planet10 said:
Yeah, I'm not sure I "get it".
I'll accept that you hear a difference. And that difference is subjectively perceived to be an "improvement", but I don't understand what, other than the DCR, the skinny wire is doing?
Whatever it IS doing, it seems it would make more sense to just build it into the speaker in the first place.
Or have I completely missed something here? It could be I'm just missing the fun of doing it, I guess...which is a perfectly valid reason as any -- it just doesn't do much for me.
In the system in which it was used, skinny cable sounded better than fat cable + R, as judged by listener's ear.
Did it really sound better, or was it just the listener(s) perception?
At least in this case we have a simplicity argument -- a nice continuous monofiliment, vrs a cable + a resitor (with its internal construction, and a pair of lead out wires) + an extra solder joint)
dave
Did it really sound better, or was it just the listener(s) perception?
At least in this case we have a simplicity argument -- a nice continuous monofiliment, vrs a cable + a resitor (with its internal construction, and a pair of lead out wires) + an extra solder joint)
dave
Folks,
I don't get it. Even after a good night's sleep.
Here we are, analysing what has previously been pointed out to affect some 0,2 - 0,4 dB difference maximum in audio response (I did not notice anybody challenge that). Let us just "listen" to ourselves! Does it matter whether this is "in the cable, inductive, capacitive, acting at the amplifier end/speaker end, silver/gold affected, the-torsion-of-the-terminal affected, knot-in-the-cable affected, what/where-ever else unperfected?
There seems to be a dedication here that minute cable differences must make a difference, even if basic electronics have to be twisted out of it's sockets to serve that end. [Loudspeaker research of the reliable kind (e.g. The Vance Dickason Cookbooks, among many other authoritative works) absolutely refute this, but never mind.]
Could we perhaps get in touch with reality a little more, also recognising that what is audible and what not, has been characterised abundantly by controlled research tests? [Thus also I hope to be excused for not accepting with open arms this or that audible revelation experienced at someone's coffee table after a long day's work, that WX cable sounded dramatically different from YZ brand, thus it is suddenly elevated to dogma. That does not constitute proof in the light of established research.]
Kindly Yours.
I don't get it. Even after a good night's sleep.
Here we are, analysing what has previously been pointed out to affect some 0,2 - 0,4 dB difference maximum in audio response (I did not notice anybody challenge that). Let us just "listen" to ourselves! Does it matter whether this is "in the cable, inductive, capacitive, acting at the amplifier end/speaker end, silver/gold affected, the-torsion-of-the-terminal affected, knot-in-the-cable affected, what/where-ever else unperfected?
There seems to be a dedication here that minute cable differences must make a difference, even if basic electronics have to be twisted out of it's sockets to serve that end. [Loudspeaker research of the reliable kind (e.g. The Vance Dickason Cookbooks, among many other authoritative works) absolutely refute this, but never mind.]
Could we perhaps get in touch with reality a little more, also recognising that what is audible and what not, has been characterised abundantly by controlled research tests? [Thus also I hope to be excused for not accepting with open arms this or that audible revelation experienced at someone's coffee table after a long day's work, that WX cable sounded dramatically different from YZ brand, thus it is suddenly elevated to dogma. That does not constitute proof in the light of established research.]
Kindly Yours.
Cable stuff...
Hi all,
Reading the thread, I came to the following conclusion:
The speaker cable is doing 3 things:
1. is a transmissionline to the speaker and delivers the amplified voiltage and current also defined by the resistance and reactive components of the cable
2. Is an integral part of the power supply, amplifier circuitry and loudspeakers and filter
3. Provides feedback to the amplifier via the feedback loop. (in most amplifier designs)
From my own experience I found that different cables conneected to a feedback amplifier makes way more of a difference than the same range of cables to a non-feedback design.
(there is virtually no difference between a 0,34mm2 and a 25mm2 cable when I connect my elipsons to my X1000, There is a BIG difference if I use my Holton AV400 amp) You all guessed right...the X1000 has practically no feedback.
So here is my line of thinking: The speaker's are connected to the amplifier via a cross-over. This cross over has a complex impedance. Therefor the feedback voltage of the loudspeakers (created by the CURRENT through the coils) is out of phase with the original signal send off by the amplifier into the cable.
The cable changes the phase relation going to the speakers as well as the feedback signal going back to the amplifier.
Therefore im my view, it is not so much the cable that triggers a different perseption, it is however the cable in combination with the amplifirer design and its sensitivity to voltage current phase relation that defines how the "cable" sounds.
I would be interested to hear what you think about this ...
Hi all,
Reading the thread, I came to the following conclusion:
The speaker cable is doing 3 things:
1. is a transmissionline to the speaker and delivers the amplified voiltage and current also defined by the resistance and reactive components of the cable
2. Is an integral part of the power supply, amplifier circuitry and loudspeakers and filter
3. Provides feedback to the amplifier via the feedback loop. (in most amplifier designs)
From my own experience I found that different cables conneected to a feedback amplifier makes way more of a difference than the same range of cables to a non-feedback design.
(there is virtually no difference between a 0,34mm2 and a 25mm2 cable when I connect my elipsons to my X1000, There is a BIG difference if I use my Holton AV400 amp) You all guessed right...the X1000 has practically no feedback.
So here is my line of thinking: The speaker's are connected to the amplifier via a cross-over. This cross over has a complex impedance. Therefor the feedback voltage of the loudspeakers (created by the CURRENT through the coils) is out of phase with the original signal send off by the amplifier into the cable.
The cable changes the phase relation going to the speakers as well as the feedback signal going back to the amplifier.
Therefore im my view, it is not so much the cable that triggers a different perseption, it is however the cable in combination with the amplifirer design and its sensitivity to voltage current phase relation that defines how the "cable" sounds.
I would be interested to hear what you think about this ...
Hi Tarasque,
Respectfully, if those are your conclusions from what appeared on the thread, you must have missed the repeatedly quoted parameters of typical loudspeaker cables!
The cable is not a transmission line in the electronic definition sense of one, i.e. having characteristic impedance etc. at audio frequencies. It is not 3% of the length required to satisfy that definition. At audio frequencies and in domestic lengths, it is simply a piece of wire connecting the loudspeaker to an amplifier.
Your statements 2 and 3 are correct in that if it is absent the loudspeaker will not play (to quote another member!). But the point is surely what, if any, is its contribution in the light of the magnitude of its parameters compared to others.
It has been stated repeatedly that the parameters of cable normally used under domestic circumctances, is of the order of maximally 2% of other entities in the output circuit. The audible influence is limited to a maximum of 0,2 - 0,4 dB. Do you contend that that is audible? (To be kind, this was stated within 3 posts of your contribution - how attentively did you read previous posts?)
Then, with regard to the loudspeaker influencing the amplifier (via the the amplifier-loudspeaker interface), a most important point. But one can take the amplifier output impedance with a modest damping factor of 20, as 0,4 ohm. As the same current flows through the whole circuit, its influence will be in proportion to the relative resistances through which it flows. That should render the amplifier relatively impervious to influences from the loudspeaker impedance variations (and the cable contribution negligible once again).
That one should have guessed that the X1000 was relatively uninfluenced is unexpected, since it has by far the larger output impedance! I do not know the Holton AV400 amplifier, but if you detect any influence from loudspeaker feedback, I would cautiously question the feedback design - sorry!
In all of this, Tarasque, cable parameters (measured as well as specified by manufacturers) are just simply too small compared to the others active in the output circuit to be of any consequence. Where there appears to be differences, one must look elsewhere for the reason. Yet again, respectfully, one cannot twist facts to suit observations, especially where the complete picture consists of a number of entities (e.g. we did not go into the amlifier output impedance, which I can assure you is often a lot more complex than the cable parameters, etc.)
But your concerns themselves are valid, and perhaps these few points will at least serve to put matters into perspective. As said before, nobody ever said that cables do not have an influence, but not so at audio frequencies.
Lastly you are quite correct in that cross-overs have a complex impedance. But in loudspeakers they are loaded, and one cannot view their characteristics in isolation. I am aware that horrible impedances exist in practice, but many good loudspeakers will (and should!) also contain impedance equalising networks. It is not uncommon to find a loudspeaker impedance between 5 and 12 ohm, with a maximum phase variation of +/- 20 degrees.
Hope this helped somewhat.
Regards.
Respectfully, if those are your conclusions from what appeared on the thread, you must have missed the repeatedly quoted parameters of typical loudspeaker cables!
The cable is not a transmission line in the electronic definition sense of one, i.e. having characteristic impedance etc. at audio frequencies. It is not 3% of the length required to satisfy that definition. At audio frequencies and in domestic lengths, it is simply a piece of wire connecting the loudspeaker to an amplifier.
Your statements 2 and 3 are correct in that if it is absent the loudspeaker will not play (to quote another member!). But the point is surely what, if any, is its contribution in the light of the magnitude of its parameters compared to others.
It has been stated repeatedly that the parameters of cable normally used under domestic circumctances, is of the order of maximally 2% of other entities in the output circuit. The audible influence is limited to a maximum of 0,2 - 0,4 dB. Do you contend that that is audible? (To be kind, this was stated within 3 posts of your contribution - how attentively did you read previous posts?)
Then, with regard to the loudspeaker influencing the amplifier (via the the amplifier-loudspeaker interface), a most important point. But one can take the amplifier output impedance with a modest damping factor of 20, as 0,4 ohm. As the same current flows through the whole circuit, its influence will be in proportion to the relative resistances through which it flows. That should render the amplifier relatively impervious to influences from the loudspeaker impedance variations (and the cable contribution negligible once again).
That one should have guessed that the X1000 was relatively uninfluenced is unexpected, since it has by far the larger output impedance! I do not know the Holton AV400 amplifier, but if you detect any influence from loudspeaker feedback, I would cautiously question the feedback design - sorry!
In all of this, Tarasque, cable parameters (measured as well as specified by manufacturers) are just simply too small compared to the others active in the output circuit to be of any consequence. Where there appears to be differences, one must look elsewhere for the reason. Yet again, respectfully, one cannot twist facts to suit observations, especially where the complete picture consists of a number of entities (e.g. we did not go into the amlifier output impedance, which I can assure you is often a lot more complex than the cable parameters, etc.)
But your concerns themselves are valid, and perhaps these few points will at least serve to put matters into perspective. As said before, nobody ever said that cables do not have an influence, but not so at audio frequencies.
Lastly you are quite correct in that cross-overs have a complex impedance. But in loudspeakers they are loaded, and one cannot view their characteristics in isolation. I am aware that horrible impedances exist in practice, but many good loudspeakers will (and should!) also contain impedance equalising networks. It is not uncommon to find a loudspeaker impedance between 5 and 12 ohm, with a maximum phase variation of +/- 20 degrees.
Hope this helped somewhat.
Regards.
Johan Potgieter said:
Interestingly enuff, i recently read an article (by an Italian i believe), that analyzed and measured some cables, and treating them as transmission lines, was able to measure effects at audio frequencies that he attributed to transmission line impedance mismatch. They were much more visibly obvious at RF frequencies. The only conclusion he made was that more research needed doing.
I'll see if i can find the article.
dave
Hi Johan,
Granted...You are correct about the fact tfrhat one can argue about speaker cables are transmission lines. If the complex aspects of the cables are ignored, then only the resistance remains, and in my view we should then get rid of the expensive stuff and go for what ever works.
The point that I fear is not understood is the effect of the phase difference between the backEMK generated by the speaker in relation to the original signal. This creates a kind of echo via the feedback loop. The lag-time is dictated by the number of active stages in the amp as well as their configurations. To out-of-phase signals via the feedbackloop, the FULL loopgain applies...
Furthermore the powersupply impedance is influencing the feedback from the powerstage to the input stage. This can further contribute to the "echo" effect.
As you did state correctly, there is a loop for the current via the loudspeaker cable (Kirchoff is applicable here). However the voltages and their phase relations in complex networks are dependent on the impedances and configuration of the network. So a difference in resistance of the speaker cable has an effect on the damping (as stated by you) but also the damping has an effect on the backEMK generated by the speaker. So, in my view, in certain situations the diffrence in resistance (AND reactive aspects as well) can be "amplified" by the way the amplifier is behaving. This well could explain the the fact that different cable are audible.
What I have concluded from my jurny in loudspeaker cable country:
Forget the fancy cables and find an amplifier that is happy with the load the loudspeaker is generating. And for sufficient damping one should reflect about the required thickness of the cable...
Granted...You are correct about the fact tfrhat one can argue about speaker cables are transmission lines. If the complex aspects of the cables are ignored, then only the resistance remains, and in my view we should then get rid of the expensive stuff and go for what ever works.
The point that I fear is not understood is the effect of the phase difference between the backEMK generated by the speaker in relation to the original signal. This creates a kind of echo via the feedback loop. The lag-time is dictated by the number of active stages in the amp as well as their configurations. To out-of-phase signals via the feedbackloop, the FULL loopgain applies...
Furthermore the powersupply impedance is influencing the feedback from the powerstage to the input stage. This can further contribute to the "echo" effect.
As you did state correctly, there is a loop for the current via the loudspeaker cable (Kirchoff is applicable here). However the voltages and their phase relations in complex networks are dependent on the impedances and configuration of the network. So a difference in resistance of the speaker cable has an effect on the damping (as stated by you) but also the damping has an effect on the backEMK generated by the speaker. So, in my view, in certain situations the diffrence in resistance (AND reactive aspects as well) can be "amplified" by the way the amplifier is behaving. This well could explain the the fact that different cable are audible.
What I have concluded from my jurny in loudspeaker cable country:
Forget the fancy cables and find an amplifier that is happy with the load the loudspeaker is generating. And for sufficient damping one should reflect about the required thickness of the cable...
Tarasque,
Your post 1015 - I must agree with you on that. The effect of back emf on a feedback network is indeed real, possibly even more important that any other single parameter. You correctly outlined the mechanism by which things work. But my experience was with measurements and also simulating with a loudspeaker model as load, that in properly designed amplifiers this is negligible, or can be made such. Now I did get flack in the past re "properly designed amps" - do I mean that certain well-known amps are not properly designed? I do not make that statement at all, only that the influence mentioned can (and must) be addressed and avoided. If it is prevalent in certain amplifiers, then I suppose I rest my case.
In any case, the parameters of practical loudspeaker cables still make their contribution audibly negligible. I must repeat that with measured L and C only coming in in the MHz region, and the resistance as quoted before, these are practically out of the picture. One must remember (I am sure you do) that the nominal loudspeaker impedance is between the limits I mentioned with the cable parameters in series with that of course. The lowest that the loudspeaker can measure is the resistance of the voice coil wire, which appears to be of the order of 5,6 ohm for a 8 ohm system. With a cable resistance of only some 100 m.ohm or less .....? In that sense I do not think cable has any practical influence on the damping factor (did I say so?). (Those figures given earlier are true for my model of a practical 2-way loudspeaker system with cross-over and reactive phase compensation networks.)
But you may well point me in the direction of some of the rather extraneous impedance behaviour of some loudspeakers on the market. Yeah, tell me about that. I can only wonder if such behaviour is unavoidable; did those people not study reactive networks? But who am I to comment ...... But I will never buy them.
Hurrah! Someone sees the light regarding exotic loudspeaker cable. (But remark that might be an insult to you seeing as how that is mostly rather obvious.)
Kind regards.
Your post 1015 - I must agree with you on that. The effect of back emf on a feedback network is indeed real, possibly even more important that any other single parameter. You correctly outlined the mechanism by which things work. But my experience was with measurements and also simulating with a loudspeaker model as load, that in properly designed amplifiers this is negligible, or can be made such. Now I did get flack in the past re "properly designed amps" - do I mean that certain well-known amps are not properly designed? I do not make that statement at all, only that the influence mentioned can (and must) be addressed and avoided. If it is prevalent in certain amplifiers, then I suppose I rest my case.
In any case, the parameters of practical loudspeaker cables still make their contribution audibly negligible. I must repeat that with measured L and C only coming in in the MHz region, and the resistance as quoted before, these are practically out of the picture. One must remember (I am sure you do) that the nominal loudspeaker impedance is between the limits I mentioned with the cable parameters in series with that of course. The lowest that the loudspeaker can measure is the resistance of the voice coil wire, which appears to be of the order of 5,6 ohm for a 8 ohm system. With a cable resistance of only some 100 m.ohm or less .....? In that sense I do not think cable has any practical influence on the damping factor (did I say so?). (Those figures given earlier are true for my model of a practical 2-way loudspeaker system with cross-over and reactive phase compensation networks.)
But you may well point me in the direction of some of the rather extraneous impedance behaviour of some loudspeakers on the market. Yeah, tell me about that. I can only wonder if such behaviour is unavoidable; did those people not study reactive networks? But who am I to comment ...... But I will never buy them.
Hurrah! Someone sees the light regarding exotic loudspeaker cable. (But remark that might be an insult to you seeing as how that is mostly rather obvious.)
Kind regards.
Johan Potgieter said:
That's what you keep saying, but where is your proof?
You want proof from the cable believers, but you haven't shown any proof of your claims.
A page or 2 ago you talked about "10% difference" in the same model speakers. I asked about that - no answer.
It's easy enough to trot out L,C,R numbers with simulated sources and loads running sine waves - but what about a real system with music? A different beast.
Maybe it is the same as your electrical models, but I doubt it.
So many of our measurements miss what we are looking for. The measurements in themselves are good; they just don't measure what we need. I have several amps here that measure the same in FR, but they don’t sound the same. Why? FR measurement is done at 1W into an 8ohm resistive load using a sine wave. Not a very real world set-up.
Is there a better way to measure FR? Probably. And of course FR isn’t the only thing that matters. You have mentioned damping factor as one of the things that matters, but not enough to affect how cables sound.
Over 30 years ago I wandered into a local Hi-Fi shop and was forever changed by a set of amps and speakers. Magnaplanar Tympani and Audio Research tube amps. What a sound! In the front room they had the stuff I could afford, like Yamaha receivers. Remember the mid 70s Yamahas? They had crazy low distortion figures – lots of zeroes in front of the decimal point. Pretty good power too. Specs where way better than the Audio Research amps. Did they sound better than the A-R amps on the Maggies. No. Even the Ampzilla and Son of Ampzilla sounded better. Why? The number weren’t as good as the Yamaha. The Yamahas were very nice, don’t get me wrong, but no where near the sound of the “better” amps.
So I learned a valuable lesson. It’s fun to be a teenager reading Hi-Fi magazines and deciding what to buy from the measurement numbers, but when sound met the ear, the story was different. Where the measurements wrong? No? They just weren’t measuring everything that’s important. (Still don’t know what that is, over 30 years later).
You and I are on opposite sides of the globe*, but I don’t think we are vary far apart on this issue. I am not a cable fanatic. I use Canare or Mogami for signal runs, 12 or 14 gauge stranded wire for speaker cable. But I’m willing to admit there may be something we are missing in the “Great Cable Debate”. We may not be measuring and modeling the right thing. I’d like to know what that right thing is.
* The direct antipode of Maui is in the north end of Kruger National Park – I think. Or maybe slightly east. So we are really on opposites sides of the earth. Can’t get farther away and stay on the planet. =)
Literally true. I don't measure this way. The reviews from the late. lamented Audio don't measure that way. Audio Critic didn't measure that way. Even Stereophile doesn't measure this way. While that might be one measurement in a group, nearly everyone measures at different powers into different loads.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.