is no pain". But please, do not try to DICTATE to others that they should not feel pain.
Now you can replace the words "poke in eye" and "feel pain" with any number of subjects of enquiry, including all those keeping the subjectivists and objectivists hot under the collar.
Yet if I after repetetively having tired the "poking in the eye" bit still reliably feel pain, please DO NOT tell me I'm imagining it (at least not beyound the basic premise that this whole world is illusion and that all in it, pain, pleasure, solidity, emptiness et al are mere illusions, just Maya).
Sayonara
PS, of course diferences in sound between are pure Illusions, just as the music, the cables, the gear and the whole universe are. However, these illusions obey a limited, if very large number of basic rules and hence the "grand" illusion is ameanable to empirical study, though sudying thusly the illusions yields no data on absolute reality, only on the illusions.
Steve Eddy said:
I completly agree. I personally neither exclude the possibility that I am still deluding myself (if about nothing else at least about cause/effect - remember I'm a Hume'an) nor the possibility that the todays most outrageuous, most unbelievable and most extreme conspiracy theory are way to tame to come close to the truth.
What I do provide (other than a often scathing exposure of fundamental logical falws - not that logic in itself has any relevance) are empirical datapoints of what I have tried.
To actually remove the argument from the realms of audio and make it morally, financially and religeously neutral I shall propose a theory:
"When I poke myself into my eye it hurts!"
Empirically (if unwillingly) I have poked myself into my eye a few times and each and every time it hurt (luckily enough I have so far avoided doing the poking with heated soldering irons). Now I cannot infer from my data that ionvariably and automatically everyone poking themselves into the eye will feel pain.
But, if after appreciating my premise and poking themselves into the eye too many others say "For me it hurt too" we can draw the conclusion that for many people being poked in the eye is painful.
Now you may or may not feel pain when being poked into the eye and you or may not wish to aknowledge that you feel the pain if you do. That is fine. Keep poking yourself into the eye insisting "there is no pain". But please, do not try to DICTATE to others that they should not feel pain.
Now you can replace the words "poke in eye" and "feel pain" with any number of subjects of enquiry, including all those keeping the subjectivists and objectivists hot under the collar.
Yet if I after repetetively having tired the "poking in the eye" bit still reliably feel pain, please DO NOT tell me I'm imagining it (at least not beyound the basic premise that this whole world is illusion and that all in it, pain, pleasure, solidity, emptiness et al are mere illusions, just Maya).
Sayonara
PS, of course diferences in sound between are pure Illusions, just as the music, the cables, the gear and the whole universe are. However, these illusions obey a limited, if very large number of basic rules and hence the "grand" illusion is ameanable to empirical study, though sudying thusly the illusions yields no data on absolute reality, only on the illusions.
By All Means Try It - You Have Nothing To Lose.
Yeah I have tried it in a P-P wired DAC/output stage I made years (10+) ago.
I did not like the sound - much preferred solid copper wire, although I think some of the sound was due to the insulation.
This insulation required a red hot iron to tin it, and gave off some savagely bad fumes.
I think I tried it for interconnects too, and did not really like the sound - same thing, solid wire sounded better (cleaner, nicer) to my ear
Eric.
Hi Graham,Circlotron said:
Yeah I have tried it in a P-P wired DAC/output stage I made years (10+) ago.
I did not like the sound - much preferred solid copper wire, although I think some of the sound was due to the insulation.
This insulation required a red hot iron to tin it, and gave off some savagely bad fumes.
I think I tried it for interconnects too, and did not really like the sound - same thing, solid wire sounded better (cleaner, nicer) to my ear
Eric.
Re: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.
Except that cable doesn't have any constant characteristic impedance at audio frequencies.
In the audio band, impedance is characterized by:
Z = [R/(jwC)]1/2
The equation you give above characterizes the transition curve and above this, it basically simplifies to (L/C)1/2 which remains rather constant and is really the only "characteristic impedance."
se
fdegrove said:
Except that cable doesn't have any constant characteristic impedance at audio frequencies.
In the audio band, impedance is characterized by:
Z = [R/(jwC)]1/2
The equation you give above characterizes the transition curve and above this, it basically simplifies to (L/C)1/2 which remains rather constant and is really the only "characteristic impedance."
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.