My main system is: OPPO BDP-95 > Audible Illusions M3A > Aragon 8008bb > B&W Nautilus 803. ICs are XLO ref 2 RCAs. I had been using mil. spec. Teflon coated silver plated ofc for the last two years, as speaker cable, because it was almost invisible. However, it never sounded as good as my 20 year old XLO Ultra 6. I put the XLO back today and the system sounds like it use to "very good". I'm going to experiment with some 24g ofhc copper, I happen to have, and put it in some oversize Teflon tubing. I'll use bare wire termination. Should be interesting.
My other system is: Meridian 506.20 CDP > Aragon 18K MkII > McCromack Deluxe Edtion DNA 0.5 > Sound Dynamics 300Ti with my DIY outboard xovers. Cables are UPOCC solid silver in PTFE. ICs use Eichmann silver bullets and speaker cable is bare wire terminated. The ICs are 30g and 24g and speakers wires are two separate runs of 5 feet of UPOCC 24g and PTFE for each + and each - connection. That is each amp to speaker connection is four 5 foot runs of PTFE and UPOCC. I'm considering trying just one + and one - run, of my 24g OFHC copper in ptfe, to each speaker. Any thoughts on those experiments?
My other system is: Meridian 506.20 CDP > Aragon 18K MkII > McCromack Deluxe Edtion DNA 0.5 > Sound Dynamics 300Ti with my DIY outboard xovers. Cables are UPOCC solid silver in PTFE. ICs use Eichmann silver bullets and speaker cable is bare wire terminated. The ICs are 30g and 24g and speakers wires are two separate runs of 5 feet of UPOCC 24g and PTFE for each + and each - connection. That is each amp to speaker connection is four 5 foot runs of PTFE and UPOCC. I'm considering trying just one + and one - run, of my 24g OFHC copper in ptfe, to each speaker. Any thoughts on those experiments?
If they keep you off the streets and out of trouble, and you find them entertaining, they're well worthwhile.
It'll be surprising if you prefer only a single #24 speaker wire on systems like those, but it can't hurt to try.
This will be the equivalent of inserting a 1/4 Ohm resistor in series (with the speaker wires in 5' lengths).
Rheostat sounds so unaudiophile, unlike tiny tubes that
house a thin wire of who knows how pure copper/silver/gold.
You gotta keep the business alive and in constant motion.
I consider a cable to something to carry a signal with minimum change from one point in a circuit to another, apart from the cable parasitic inductance, resistance and capacitance that should be chosen with care it should not be affecting the system in ANY way. That is what a cable is suppose to do, it must be neutral transport for the signal... Anything else is wrong.
I've just become a strong believer in speaker cable differences. About 4 years ago I replaced my XLO Ultra 6, that I bought about 20 years ago, with Mil. Spec. silver plated OFC in teflon and used bare wire termination.
I did it to make cables almost invisible...it was an appearance thing. At the same time I started listening much more to my other system. I recently started listening to the Mil. Spec. cabled system and thought the sound was not as good as I remembered. More closed in, less dynamics, smaller sound stage and I even had to raise the preamp volume to get loudness I recalled
I just put the XLO cables back and the sound is back to what it was. The preamp volume knob also is back to where it use to be. Bottom line is I'm pretty amazed and hadn't realized what a down grade the Mil. Spec cable was.
I did it to make cables almost invisible...it was an appearance thing. At the same time I started listening much more to my other system. I recently started listening to the Mil. Spec. cabled system and thought the sound was not as good as I remembered. More closed in, less dynamics, smaller sound stage and I even had to raise the preamp volume to get loudness I recalled
I just put the XLO cables back and the sound is back to what it was. The preamp volume knob also is back to where it use to be. Bottom line is I'm pretty amazed and hadn't realized what a down grade the Mil. Spec cable was.
Its most likely true.
And also likely false.
For instance without numeric measurement (with some precision), it isn't possible to know whether the speakers are actually being driven at the same power level between the confirmation-bias A/B changes.
I had the wherewithal once (before Ancient Age took its toll LOL) to build a full set of A/B/RX/FX boxes that could do the kind of tests that ferret out confirmation bias pretty well, for speakers, cables, inserting [strike]efx boxes[/strike] preamplifiers and amplifiers into an audio signal chain.
Fun stuff. Mercury wetted noble-gas relays, silver wiring and reed switches, thick-plated terminal posts, RCA, XLR, QIJ and SpeakOn connectors. It was the old days, so used DB–15 serial connectors for computer control. Daisy chained too, for "N" box control. Expensive.
“Before The Fire” (never let friends deep-fry a Thanksgiving turkey at your house, unattended), I did a lot of tests. Hundreds.
With respect to speaker cables, the observations demystified a lot of things:
• [1] contact resistance is usually the largest factor in 'differences'
• [2] linear resistance is usually minor, except when 5+% of spkr Z
• [3] anti-capacitance measures hardly affect anything. Kids report "more hi's"
• [4] anti-impedance measures do seem to have audible effects
• [5] lifters, snakeoil systems really don't do anything at all.
• [6] hideously expensive cables often are identical
• [7] plain ol' wire is usually vexed by 1 but not 2 (if thick)
And the daddy of them all
• [8] naked stranded wire get oxidized with age, with reconfiguration, with finger oils, with everything, making it the worst over time.
We found that crimped and soldered lug-type connectors were the best. Crimping to minimize wire-plug contact area, to mechanically stay connected eve if there was an accidental cold-solder joint. Solder to eliminate all wire-lug oxidation. "Suspenders and belt"
We also found that confirmation bias was large, and in fact usually was linear with the -phile-ness of an audiophile's endorsements. Self or otherwise. Truely science minded participants (especially without 'product' or 'system' biases) did the best. No surprise.
The A/B/R/F is “path A, path B, Random choice, Feedback choice” -where in F mode, the choice was random, but immediately after 'voting', the listener was given feedback as to whether they 'got it' or not. Kind of a biofeedback training idea. Its amazing what the subconscious mind can be taught as clues. Amazing. Oh yah… and F was nearly conquered by women. After 15 minutes of F, the talented ones could get the right guess nearly 90% of the time. Men? Oh… sometimes a 'good one' would turn up, but mostly they just questioned the equipment.
So yah. Confirmation bias.
Or oxidation of those nekkid wires.
Or substantial unmeasured R/C/L differences.
Or… just "turning the volume up a wee bit higher" when playing through the biased-preference cables. Because almost everything sounds a wee bit better when it is a wee bit louder.
GoatGuy
My thought is that the Mil. Spec wire is silver plated OFC versus many, OFHC solid 27AWG, wires each in its own teflon jacket. The Mil. Spec. wire is just wound strands and the XLO is wound in a, maybe more, technically beneficial manner. The only similarity is both have the whole group of wires jacketed in teflon. Reading Thorsten Loesch's cable writings, what I think I got from it, is that small individually insulated strands, cw and ccw wound, can lead to a good sounding cable. I'm not an EE, so what do I know, but I think I have good ears.
Hey, as long as your good ears and deep pockets keep you out of trouble, who cares about a bit of confirmation bias amongst friends? The whole point of my ABFR experiments was to determine what actually did seem to make a real difference, either positive or negative.
And while “everything affects everything else” makes for kind of a squishy rebuttal, the truth is actually simpler - and much closer to why we even shoot for ideals:
composing systems out of components chosen to minimize their parasitic or unintended effects on the signal from source to speaker in turn minimizes the 'everything affects everything' problem of trying to do ABX testing
One doesn't need to go crazy buying stuff with purported magical properties wrapped in fine sounding techno-speak. Just follow the physics: minimizing interconnect resistance maximizes delivered signal. Minimizing polarity asymmetric impedance maximizes the delivery of uncolored signal. Minimizing reactive parasitic factors (capacitance, inductance, nonlinear impedance) again maximizes the delivery of phase-accurate signal.
And preservation of the phase-accurate signal integrity from source → preamp → amp → speakers really is the ideal we're trying to achieve. NOT because EFX added to the signal chain might have a sweet modulation to the program source, but because it should be intentionally added if ever, and have a way to 'remove it' too.
When one's speaker cables, interconnects, power cords and almost random accidental inclusions of surface oxides, weird tubes, squirrelly binding posts and unknown impedance mismatches introduce all nature of nonlinearities into the signal chain, oh sure … the output WILL sound different. Better? Your choice, but in the end i think most of use would rather not have all those randomizing factors happening. It is contrary to the philosophy of making our systems laudably (measurably) clean. Because one can always quantifiably “add EFX” as desired to make “clean” sound “warmer” or “richer”.
But its nearly impossible to correct for signal chain problems after they are overlaid onto the signal.
GoatGuy
And while “everything affects everything else” makes for kind of a squishy rebuttal, the truth is actually simpler - and much closer to why we even shoot for ideals:
composing systems out of components chosen to minimize their parasitic or unintended effects on the signal from source to speaker in turn minimizes the 'everything affects everything' problem of trying to do ABX testing
One doesn't need to go crazy buying stuff with purported magical properties wrapped in fine sounding techno-speak. Just follow the physics: minimizing interconnect resistance maximizes delivered signal. Minimizing polarity asymmetric impedance maximizes the delivery of uncolored signal. Minimizing reactive parasitic factors (capacitance, inductance, nonlinear impedance) again maximizes the delivery of phase-accurate signal.
And preservation of the phase-accurate signal integrity from source → preamp → amp → speakers really is the ideal we're trying to achieve. NOT because EFX added to the signal chain might have a sweet modulation to the program source, but because it should be intentionally added if ever, and have a way to 'remove it' too.
When one's speaker cables, interconnects, power cords and almost random accidental inclusions of surface oxides, weird tubes, squirrelly binding posts and unknown impedance mismatches introduce all nature of nonlinearities into the signal chain, oh sure … the output WILL sound different. Better? Your choice, but in the end i think most of use would rather not have all those randomizing factors happening. It is contrary to the philosophy of making our systems laudably (measurably) clean. Because one can always quantifiably “add EFX” as desired to make “clean” sound “warmer” or “richer”.
But its nearly impossible to correct for signal chain problems after they are overlaid onto the signal.
GoatGuy
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.