I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[SY]

Sure, in many cases it could be measured, just like the plating example I gave earlier. Unless you deliberately design a cable to show the effect of magnetostriction, it's a pretty sophisticated measurement and I seriously doubt that it has any audible consequence with real-world wire, speakers, and ears. But I'm open to changing my mind if someone credibly demonstrates audibility.

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by Christopher
So what kind of magnatude are we talking?

This will depend heavily upon the construction of the cable. How rigid is what holds the two conductors in place, how wide apart are they spaced (BTW, here another one - widely spaced cables reduce eddy current losses for AC, as the signal travels along the conductor as EM Wave, to which the conductor on the opposite side accts as "eddy current brake") and so on. In some cables the manitude may be small, in others large.

Originally posted by Christopher
Do you think you could measure a change in Z due to magnetostriction?

Yes. Certainly with a few specific commercial cables I could think of.

Originally posted by Christopher
And if you could do you think that could effect that big 'ol driver at the end of the chain?

If it effects the signal it MUST BY DEFINITION effect the driver to a proportional degree.

Do I beleive it is audible?

In some cases yes. A simple experiement is to make my FFRC DIY Cable based on Cat5 and to make one pair loosely braiding the cables and the other twisting the cables tightly and enclosing them in heatshrink sleeving or techflex, pulled very tight .

Comparing the two constructions under blind conditions with a "highly accurate" but "low sensitivity" speaker in a WELL IMPLEMENTED and previously CALIBRATED blind test should reveal the result.

So, are we in agreement that magnetstriction is a REAL effect that applies to Speaker cables and may or may not be audible but is measurable in at least some cases (and IMHO one of reasons for the measured deviations in the HFN Article I keep bringing up)?

Again, I could do that from A to Y before coming to Z but given how hard you have been fighting to even claim that basic physics don't apply (assuming you know them - as you should) I simply do not have the time, impetus and patience.

It is obvious and clear that you wish to ferverently wish to believe that cables cannot make audible differences (except perhaps in Z) and many other items of Engineer Lore (just as some others wish equally ferverently to believe that expensive cables sound better than well designed cheap ones), which is your constitutional right.

However, at least admit that it is all PURE and UNSUBSTANTIATED belief (just as your comments about the mike that is "better" than the ear), not supproted by material empirical evidence that can withstand a reasonbale questioning, which I am sad to say, the vast majority of published DB Tests emaneting from the ABX Quango over in the US do NOT provide.

Sayonara

[Christopher]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there will be things we can measure that we cannot hear. There will be things that we think that we can hear that will dissapear in a controled listening environment. It would be handy to first establish if even highly sensitive gear can hear a difference, in an a.c. and then do controlled listening tests to correlate the two. With my somewhat limited knowlege of the actual values at hand, I believe that there may not even be a change measureable in an a.c. between your average high zoot cable and lamp cord. Ergo, if it can't be measured, it most certainly cannot be percieved. As I said earlier I think it's overkill, but it would give the audible difference camp a real and audible difference if it could be measured in an a.c.

I would never advocate the use of an a.c in the design of anything until you were sure you could hear something yet it did not show up in regular signal measurements. Then away you go to the chamber, if the mic can hear any difference, then you need to re access your measurement criteria.

I'm just trying to cover all the bases. I personally think that things like magnetostriction and DA are so small that they could not under real mathematical scrutiny hold any water at all. Since I am however too lazy to look this up and do the math, I figure practical analysis is a good way to examine the ideas put forth. Thus the a.c argument.

Simply saying you can hear the difference between any two anythings is of no value unless you really do know why it is. Else wise I just end up repainting the airplane in order to get the autopilot working.

Does that help?

Chris

[Christopher]

If it effects the signal it MUST BY DEFINITION effect the driver to a proportional degree.

Well yes, but you can’t make a claim to anything approaching audibility until you quantify the effects. Like someone said in the other thread you can connect a phono cartridge to your speaker terminals but you won’t hear anything.

Building two nearly identical cables as you describe will for sure yield different Z’s. If a provable audible difference exists, I’m certain that adjusting the Z’s to be identical would rub out any audible differences. If not, then you could start to look for other reasons. Drawing conclusions of magnetostriction or eddy currents etc. being audible from such data is fundamentally flawed.

What you have said so far is akin to claiming better gas mileage due to the fact that you never carry coins in your pockets when you drive. For sure it takes energy to move those coins, and they have more mass than bills, ergo you must be getting better mileage.

Contrary to what you may think, I have no desire to believe one way or the other. I presently believe that fancy cable construction yields no audible benefits. So far I have seen no argument that would indicate otherwise. But show me some proof and I’m there.

It is silly to call sound engineering practice “lore” when you have no solid evidence to refute it.

So far I cannot agree that magnetostriction is a Real effect at all.

Chris

[Peter Daniel]

Originally posted by Christopher

I presently believe that fancy cable construction yields no audible benefits. So far I have seen no argument that would indicate otherwise. But show me some proof and I’m there.

It's almost like saying: 'Teach me to fly, and I will'

[Bratislav]

Originally posted by IanHarvey


Under an ohm of series resistance will give 1dB attenuation (even assuming your speaker is a constant 8ohms). By your own arguments, then, a perfectly plausible amount of simple electrical resistance could produce an audible effect.

Of course it will ! If cable A makes speaker louder than cable B (in a DBT), it will invariably be preferred. That's why I asked about DVM and test signals. You have to make sure that voltage applied to speakers is absolutely the same before judging cables.

I don't think, for instance, Puck was claiming any unusual explanation for his test results. I can well believe $40 inexpertly spent on speaker cables gets you some pretty scruffy wire.

That is perfectly possible too. But IMHO you have to be malicious to make a cable that will work worse than a typical 18 AWG lampcord (yes, I do think that anything better than that will make absolutely zilch of difference in case of 2m cable driven by low output impedance -16 TO3 BJTs in parallel- overal feedback free amp, terminated by benign mostly resistive 6 Ohm average speaker - as in my case).
And no, I don't use lampcord. I bought a snazzy looking hoselike speaker cable. Purely for looks. It did cost me A$100 (Neotech, so it's cheap), slightly over your $40 figure.

Bratislav

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by Christopher


Well yes, but you can’t make a claim to anything approaching audibility until you quantify the effects.

Please (AGAIN for the 1684'th time) simply restrict yourself to what I have ACTUALLY WRITTEN.

I have made no claims for audibility past the common one, namely that some times, in some peripheral conditions cables may cause audible differences. I am even deliriously happy to agree with you that in many cases the reason is down to RLC (Z) parameters or their (in the context relevant) parasitics.

I will however go one further in saying that I have observed audible differences that cannot simply be explained by RLC & Parasitics.

To put my position in short and succinct:

1) Cables make differences.

2) These differences can be audible, measurable or neither with current technology.

3) Some of these differences may be easy to measure using conventional measurements but are inaudible.

4) Some of these differences may be audible but are not covered by conventional measurements.

5) Many of the differences arise not from the direct (signal transmission) but indirect facors (key factor "pin one problem") in unbalanced interconnections between multiple, mains powered pieces of equipment.

Any of the above is fully defendable even in a court of law (or worse - a peer reviewed journal), as a basically true thesis.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please specify WHY, taking into account ESPECIALLY the way in wich human perception & hearing differs from technical/mechanical measurements of known quanteties.

As a corollorary on the above, we know how to measure the direction of movement or the speed of a subatomic particle at a given time, but not both at the same time (Heisenbergs uncertainty principle). It is perfectly reasonable to suppose a third factor not covered by conventional measurements, which if revealed and quantified will allow us from itself and either of the other two factors to determine the third, making the relationship CERTAIN, as opposed to UNCERTAIN.

Now, as long as we ave not found X, it would behoove us all rather well to seek X (if we wish to be "scientific" about it) rather than to insist that either only speed or direction are the "true" information and everything else illusion.

I hope by using a Non-Audio (If in the right circles no less controversiol) example I can get "through".

Originally posted by Christopher


Building two nearly identical cables as you describe will for sure yield different Z’s.

Do your bloody homework kiddo.

Due to the nature of the design(s) the measurable differences (without going past ppt levels) are zip.

(been there, done that)

Originally posted by Christopher


If a provable audible difference exists, I’m certain that adjusting the Z’s to be identical would rub out any audible differences.

Except, made as instructed the differences amount to a hill of beans in a twister....

Originally posted by Christopher

If not, then you could start to look for other reasons. Drawing conclusions of magnetostriction or eddy currents etc. being audible from such data is fundamentally flawed.

There you go again. Where did I say "Magnetostriction is audible!"? I suggested it MAY be one of the things that MAY lead to observed audible differences, no more.

HOWEVER, the case for magnetostriction would be made considerably stronger, if you afterwards took measures to "rigiditify" the "loose" cable and the audible differenes (which of course you do not beliefe in) are reduced or eliminated....

I think it may beoove you VERY WELL to talk less theoretical ******** based on books written by others third, fourth and anything up to the 1930's RCA Radiotron Manual handdowns and actually get your "feet wet" by attempting some serious resaerch into the topic.

Of course, you may very well continue spouting garbage promoted by others as "doctrine" who in fact promote their own prejudices, but do not be offended if I take you no more serious than when you claim that two opposing 9or inded equal) polarity magnetic fields have no effect.

Do your bloody homework YOURSELF kiddo, or accept that you are a mere follower of a radical religion, with no experience of the matter.

Originally posted by Christopher


Contrary to what you may think, I have no desire to believe one way or the other.

Well, I can ONLY go by the way you present yourself and your arguments and how you react to rebuttals of the fundamentals of your belief. A Branch Davidian gunman at Waco would likely have been less **** sure that he was right than you are and that despite having a bit more direct and personal evidence....

But hell, that's just me.

Originally posted by Christopher


I presently believe that fancy cable construction yields no audible benefits.

You may presently believe that the moon is made of green cheese. You have not presented anything that would make your hypothesis perferable to the usual "rock in the sky" theory and untill we actually go to the moon (for real I mean, not in something that can't go through the van allen belt without frying at least your DNA and which has little reality outside propaganda) neither point can be proven beyound a reasonable doubt.

More, even if we eventually "go to the moon" it is perfectly reasonable to hold a doubt about the green cheese or roch nature of the moon untill one oneself has been to some place that is undeniably, incontrovertably the moon.

That is why in all cases where it can possibly be applied recommend to people make their OWN empirical enquiries (I may suggest experiments and setups to give clues - sure), rather than to wholesale subscribe to someone elses theories. Because doing so is by defintion religion, not science.

Originally posted by Christopher


It is silly to call sound engineering practice “lore” when you have no solid evidence to refute it.

Actually, as sound engineer (with credits on some obscure LP sleeves) and as degreed EE with a few years pure audio work I can VERY WELL call it lore. YOU cannot, because you are on the outside.... But never equate me with you (it would hurt too much - I do not hit my head repeatedly against walls insisting they don't exist).

Sayonara

PS, there are many components to this thread really, if I find time I will try to establish each (like DBT, Hearing Physiology, Hearing Psychology, Hearing as auditory/psychological process and a few more) as seperate threads, so we can discuss individual fact without being hampered by the need to proof or disproof an issue that is really totally peripheral to the subject.

[Bratislav]

Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang

If current flows through a conductor the conductor is surrounded by a magnetic field. If two conductors are next to each other they will attract or repell each other depending upon the magnetic field.

So far so good.

In speaker-cables the insulation is most often soft and the currents high. If we then pass current pulses through the cable the cables conductors will change their position to each other, not very strongly, but in many cases measurably so. This in turn will modulate the L/C value of the cable with signal.

Excellent application of electromagnetic theory. Don't know about
Telsa (it's Nikola, not Nicola, BTW), but James Maxwell would be pleased.

I mean can you PLEASE make sure you know at least basic physics before arguing cables (or other stuff) with me? I assume at least the amount of physics that you get taught in primary school as given (and hence without need to explain) when discussing technical issues.

Hey! Why stop with engineering now when it gets most interesting ? Get the job done ! Go all the way - plug in some numbers. We know typical L/C values for a speaker cable. We know dimensions/physics (thickness, length, insulation diameter & dellectric constant) of it. We know currents involved. We knwo a typical speaker (terminating) impedance. Let's see some numbers !!!

Then and only then we can discuss about how much signal will change. And then we can talk about magnitudes involved and whether it is possible to hear it. And compare those differences with say how much will speaker in room response change if you move your head 2mm to the left. Or someone blocks a reflection from a side wall and intreferrence patern changes. Or room reverberation (decay) changes because you wear your favourite woolen jumper. And then apply a DBT on all those and get the weed out of the wheat.
You see, you can be an engineer/scientis only when you get to the bottom of it. Everything else is armchair handwaving.
Impressive with your dentist and lawyer friends, but not much good elsewhere.

Bratislav

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by Bratislav


And then we can talk about magnitudes involved and whether it is possible to hear it. And compare those differences with say how much will speaker in room response change if you move your head 2mm to the left. Or someone blocks a reflection from a side wall and intreferrence patern changes. Or room reverberation (decay) changes because you wear your favourite woolen jumper.

Apples and Pears. Two totally different effects and precisely because of the nature of the human hearing not equatable. If someone on the other side of twon has a Mc Donalds Hamburger for dinner, whta does this tell me about the taste of my breakfast?

First understand HOW humans hear, then try to understand what they potentially CAN hear. Then we can quantify technical issues.

Sayonara

[Bratislav]

Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang

Apples and Pears. Two totally different effects and precisely because of the nature of the human hearing not equatable. If someone on the other side of twon has a Mc Donalds Hamburger for dinner, whta does this tell me about the taste of my breakfast?

First understand HOW humans hear, then try to understand what they potentially CAN hear. Then we can quantify technical issues.

Sayonara

Last time I checked we hear by detecting pressure differences in the eardrum, converted to electric signals and then synapsed to the brain. Now I've heard of some instances of "direct" hearing
(by direct electromagnetic induction, cases of people 'hearing' meteors as they fall, instead of hearing the sound that normally lags 'cause of speed of sound), but these are rather extreme cases (currents in ionized trails are on a competely different scale to those through speaker wire), and this is still mostly theory as there is still no conclusive proof.
So we hear air moved by the speakers. Agreed ?
Speakers on the other hand are plain ol' electromechanical devices. No ESP involved. They will produce sound ONLY if you apply electric signal to them. And that signal we can measure, rather easily in fact.

So let's start with speaker terminals : how much the input signal will change because of A to Z effects in speaker cable ? In Volts, dBs, electron counts, whatever.

Don't know about other letters, but I have suggestion for W that could apply to all those theories I've seen so far here

Bratislav