| beau2317 |
I had tried various cables but I've found a great cable that works well with the g/c not only performance-wise but also price-wise.
Give anticables a try : www.anticables.com read the stories. I like the one about the guy who had nordost cables that cost more than his wifes ring but after anticables he sold them and bought a new ring.
I've tried both the spk cables and the interconnects. Both are amazing, replacing cables that cost many times the price.
I've tried many cables over the years but these are the best and pretty much the cheapest as well...
(This is not commercial - I just found these and thought they should beshared a bit more) |
|
|
| Upupa Epops |
| This " rubbish " I had try cca five years before...impact in sound is very " drastic " .... :D |
|
|
| chipco3434 |
| I use copper with my GC. I prefer it over coat hangers.:D |
|
|
| phn |
Since the GC is solid-state, it doesn't like capacitance. I would recommend power cord or Transparent Opus. They are basically identical except for gauge, but the latter looks a lot more impressive.
For the Marxist, there's the Cat 5 cable. |
|
|
| Leolabs |
| try copper+silver too. |
|
|
| Bazukaz |
| Speaker cables are not important.What is really much more important is to have short supply cables from main filter caps to amp board. |
|
|
| Upupa Epops |
| I have any - my PS is at the same PCB.... ;) |
|
|
| Bazukaz |
One thing is not fully understood - speaker cables are rarely important for audio reproduction.A standard 1mm^2 cable is just good for almost any audio system.Some cable manufacturers are saying "our cable is much better". They may offer a high quality cable , but is it worth to pay few times(or tenths of times) more for hardly measurable improvement ?
A well designed audio amplifier should tolerate small capacitance of speaker cables , unlesss they are REALLY long. |
|
|
| beau2317 |
| I find it a bit laughable all you people spouting views like "Speaker cables are not important" , etc. You have clearly never tried good cables or you simply would not say this. |
|
|
| Bazukaz |
| What do you define being a 'good loadspeaker cable" ? |
|
|
| Upupa Epops |
| Good designed amp have any problem with speaker cabel capacitance, 'cos it is relatively low... bigger problem is with inductance, but it is talking for very long time... There are many superstitions, many wizards ( good example is talking about gold cables, which you can see bellow - good sound caused by big distance of last electron from nucleus by gold ( ! ) :D ), many bussiness interests - it is lost fight.... ;) |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bazukaz
What do you define being a 'good loadspeaker cable" ? |
One that interferes least with the sound.
To get that, doesn't cost a lot, but like any field there will always be a product for those with too much money. I'm not saying cables don't sound different, I'm saying the expensive ones don't necessary sound better. If you wish to spend your money in that direction fine, just don't try and take me along for the ride. My money goes toward what I consider to be more important aspects of reproduction. And there are plenty. |
|
|
| aHobbit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bazukaz
What do you define being a 'good loadspeaker cable" ? |
Yup, can somebody give us what is the standard to determine a cable is a good loudspeaker cable!
I came across some sites where expensive cables screwed sounds because their "technology" introduce so much capacitance in the wire than normally provided in typical consumer cable. Thus, the conclusion expensive cable does not mean good for use. |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bazukaz
What do you define being a 'good loadspeaker cable" ? |
What indeed do we mean by a good amplifier? Or a good CD transport?
Definitions for goodness are really lacking in higher end audio. Last time anyone was certain about good audio was in the seventies (DIN 45500?) and those definitions didn't do much good.
Clearly there are no defined measurable parameters which describe the perceived differences between cables. If you can't deal with that - too bad. |
|
|
| Bazukaz |
| I would call a quality cable which has reliable insulation and is thick enough for required current. For me it is funny to see poeple buying very expensive and thick cables , which actually give almost no advantage. |
|
|
| safetyman |
IMHO, I think b4 one should embark on cables, one have to first maximise his/her system. There are so many parameters that can impair or improve the sound of a system. I guess the question is where does cables sit in the hierachy. My belief is that cables give you possibly subtle changes to some and none to others. It's hard to say there is a day and night difference and how imporatnt that difference mean to you.
Presently, I am using a 1mm solid core copper cable that electricians use for power. This cable seems to give me a better presentation than the QED silver anniversary cables that I have been using. But this does not mean that the QED is snake oil, but different. My el cheapo cables are costing me about $0.30 per meter. A few of my friends who came around prefer this over the QED in my system too.
Conclusion, preference and priority, I guess. |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bazukaz
I would call a quality cable which has reliable insulation and is thick enough for required current. For me it is funny to see poeple buying very expensive and thick cables , which actually give almost no advantage. |
Not unexpectedly my current cables do not fit your definition very well. They are copper foil from an inductor using very dubious adhesive tape as insulator. And cost practically nothing (not counting the Cardas silver termination). |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal Weldon
One that interferes least with the sound.
To get that, doesn't cost a lot, but like any field there will always be a product for those with too much money. I'm not saying cables don't sound different, I'm saying the expensive ones don't necessary sound better. If you wish to spend your money in that direction fine, just don't try and take me along for the ride. My money goes toward what I consider to be more important aspects of reproduction. And there are plenty. |
I'm with Cal on this one.
My cable is relatively cheap and cheerful Belden 1810A. It uses industry standard OFC copper, and has a reasonably substantial gauge. For a 4 metre length, I measured 3.8 uH inductance, 400 pF capacitance, and 0.0 ohms resistance. With those numbers, there's no way it is 'adding' anything to the sound. |
|
|
| beau2317 |
Everyone is entitled to their theories. Have a read about the anticables. They are very different to most cables. Everyone seems to concentrate on the cable, what it's made of, etc. When in fact the dielectric (ie insulator) seems to be the big one. As I said everyone's entitled to their theories but putting more weight on someone's words who has spent a lot of money comparing something in the region of 15 - 20 cables on my own system, that's not so dumb, eh?
(and they retail for like $50 for a 5 foot pair)
All I am saying is that these $50 cables compare to $1000 or more cables. And beat the pants off any other cheap cable I've heard. And this is so far tested on about a dozen systems and rising.
Read:
The Anti-Cable wire is made of one solid piece of highly annealed, super long drawn, Continuously Cast Oxygen Free Copper. They might look skinny, but that is because the insulation (dielectric material) is a very thin red coating instead of the typical thick plastic insulation. They are actually a heavy 12 gauge wire, even thought they look much smaller.
We believe the Anti-Cables are sonically transparent and neutral because they virtually eliminate the most common sources that give speaker cable their sonic signature, the plastic dielectric material. Beyond the extremely thin red coating, there is nothing left but air, and air is a near ideal insulation dielectric because it causes virtually no dielectric effect! Air is also why break-in time is almost non-existent with the Anti-Cables. This is because "break-in" is actually the bad sounding plastic dielectric material, which simply sounds less bad with time. Since the Anti-Cables have almost no dielectric material, there is almost no "break-in". If you have ever experienced a typical speaker cable breaking-in, you understand how much the dielectric material affects the sound. Again, it gets better with time, but the dielectric effect will never fully go away (unless you simply remove it, like the Anti-Cables).
Here is some text from AudioQuest's Cable Theory web pages:
"The problem is that any insulating material next to a conductor acts like a capacitor which stores and later releases energy. This is true of circuit board materials, cables, resistors and of course capacitors. The ideal wire is one with no insulation except for air."
Although "air" is not so good, since the copper will quickly oxidize. The thin red coating on the Anti-Cable wire is the best solution: Very very little insulating material, and air tight!!!
Doesn't it seem like typical speaker cables have it all wrong?
Lots of insulating material, not air tight, and over priced. |
|
|
| beau2317 |
| quote: | | For a 4 metre length, I measured 3.8 uH inductance, 400 pF capacitance, and 0.0 ohms resistance. With those numbers, there's no way it is 'adding' anything to the sound. |
And how do you know that? Is it your theory based on your knowledge of physics? Or is it the result of trials? (And if trials, can you detail the cables you have rejected in favor of you current cables)
Because if it's #1 then you are wrong imho. There is much more to a cable than reistance, capacitance and inductance. You simply cannot define a cable by these 3 figures. The most important other figure is the nature of the insulator that forms the capacitance (dielectric constant). To say nothing of characteristic impendence and a dozen other low level factors.
And is your cable stranded? And are the strands individually insulated? If not then the layer of copper oxides for millions of tiny semiconductor junctions, with the signal crossing from strand to strand.
The reason I think that you are wrong is that anti cable has similar characteristics to the cable you use, yet sounds completely different. It just does.
Hey they come with a money back guarantee and only cost $50 for a short pair. I don't care if you are not interested. Your loss. Not like I am profiting from this thread. |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
beau2317, those anticables look quite interesting, but they're still expensive given what they are, which is basically magnet wire. Very easy to DIY 'clone' though.
Interconnects IMHO can have significantly more impact on sound than speaker cables, as their inductance and especially capacitance can have noticeable effects at audio frequencies. It's simply down to physics.
My current favourite interconnects I bought about 12 years ago. They are made by DNM, and whilst not expensive, weren't overly cheap, either. They are however the most neutral sounding interconnect I've heard to date. I think this can be explained by the numbers (1 metre length):
0.6 uH
10 pF
0.2 ohms |
|
|
| beau2317 |
You could probably make something along the lines of anticables as it is similar to transformer wire. But most transformer wire is not super annealled OFC. But I guess you will get most of the effect. Why not give it a try and report back.
You can even buy raw anti cable for $1.25 per foot. It's 2mm solid core. |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| beau, any cable that relies on the principle of "break-in" as part of it's marketing pitch will have problems. Accomodation, in perceptual terms, is a well known and recognised phenomena, but I have yet to see any evidence of any physical changes in a piece of wire that has been broken in. If you have any evidence that shows this, then by all means publish it here. I am very willing to have my mind changed, but until then, it's Occam's Razor. |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
beau2317, I have to disagree with you on the physics. How a cable sounds is all about inductance , capacitance and resistance.
All dielectric constant does is change the capacitance. It's the factor which determines the capacitance created by two conductors of a given area at a given separation, and is also known as relative permittivity:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.ed.../dielec.html#c3 |
|
|
| beau2317 |
| quote: | | All dielectric constant does is change the capacitance. It's the factor which determines the capacitance created by two conductors of a given area at a given separation, and is also known as relative permittivity: |
Right so then all capacitors souond the same preumably. I know that they don't having tried it. Likewise with cables. I also have a degree in electronics, so it's not that I am unaware of basic electronics, etc.
But in this kind of argument you always get someone who says things like this, but sorry I am bored with this kind of argument. Been there.
But if anyone is interested in what I found out about these cables, feel free to try them yourselves. But if you are one of those who thnks like gfinlayson then there's no point trying if you know the answer to everything beforehand. Personally i don't think you can tell how things sound until you try then. |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
beau2317, I'm not looking for a fight. Maybe I'm over-simplifying things. A cable can affect an audio signal based on the three properties of inductance capacitance and resistance, agreed?
Inductance and resistance are pretty straight forward. Capacitance is more complicated, because for most capacitors the actual capacitance varies with frequency due to effects like dielectric absorption. Dielectric absorption is related to dielectric constant, but is also dependent on some of the other properties of the dielectric e.g. polarisability. So, no, all capacitors do not sound the same - I didn't say that they did.
What I said is that (all other things being roughly equal) the differences in cables are mainly attributable to the effects of capacitance. For starters, the lower the capacitance of a cable the better. But I'm not denying that the type of insulation doesn't have an effect. We all know that polypropylene capacitors sound better than bipolar electrolytics.;) |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
Because if it's #1 then you are wrong imho. There is much more to a cable than reistance, capacitance and inductance. You simply cannot define a cable by these 3 figures. |
All cables can be entirely characterized by those three numbers.
However, what is ignored is the fact that these numbers are all frequency dependent. Resistance frequency dependence is due to skinning. Capacitance frequency dependence is related to the dielectric material (as well as the geometry, as foil constructed cables can exhibit some interesting current slew rate starving of the dielectric in the centerline of the pair, but that is rather complex).. Inductive frequency dependence is related to skinning.| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
The most important other figure is the nature of the insulator that forms the capacitance (dielectric constant). |
Which I stated above. | quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
To say nothing of characteristic impendence and a dozen other low level factors. |
The characteristic impedance is (L/C)1/2...so this parameter is indeed characterized by L and C.
I will address any other "low level factors" if they are named.| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
And is your cable stranded? And are the strands individually insulated? If not then the layer of copper oxides for millions of tiny semiconductor junctions, with the signal crossing from strand to strand. |
Strand jumping is one of the most misconstrued and misunderstood "concepts" around. It is a construct which is mutually exclusive with skin effect. Neither causes the other. They prevent the other.
| quote: | Originally posted by gfinlayson
I think this can be explained by the numbers (1 metre length):
0.6 uH
10 pF
0.2 ohms |
I think you have to re-check those numbers.
1 meter is 3.28 feet.
600 nH/3.28 = 182.9 nH per foot.
10 pf/3.28 = 3.04 pf per foot.
182.9 times 3.04 / 1034 = .5377
The specs you posted provide a dielectric constant of less than 1, which is impossible as it means a prop velocity which exceeds lightspeed.. Something in your specs is incorrect.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
Thanks John. I've rechecked the IC's. I split them into two pairs some time ago. I was sure the original interconnects were 1.5 m, but it turns out they were 1 m, which means the longer of the two pairs is about 2 feet long rather than a metre, so that gives roughly 300 nH per foot and 5 pF per foot.
Edit: nH, not uH |
|
|
| Nuuk |
| All talk seems to be of electrical properties. What about mechanical? :att'n: |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
| Because mechanical properties don't affect electrical signals. |
|
|
| Nuuk |
| quote: | | Because mechanical properties don't affect electrical signals. |
So you don't worry about equipment supports, stands, cones, spikes etc? :att'n: |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
Of course I do, because there we're talking about vibrations affecting electro-mechanical devices such as tonearms, cartridges and platters on turntables, and laser pick-ups on CD players, which all have a discernable effect on the sound.
Protecting speaker cables from floor vibrations will not improve the sound of a hi-fi system. Anyone who says it will is either delusional, or suffering from high-end snake-oil marketing overload. |
|
|
| beau2317 |
Seems to me that there's a lot of folk think that science is all about throwing a few numbers about to prove their point of view.
Wrong. Science is all about theories, but more about experimentation, and seeing whether the experiment backs up the theories or not.
I said that 3 numbers cannot define a cable and I stick to that. Now if you wanted to talk about a graph of these three characteristics against frequency (and/or current) then that's not 3 figures anymore.
Yes I thought I knew everything as well. But it's only through careful experimentation that I have (and not only me) found that things are not as simple as I would like them to be.
The point is that a certain number of you seem to want to simply dismiss or ignore evidence that cables sound better or worse.
So why don't you try some real science and do an experiment.
I don't claim to know why these things sound different. Any ideas I have put forward are guesses. But sound different they do. |
|
|
| beau2317 |
Yes I have seen the audioholics site. They think they know everything. But they don't. You follow their advice if you want to..my ears tell me different.
As a matter of interest, none of the Top Ten Signs apply to anticable, and additionally they are cheap. |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
I'm not saying for a moment that cable X doesn't sound different from cable Y. It may well do. What I am saying is that the difference between cable X and cable Y can be explained by the effects of 3 properties, namely capacitance, inductance and resistance and their interaction in the frequency domain.
I also firmly believe that there is far too much hype surrounding cables that just doesn't have any scientific basis. High-end cable companies charging extortionate amounts for cables try to justify their prices by blinding the layperson with pseudo-science.
You have found a cable at a price level which you feel is reasonable that delivers a subjectively better performance than other cables costing many times more. That's a result in anyone's book, and it's one in the eye to the snake oil pushers.
Best of Luck!
Graeme |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
We seem to keep cross-posting. My link to audioholics wasn't a dig at anticables. Their product information avoids the pitfalls of the top ten signs and seems to be largely based on science. They're one of the few manufacturers who quote R, L and C values for their cables in a relevant scientific context. If only there were more manufacturers who did the same.
They are not entirely innocent of advertising hype, however, when they get to talking about "highly annealed, super long drawn, Continuously Cast Oxygen Free Copper". Pretty much all copper wire these day is highly annealed, continuously cast, and oxygen free. OK, maybe they are being honest, but those properties don't make it anything special. I'm a little puzzled by 'super long drawn', although I suppose it may explains to a layman what continuous casting is all about. Traditionally copper was batch cast, so there was a finite maximum length to which copper could be drawn. If you needed a longer length it was made up by butt-welding shorter lengths together. With continuous casting, there is theoretically no limit to how long a piece of copper wire can be. Maybe that's what they mean.
Essentially they use an enamelled copper alloy, in all probability UNS C10100 which is electronic grade OFC.
Mind you, most of the snake-oil pushers supply cable made from the same stuff at vastly over-inflated prices.
Anyway, as I said, you are happy with your cables, and the price you paid. That is, after all, what counts. |
|
|
| jp88 |
if you want to beleive that these cables make you stereo sound better fine.
If you want to convince me that I need to spend 50 bucks on 2 bucks wroth of wire and 3 bucks worth of connectors you are barking up the wrong tree. When one of these many cable companies can rovide facts to back up their clams (ie independant blind testing using multiple listeners and documentations to back up how the testing is accomplished) I will be willing to listen. Until then I will consider all those who try to push them snake oil salesmen and those who beleive them sheep.
|
|
|
| beau2317 |
I still don't know how you come up with your ideas about cables.
Is this through listening tests or by just theorizing ? |
|
|
| beau2317 |
JP88 : I don't want to convince you. I was posting information for people who have good enough ears to hear the differences between cables.
As you don't seem to have bothered checking the differences between cables using your own ears then it seems to be pure faith that what you think is actually true. That's called religion in my book. Science is the one where you experiment and discard your previous ideas if an experiment shows them to be wrong.
As for blind testing, that's the same ol chesnut that gets pulled ouit every time. Hey, have you blind tested butter vs margarine? Pork vs chicken? Do they taste the same? If you have not blind tested them then how do you know??
Some things are just obvious. |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
I've listened to many speaker, interconnect and power cables, courtesy of a friend who is in the industry. From $4000/metre silver cables to the smallest stranded copper (down to 3mm).
I've never heard good cables, only bad ones - closed in sound, lacking bass, rolled off top-end. And almost all of those were of the higher priced variety (generally those with the attached boxes of "stuff"). The 3mm copper generally wasn't that good when you tried to use 10 metres of it, but was still pretty good if you only used 1 metre of it.
I've never heard any difference between having the cable on the floor, on the walls, suspended from the roof (really!) or propped up on old high-power-cable insulators like a mini-monorail.
I've never measured a cable in my life.
That woven silver Kimber cable looks pretty special, as does (brand name forgotten) silver ribbon cable, but neither were better or worse than the 4mm copper (clear-coat) that I use as standard |
|
|
| jp88 |
| I love the assumption that because I don't agree with you that I haven't listened to equipment with diferent cabling and I must not have "good ears" . I will have to agree with clothears (I think that is how it was spelled If not I apolagize) bad cables can be heard however most of the cable stuff is bs. Many people have been convinced that bose equipment sounds very good, does that make them right? |
|
|
| lineup |
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
I had tried various cables but I've found a great cable
that works well with the g/c not only performance-wise but also price-wise.
Give anticables a try : www.anticables.com read the stories. |
My opinion and practice in speaker cables
is very much same as the information
in the Roger Russel quote below here:
That is in short:
Use thick enough ordinary copper cable, solid or multistranded,
to give a low enough resistance
compared to loudspeaker resistance/impedance,
by the lenght of cable needed.
Resistance of a cable will increase with lenght
and decrease with thickness of cable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is only a small part of Roger Russell article.
In my personal opinion,
all that needs to be said basically is in introduction!
| quote: | Originally Published by Roger Russell
http://www.roger-russell.com/
Engineer and formerly
Director of Acoustic Research
at McIntosh Laboratory, Inc.
and the originator of McIntosh Loudspeakers
Introduction
For many years,
wires that were used to connect speaker systems
were often zip or line cord.
The longer the run was, the heavier the wire that was used.
There were no special speaker wires
--just plain old copper wire--solid or stranded.
The emergence of high tech speaker wire has raised some fundamental questions
about the benefits of these new and sometimes extremely expensive wires.
Resistance in the speaker circuit is the key factor that determines loudspeaker performance.
The loudspeaker circuit includes the connecting wire between the amplifier terminals and the speaker terminals,
the amplifier internal impedance and the impedance of the speaker system.
There's also contact resistance at the connecting terminals of the amplifier and speaker system.
(See my page about connecting terminals.)
The contact resistance of clean connectors and the internal impedance of good quality amplifiers is normally small.
The controlling factors that remain are the speaker system impedance and the speaker wire resistance.
The DC resistance of a typical 8-ohm speaker system is about 7 ohms.
This resistance is due to the wire in the woofer voice coil.
It may be a total shock to some people to know that a typical 8-ohm four layer woofer voice coil
contains about 120 feet of number 28 solid copper wire.
This wire is all in the circuit with the speaker system hookup wire.
It's also much longer than a normal run of hookup wire from the amplifier to the speaker.
Even a mid range speaker can have about 30 feet of number 33 solid copper wire
and a tweeter can have 20 feet of number 35 solid copper wire.
-----
"It can be solid, stranded, copper, oxygen free copper, silver, etc.
--or even "magic" wire--
as long as the resistance is kept to be less than 5% of the speaker impedance.
There is no listening difference as long as the wire is of adequate size." |
|
|
|
| gfinlayson |
Come to think of it, never mind the voice coil, my midbass has this much copper in series with it:
And not forgetting the tweeter shunt coil (series xover):
 |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
Seems to me that there's a lot of folk think that science is all about throwing a few numbers about to prove their point of view. |
The numbers I have been "throwing about" are strictly about setting the record straight with respect to the relationship between the inductance and capacitance of a wire pair. My point being, if there is going to be discussion about such beasts, the discussion should be technically accurate.
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
Wrong. Science is all about theories, but more about experimentation, and seeing whether the experiment backs up the theories or not. |
One must always be wary of the creation of silly theories, referred to within these posts as "snake oil" (by others).
While some of them sound really technical, like "strand jumping" from you, or "motor-generator", or "grain boundary", they are utterly unfounded..any "experimentation" on your part, my part, anyones, to correlate these pseudo-factors to what is heard is what I refer to as Ice cream science...ice cream is sold at the beach..sharks attack people at the beach, therefore, ice cream causes shark attacks..| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
I said that 3 numbers cannot define a cable and I stick to that. Now if you wanted to talk about a graph of these three characteristics against frequency (and/or current) then that's not 3 figures anymore. |
I do not understand the semantics game. As I said, R, L, and C are all that is required to characterize all the parameters of a wire set. That, coupled with the fact that all three vary with frequency even though most do not understand that fact, nor the mechanisms involved.| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
Yes I thought I knew everything as well. But it's only through careful experimentation that I have (and not only me) found that things are not as simple as I would like them to be. |
The simple things are rarely that. Given my work environment, I do not have the luxury of believing I know everything. Humbling, to say the least. (I believe you were not directing that at me, but I felt the need to add my two cents.)
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
The point is that a certain number of you seem to want to simply dismiss or ignore evidence that cables sound better or worse. |
That fact does not eliminate the reality that technically inaccurate entities are used to sell cables to those who do not understand the science.| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
So why don't you try some real science and do an experiment. |
You would be suprised what some of us do for a living..;) You have no idea the level of experiments along this topic I am currently engaged in. (again, I do not believe you addressed this towards me..)
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
I don't claim to know why these things sound different. Any ideas I have put forward are guesses. But sound different they do. |
Well, you did claim strand jumping, but you are now saying that that was a guess?
While the following quotes were not directed at me, I will also speak of them..
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
I still don't know how you come up with your ideas about cables.
Is this through listening tests or by just theorizing ? |
For me, at the physics level, from Maxwell's equations.
At the audio level, I unfortunately have to break new ground with regard to human localization capabilities. Since we are not discussing that, I only include it for continuity of the overall system..that being the accurate portrayal of a 2 dimensional sound stage.
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
As you don't seem to have bothered checking the differences between cables using your own ears then it seems to be pure faith that what you think is actually true. That's called religion in my book. Science is the one where you experiment and discard your previous ideas if an experiment shows them to be wrong. |
One must be cautious here. You seem to be discarding tried and true e/m physics theories in favor of half baked technically inaccurate explanations from a few vendor sites.
I personally have no argument with the basic premise that cables can make a difference, nor that dbt's are inaccurate due to the dynamic nature of human localization transfer functions. I do, however, take issue with horribly incorrect physics applications and silly theories. Hence my input into this thread. Do not take my posts as argumentative with you, as they are not.
Oh, almost forgot. Here is a graph I created from the data used in the AH shootout 2...I was asked by Gene to proof the writeup prior to publication.. and the data out to 1 Mhz was also by my request, for reasons I won't address here.
This is the effective dielectric coefficient for all the cables (since the relative magnetic permeability of all the materials is 1, it is possible to neglect it in the product epsilon mu.. The EDC includes both the lagging storage mechanisms involved, inductive and capacitive. The inductive storage is directly related to the ability of the conductor geometry to contain the magnetic field produced. Since mu is 1 for all the materials in the shootout, it can be neglected..otherwise, the defined parameter would be "effective dielectric times permeability", or more accurately, the inverse of the propagation velocity squared.
Two points: this number can never go below 1, and second, the higher it gets, the more lagging energy storage the cable retains. This being proportional to the effective dc. The lower this number, the better...and, the lower the cable Z, the better..
Cheers, John |
|
|
| lineup |
| quote: | Originally posted by gfinlayson
Interconnects IMHO can have significantly more impact on sound than speaker cables,
as their inductance and especially capacitance can have noticeable effects at audio frequencies.
It's simply down to physics. |
I read a cable article written by one of those experts
who are into advanced Radio Transmitting and Receiving.
They deal with circuits for frequencies many times higher
than our very slow, and in comparision retarded, audio stuff.
What those guys do not know about cable inductive, capacitive effects
at whatever frequency is not worth knowing.
Their PCB Circuit Boards even has to constantly deal with
impedance, inductance and capacitance of short copper rails to keep from very bad results.
He explained in his cable article, that for speaker cables working in audio band,
the L and C of any normal adequate dimensioned speaker copper cable of normal lenght,
will have so minimal effect close to absolute zero,
that you never have to worry about this.
And surely not taking into the context of the other unlinear compenents in the audio output circuit.
It will be like you spit once in the Atlantic Ocean,
while the storm is roaring,
and so try to observe the wave of it .....
:D
And all reasonable persons speaking out of physical and matematical point of fact, that I have read,
will tell you the same basic thing about speakers connecting cables.
99% of chosing loudspeakers cables,
is to keep resistance, the R, at a reasonably low level (1/20 of total impedance is often mentioned = 5%)
This will keep cable influences very low and so avoid any measurable effect on signal. |
|
|
| lineup |
| quote: | Originally posted by lineup
I read a cable article written by one of those experts
who are into advanced Radio Transmitting and Receiving.
They deal with circuits for frequencies many times higher
than our very slow, and in comparision retarded, audio stuff.
What those guys do not know about cable inductive, capacitive effects
at whatever frequency is not worth knowing. |
After a search with google, I found the website,
with the article series by Steve Lampen.
The series has the title: Wired For Sound
and covers history and much more on wiring.
Speakers cables is only a small part of it, but still enlightening!
------------------------------------------------------
| quote: | Steve Lampen:
We’ve been talking about speaker cable and have covered resistance and capacitance in past columns,
which are also posted in the Wired for Sound index page.
Now let’s discuss inductance, impedance and skin effect.
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-r...f-lampen2.shtml
We’ll finish our look at speaker cable next time with more exotic specifications
such as copper purity, and take a look at basic speaker wiring techniques.
.........................
Steve Lampen is technology specialist, Multimedia Products for Belden Electronics Division in San Francisco.
Steve holds an FCC Lifetime General License (formerly a First Class FCC License)
and is an SBE Certified Radio Broadcast Engineer.
On the data side he is a BICSI Registered Communication Distribution Designer.
His latest book, "The Audio-Video Cable Installer's Pocket Guide" is published by McGraw-Hill.
And His book "Wire, Cable, and Fiber Optics for Video and Audio Engineers" is also published by McGraw-Hill.
:) |
|
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by lineup
After a search with google, I found the website,
with the article series by Steve Lampen.
The series has the title: Wired For Sound
and covers history and much more on wiring.
Speakers cables is only a small part of it, but still enlightening!
|
Thank you for providing the link.
It is rather unfortunate that much of the info presented is incorrect..I would have hoped for better.
Where to start..| quote: | | Article quoteInductance is the opposite of capacitance, so the effect on frequencies also is opposite. |
If both are considered as in series or parallel, then yes. The fact is, within a wire, the inductance is in series with the load, while the capacitance is in parallel. Both are lagging mechanisms, both store the most amount of energy when the voltage or current in the load are the maximum. For a pure resistive load, this coincides in time.
| quote: | | Article quote ""Inductance can be affected by several factors. The first is the size of the wire itself – the bigger the wire, the larger the inductance. |
What?? That is incorrect. The inductance of a wire set is defined as the relationship between the current in the wire, and the total energy stored within the magnetic field of the wire. This field can be split into two components. First, the internal inductance. This is 15 nH per foot per conductor. This is invariant for a round conductor at DC. Second, the external component of field, which is defined entirely by the current, from the surface of the wire to infinity, and summed with the return current of the other wire. The bottom line is, the external inductance is defined entirely by the ratio between the wire diameter and the INSULATION thickness for a twisted pair, or a pair in intimate contact with each other.
He needs to review Terman's equation..
| quote: | | Article quote In fact, a 10 AWG wire, such as in 10 AWG zip cord, has only about 0.06 microhenries of inductance per foot. |
NO..where does that number come from???? Try typically .16 uH for zero spacing.
| quote: | | Article quoteBecause inductive reactance and capacitive reactance cancel out, capacitance always is the winner |
What?? For a wire pair? Definitely incorrect.
| quote: | | Article quoteAll cable has an impedance. It’s just that, at analog audio frequencies, impedance is not important.Veteran readers of this column will know where I am going next: to a discussion of wavelength. |
Geeze, spare me. Who cares about wavelength, reflection coefficients??? The arguments based on wavelengths are not valid, however, the relationships between the reflection coefficient of the system is directly related to the ratio of energy between the inductive storage and the capacitive storage.
A cable stores energy based on it's L and C. When the characteristic impedance of the cable matches the load, the minimal amount of energy is stored. All other cases increases the lagging storage.
| quote: | | Article quoteYou must also factor in the quality of the insulation or velocity of propagation. So let’s say you choose a very bad PVC, one that has a 50 percent velocity |
Please..again with prop velocity??? The prop velocity is directly proportional to the product of L and C, to epsilon and mu. Therefore, the prop velocity is a direct measure of the amount of energy stored within a cable for cases where the load impedance is not matched to the line impedance.
| quote: | | Article quoteBut does audio cable have an impedance? Sure it does. But it is changing from a very high number (infinity at DC, 0 Hz), to the characteristic at 10 MHz or so. So, if someone says they have "8-ohm speaker cable," you would really have to ask them, "At what frequency is it 8 ohms?" It’s a different value at a frequency above or below the one at which the calculations are made. |
NO...NO...NO. The characteristic impedance of a line is::::
Z = (L/C1/2)
This is frequency invarient for any real load.
| quote: | | Article quoteThere is a simple formula for the skin depth (in inches) for copper conductors:This is a rough formula, but is fairly accurate up into the gigahertz for copper conductors. |
What he neglects to mention, is that it is NOT ACCURATE for low frequencies.. When the normal TEM based prop equations are used for current carrying conductors, they fall apart when the calculated skin depth approximation gets towards 10% of the wire radius.. DON'T use approximate models in frequency regimes where it is useless!!!!
Sheesh. Given the number of errors on that one page, in a discipline which the writer should be expert in, what are we to assume with respect to all the rest??
I expect better.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| lineup |
:)
Woow ...
I trust you, jneutron
Looks like you know these things.
If you decide to write Your Book ( or maybe an article on speaker cables )
I think I'd rather spend my money on your one,
than on Mister Lampen's books.
Maybe you have already written some good stuff ( not too technical, please )
that we can read at some website?
I go there at once, I promise!
................
Does Steve Lampen, in your opinion, draw any false conclusions,
eventhough his details in writing leave a lot to wish for?
Maybe he would do better in practical work and cable setup,
than he according to you, does in his written words.
Just because someone has knowledge and knows how to use a pen
does not always mean he is suitable as a publisher ....
:) |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by lineup
:)
I think I'd rather spend my money on your one,
than on Mister Lampen's books. |
There, I fear, you would be in error.
Steve is very technically competent, for specific areas of expertise. I would not hesitate to recommend any of his stuff with respect to wire useage for Belden materials. Also, his book on wire, cable, and fiber optics.
I state that without actually reading his books, I have a lot of confidence in his knowledge.
For just plain old speaker wire, there is a breakdown in understanding from what we learned in school, to what is actually going on. The low impedance stuff of speakers combined with the relatively high current slew rates confounds the issue, as most engineers do not understand the ramifications with respect to testing these systems.
For audible localization cues (how we interpret soundstage), the situation is even worse. The vast bulk of human knowledge does not correctly model, interpret, or test, our abilities to localize in reality.
Both together have created a veritable mess. We do not know the extent of our ability to localize, we do not know how to accurately measure what we can hear in two channel, so it is not possible to give excellent engineers like Steve Lampen the necessary tools in terms of specifications and test methods they need to adequately perform their jobs.
Once localization parameters are defined, engineers like him will easily find the relationship between cables and our hearing.
Tools..he needs the tools..
| quote: | Originally posted by lineup
Maybe you have already written some good stuff ( not too technical, please )that we can read at some website? |
I've written a lot here, AH, AR, and AA. But alas, it's all kinda written way too technical..sorry.
| quote: | Originally posted by lineup
Does Steve Lampen, in your opinion, draw any false conclusions, even though his details in writing leave a lot to wish for? |
From what I read, while he is attempting to close the book on wires affecting what we hear....once the errors are removed, there is no substance left to support his argument. And that is only worrying about the e/m theory aspects..nevermind the rather hairy specifications needed for localization.
| quote: | Originally posted by lineup
Maybe he would do better in practical work and cable setup,
than he according to you, does in his written words.
Just because someone has knowledge and knows how to use a pen
does not always mean he is suitable as a publisher ....
:) |
In terms of practical knowledge, he is excellent.
Cheers, John
PS..I have been considering writing a book, but while the e/m stuff is pretty well done, the hearing localization stuff is several years away. I've been contacting various universities who might have PhD candidates who could possibly take the task of testing the extent of localization parameters on soundstage..so far, none. This would leave the chapter that ties it together with theoretical image numbers, as opposed to measured. Not a bad thing, just a limitation. |
|
|
| billabong |
beau2317
Thanks for the Anti-Cables link. If I should need some cables I might give them a try, since they are inexpensive. Since the cables are single strand copper and have a thin insulating coating it would guarantee a decent performance/sound, I would think.
I have always been able to hear differences between cables/wire, though at my present age that ability no doubt will have dimished to some degree.
Audie. |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
Audie,
If you can manage a soldering iron, why not make some yourself for about 25% of the price?
Graeme |
|
|
| Bazukaz |
| quote: | Originally posted by billabong
beau2317
Thanks for the Anti-Cables link. If I should need some cables I might give them a try, since they are inexpensive. Since the cables are single strand copper and have a thin insulating coating it would guarantee a decent performance/sound, I would think.
I have always been able to hear differences between cables/wire, though at my present age that ability no doubt will have dimished to some degree.
Audie. |
Have you tried in a switch ON/ON comparison , for absolutely the same audio equipment , same speaker placement , same your position, not knowing which cable actually is working ? |
|
|
| Upupa Epops |
| People don't need absolute thruth, people like " impressions ", my, probably young, friend.... Don't give logical questions, people haven't logical answers... ;) |
|
|
| billabong |
Bazukaz,
At the time that I was into comparing cables the system and the recordings remained unchanged. The only switching I did though was to switch/change over cables. Still, I have found my short term memory was up to the task of identifying differences.
My system at the time was a transparent/revealing one ( my present system is also transparent, only different).
gfinlayson,
Cables for 25% of the cost? I would think 8 decent spade lugs would cost that much, and I would then have to use a different wire with different insulation, and fit the lugs.
I don't mind DIY for decent savings, but not for the amount involved in this case.
Audie. |
|
|
| beau2317 |
I'd got a bit bored by all the comments from the all cables sound the same brigade.
But some comments are just too good to pass up:
| quote: | | I've never heard good cables, only bad ones - closed in sound, lacking bass, rolled off top-end. |
So can you explain how you know that they are all bad? Compared to what?
| quote: | | is what I refer to as Ice cream science...ice cream is sold at the beach..sharks attack people at the beach, therefore, ice cream causes shark attacks.. |
..and this is what I call "being patronizing"
It's not unscientific to ask that people actually listen to cables to decide, rather than basing their knowledge about how cables sound based on their amazing knowledge of physics and the natural world.
The beef that I have with people who state matter-of-factly things like "all cables with the same inducatance, capacitance and resistance sound the same" is that it just shows that you have never listened to any good cables. Or that your hearing is not that great.
| quote: | | For me, at the physics level, from Maxwell's equations. |
...this is just what I mean. I don't think Maxwell's equations say much about how good various speaker cables sound.
Or am I meant to be impressed that you can take Maxwell's equations and deduce that fact about speaker cables? Well I am not, because a cursory listen would show you are wrong.
| quote: | | You seem to be discarding tried and true e/m physics theories in favor of half baked technically inaccurate explanations from a few vendor sites. |
Not discarding in favor of half baked explanations. What is happening is that the EARS are cleary saying that there is a difference where apparently none should exist, and people are looking around for an explanation.
The simple facts is that cables, speaker and interconnect, sound different. Maybe not to everyone, but at least some people can reliably hear the difference. I have been put to blind test and have passed. |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
So can you explain how you know that they are all bad? Compared to what? |
Sorry, beau, maybe I didn't make myself clear.
By "I've never heard good cables, only bad ones - closed in sound, lacking bass, rolled off top-end. ", I didn't mean they are all bad. I meant that you've got 'cables' that transmit the electrical signals to your speakers and you've got 'bad cables' that modify the signal in some way.
The ideal would be that you could have a cable of zero length (amp outputs attached to your driver terminals). You don't often get this unless you're going active (in which case, you don't need speaker cables).
Beyond that, you're attempting to transmit the signal without alteration. But attempting to use any cable that has different transmitting capabilities to the internal wiring of your speaker will tend to cause you problems. Listening is the best way to work out whether the cable is interfering with the sound (bad) or not. You can make assumptions afterwards as to how they will sound based on measurements, but then... everyone has 20-20 hindsight.
Nelson said it best in his speaker cable article from 1980: | quote: | Nelson Pass
Who am I to dispute the feelings of audiophiles who, evaluating any cable in the context of program source, amplifier, speaker, and listening room, decide they can hear the difference? A few guidelines have emerged here, but the final judgment belongs to the user. All the special cables mentioned worked well on the test bench and, given the assumption that series impedance should be minimized, all of them work better than 16 gauge wire. If, like many audiophiles, you have spent a small (or large) fortune on your hi-fi system, money spent for high quality cables and connectors is a reasonable investment. |
By lumping my comment in the "all cables sound the same brigade" you are at risk of putting yourself in the "I never read what is said on the forum as I'm always going to stick with my stated position brigade" - and I don't think you meant to do that. |
|
|
| beau2317 |
| quote: | | By lumping my comment in the "all cables sound the same brigade" you are at risk of putting yourself in the "I never read what is said on the forum as I'm always going to stick with my stated position brigade" - and I don't think you meant to do that. |
My apologies; I certainly did not mean to accuse you of that. Interesting reply. |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
Thanks beau. I now realise the bit I wrote, that you quoted, could have been inflammatory. Thanks for taking it in the spirit I intended.
In all this, I haven't mentioned that I'll try these cables (for a listen, anyway) - but I've got to make some peices of wood into speakers first, as I'm getting some heat about "all those pieces of wood in the garage". |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
| quote: | Originally posted by billabong
gfinlayson,
Cables for 25% of the cost? I would think 8 decent spade lugs would cost that much, and I would then have to use a different wire with different insulation, and fit the lugs.
I don't mind DIY for decent savings, but not for the amount involved in this case.
Audie. |
Audie,
The spades used by anticables are industry standard tinned copper items, about £2 for 8 of them from RS Components in the UK. The wire is 2 mm thick enamelled (polyurethane coated) copper wire which you can buy in ~18 m reels for about £10. ALL commercially manufactured copper wire is oxygen free. That gives a 4.5 m (14.5 ft) stereo set for £12 ($21 US). Anticables would charge $140 US for a 14 ft stereo pair, that's a saving of 85%! and that's without the $28 US international shipping cost.
I rest my case.
Graeme |
|
|
| jimbo1968 |
We often see it implied that someones system is better because it can reveal differences in speaker cables (amps/interconnect etc)
I may start putting forward the argument that my system is better because it is not sensitive to different speaker cables.:D |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | Originally posted by jimbo1968
I may start putting forward the argument that my system is better because it is not sensitive to different speaker cables.:D |
Let me guess - it's a ghetto blaster. |
|
|
| jimbo1968 |
| Well, there is no passive crossover and quite a short cable from amp to driver, so there are similarities. |
|
|
| billabong |
gfinlayson,
You've provided some useful information for those wanting good speaker cables on the cheap,
The wire you mention would appear to be different to that used in the Anti-cables. Anti-cables say the insulation used is a very thin red coating- no mention of enamelling.
I doubt too that the wire you mention would also be all of the following: "highly annealed, super drawn and continuously cast.
My bi-amped valve monoblocks are directly behind the speakers, so only need 3 foot lengths of cable.
The cables that I have been using for many years now are by WMC Labs, which were recommended to me by the maker of my Australian speakers. They are also single strand copper, but with a thicker insulation than the Anti-Cables. They use a double run for the bass speakers.
I might be tempted to try the Anti-cables, mainly because the thin insulation may be beneficial, but also because of the possibility that the manufacturing process in making the Anti-cable wire may be superior, and therefore beneficial.
Regards,
Audie. |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
But some comments are just too good to pass up:
quote of mine: ""
is what I refer to as Ice cream science...ice cream is sold at the beach..sharks attack people at the beach, therefore, ice cream causes shark attacks..""
..and this is what I call "being patronizing" |
You need to re-read very carefully, what I have been posting.
What I posted as Ice cream science, is the common misconstruing of correlation with causation.
The fact is, the selling of ice cream at the beach does indeed correlate with shark attacks. But the correlation does not prove causation. The same happened within the medical community with respect to the ultrasonic imaging in utero for medical diagnostic analysis. It was found by correlation, that a higher percentage of babies were born with unfavorable outcomes when ultrasonic imaging was performed.
It turned out, the REASON the imaging was done, was because the pregnancies were HIGH RISK!!..duh...
It took years for this conclusion to be proven inaccurate.
The same applies to cables. Pointing out that correlation does not mean causation is not patronizing..it is pointing out fact. You calling it patronizing is just silly..it was never my intent, nor should you have misread it as such.| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
It's not unscientific to ask that people actually listen to cables to decide, rather than basing their knowledge about how cables sound based on their amazing knowledge of physics and the natural world. |
Go back through every post I have ever, ever done, for the last 4 or 5 years. You will not find one instance where I have stated that all cables have to sound the same because I know physics. Nor will you find I have said the opposite.
What I have said, is that the vast bulk of "physics" explanations provided to explain why cables sound different (like your strand jumping one) are nothing but made up claptrap, AND, (very important to read this) I also debunk erroneous physics explanations that attempt to show why cables cannot sound different (like my corrections regarding Steve L's explanations)
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
The beef that I have with people who state matter-of-factly things like "all cables with the same inducatance, capacitance and resistance sound the same" is that it just shows that you have never listened to any good cables. Or that your hearing is not that great. . |
That is of course, your problem. The fact is, any cable which has the same resistance, capacitance, and inductance vs FREQUENCY through the audio band extending up to about 500 Khz, will sound the same. And, nobody characterizes cables to that extent..that is what I referred to when I asked Gene to go out to 1 Mhz with the test data in shootout 2.
AND, what source are you using to hear the diff?? How is that source compiled? Was final mixdown performed with simple pan pots?, varying only IID levels?? If you use a CD, are the channels time sync'd using parallel electronics, or was a muxed input or output involved...(it makes a difference even I can hear).
One of the most flagrant and vile statements one can make is...you are incapable of..something.. You know, like your "your hearing is not that great" I recommend you drop that..
You are either new here, or live in a vacuum..I have never stated simple rlc is the solution. RLC is not a simple entity, and cannot be treated as such.
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
...this is just what I mean. I don't think Maxwell's equations say much about how good various speaker cables sound.
In resonse to my statement:""For me, at the physics level, from Maxwell's equations.""
Or am I meant to be impressed that you can take Maxwell's equations and deduce that fact about speaker cables? Well I am not, because a cursory listen would show you are wrong.. |
You really need to slow down and read..please.
I have not ever stated "" I can take Maxwell's equations and deduce that fact (sound the same) about speaker cables?""
So please, stop and take the time to actually read my posts. I would appreciate you not attempting to put inaccurate words in my mouth, which you are doing here.
A cursory listen has nothing to do with correcting a physics error.
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
...What is happening is that the EARS are cleary saying that there is a difference where apparently none should exist, and people are looking around for an explanation. |
If you would slow down, you would realize that I am indeed working towards that goal.
| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
...The simple facts is that cables, speaker and interconnect, sound different. Maybe not to everyone, but at least some people can reliably hear the difference. I have been put to blind test and have passed. |
Congrats. So I guess that means that you are allowed to vilefy others on forums as a result of your capability??
As I said..slow down. You have lumped everybody into two camps, either they are with you, or they are stupid. Such is really not the case. Please don't try to make it so.
From one of your initial posts on this thread:| quote: | Originally posted by beau2317
...And is your cable stranded? And are the strands individually insulated? If not then the layer of copper oxides for millions of tiny semiconductor junctions, with the signal crossing from strand to strand. |
That explanation is utter physics garbage. Since you posted it, you obviously read it somewhere. I did not accuse you of making it up...indeed, the obvious lack of actual scientific explanations and understandings has led this industry down the path of silly science explanations. You know, the old "they'll drink sand in the desert" thing. In reality, changing from solid to stranded will affect the internal INDUCTANCE behaviour of the cable, as skinning will change via the geometry difference, along with inductive characteristic with frequency. Indeed, shedding of inductive energy with a changing current slew rate is a component of the analysis. (unfortunately, you will find no-one who understands that concept)....yet. But this highlights what I stated about correlation vs causation..while the change of cables may indeed correlate to a change in sound, the explanation of strand jumping, while seemingly correlated, is physically absurd.
I work diligently towards an understanding of how cables could possibly change the sound, from the physics end as well as from the human localization end.. But still, I have to contend with people like you, who prefer to be combative and obstinant, rather than truly discuss the stuff.
Please do not misinterpret me again. Thank you. I have no desire to see this thread shut down as a result of contentions behaviour on your part (others also, you are not the only player here)
Toodles, John |
|
|
| poobah |
A few observations are in order:
1) The people with the best ears seem to be the most unwilling to make and publish measurements and submit themselves to ABX testing.
2) The people who are genuinely qualified to ponder and speculate the physics behind what might be happening do so more out of respect for those with golden ears than what they themselves hear. In return, they are shown the least respect for doing so... especially when they dismiss the pseudo science (strand jumping... skin effect @ A.F. ... etc...) and other B.S. that has so thoroughly permeated this topic.
3) The people most inclined to become cable experts seem to be the least qualified to do anything else.
4) Why are we focusing this much energy on such a relatively useless topic? From an engineering standpoint, the most urgent improvement to be made on any system is on its weakest link. In audio, the weakest link is clearly loudspeakers. This has been the case for 50 years or so.
:headbash: |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by poobah
A few observations are in order:
2) The people who are genuinely qualified to ponder and speculate the physics behind what might be happening do so more out of respect for those with golden ears than what they themselves hear. In return, they are shown the least respect for doing so... especially when they dismiss the pseudo science (strand jumping... skin effect @ A.F. ... etc...) and other B.S. that has so thoroughly permeated this topic. |
That I've noticed. But in this particular case, I just think beau2317 has just erred in categorizing me as "against". It's a problem when binary is used for analog.| quote: | Originally posted by poobah
4) Why are we focusing this much energy on such a relatively useless topic? From an engineering standpoint, the most urgent improvement to be made on any system is on its weakest link. In audio, the weakest link is clearly loudspeakers. This has been the case for 50 years or so.
:headbash: |
No disagreement on speakers, or even room environment.
As far as useless, well, it is a thread on spkr cables and not speakers per se..
As far as a waste of time, on that I have to disagree without remorse..;)
Since embarking on this "wires" stuff, I've learned so much...I enjoy learning, and the discussion. So much of it is applicable to my work, and so much of my work is applicable to all audio stuff..
I do so enjoy the physics aspect..
And, the result of pondering this goop, on my part, has been a more thourough understanding of what it is we use to image an artificially generated image, and what can affect it..it has been an eye opener for me.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| dfdye |
Along Pooba's comments, I was amused to read that Siegfried Linkwitz uses generic Radioshack speaker cable. If it's good enough for him. . . . :D
Also, to add fuel to the fire, I work in an chemistry lab and often measure some extremely low level signals. The cables we use to carry our MOST SENSITIVE signals are simple shielded copper coax cables with BNC's. We have about 10 different varieties, and the only difference we can "measure" is how well the BNC's connect. If there were ANY "microsemiconductor" jazz going on, we would have measured it years ago and switched to platinum coated rhodium on diamond substrates or something ridiculously expensive.
Still, if you think that your $2K cables will give you better sound improvement than spending that $2K on a better set of drivers (where the sound improvement will be orders of magnitude greater/$) far be it from me to tell you that simple 12g copper wire works pretty damn well. |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by dfdye
Along Pooba's comments, I was amused to read that Siegfried Linkwitz uses generic Radioshack speaker cable. If it's good enough for him. . . . :D |
Personally, I use #12 extension cord, 3 wire, with neutriks, in lengths of 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 foot (color coded of course, really visually harassing neon colors (yah, I gotta be different))
But of course, I was only interested in the power loss of the cables and the robustness of the insulation. It met the application requirements. It is not intended as affirmation that cables do or do not make a diff, just that they have required no maintenence for 4 years now..pure fire and forget.
As for Siegfried, if he is happy, good for him. Far be it for me...
| quote: | Originally posted by dfdye
Also, to add fuel to the fire, I work in an chemistry lab and often measure some extremely low level signals. The cables we use to carry our MOST SENSITIVE signals are simple shielded copper coax cables with BNC's. We have about 10 different varieties, and the only difference we can "measure" is how well the BNC's connect. If there were ANY "microsemiconductor" jazz going on, we would have measured it years ago and switched to platinum coated rhodium on diamond substrates or something ridiculously expensive. |
I must point out that the equipment you are speaking of, like the equipment I use, are not designed to convey high current slew rates at way too low loop impedances. Even though audio is considered a "mundane frequency band", and the current, voltage, and power levels are trivially small, it is still beyond most engineers out there to be able to measure accurately the voltage and current of an audio signal into a 4 ohm load at the slew rates and temporal accuracies required for localization. Most fall into one of several "assumption" traps.
But yah, that microdiodestrandjumping jazz just has ta be corrected.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| billabong |
| quote: | | far be itfrom me to tell you that simple 12g copper wire works pretty well |
Don't forget that beau2317 started this thread to share his discovery of an inexpensive 'simple' 12g speaker cable that is receiving very favourable comment. "simple" here refers to a 12g single strand, solid core wire with a very thin insulating coating.
I also find 12g copper wire works pretty well. I purchased two stereo bi-wire 4 foot sets and one similar 7 foot stereo set for a low AU$120 (US$90).
Audie. |
|
|
| gfinlayson |
| quote: | Originally posted by billabong
gfinlayson,
You've provided some useful information for those wanting good speaker cables on the cheap,
The wire you mention would appear to be different to that used in the Anti-cables. Anti-cables say the insulation used is a very thin red coating- no mention of enamelling.
I doubt too that the wire you mention would also be all of the following: "highly annealed, super drawn and continuously cast.
My bi-amped valve monoblocks are directly behind the speakers, so only need 3 foot lengths of cable.
The cables that I have been using for many years now are by WMC Labs, which were recommended to me by the maker of my Australian speakers. They are also single strand copper, but with a thicker insulation than the Anti-Cables. They use a double run for the bass speakers.
I might be tempted to try the Anti-cables, mainly because the thin insulation may be beneficial, but also because of the possibility that the manufacturing process in making the Anti-cable wire may be superior, and therefore beneficial.
Regards,
Audie. |
Audie,
I use the word enamelled in the loosest possible sense. In days gone by, this type of wire used to be covered in a hard enamel. These days, this has given way to a polyurethane coating, which varies in colour from an amber/orange colour to quite a deep red depending on manufacturer. I have hand wound air cored inductors for speakers using wire from RS. Some of them are orange, some are red, but the wire is the same. As far as 'highly annealed, super long drawn and continuously cast' goes, Anticables are playing the snake-oil marketing game. I referred to this in an earlier post. Continuous casting is the way all copper wire is made. It used to be made in a batch process, so the maximum length of wire available was of a finite length determined by the gauge of the wire and the size of the batch. Longer wires were made by butt welding lengths together. Nowadays, copper wire is made via a continuous process know as continuous casting, where wire is drawn through a graphite day from a furnace containing molten copper, hence "super drawn and continuously cast". The wire has to be annealed following the casting process to enable any further drawing of the wire and to reduce brittleness. OFC copper requires a higher annealing temperature than tough pitch copper which contains more oxygen, hence "highly annealed".
They're selling industry standard PU coated OFC wire and making it sound extra special by quoting jargon.
So you think you're getting a bargain, because their cables are cheaper than all the other high-end stuff. They're still making a killing by selling really cheap cables with a huge mark-up.
For an interesting insight into continuous copper casting, have a read of this.
There's lots of other useful information on copper, copper alloys, wire etc. at http://www.copper.org
Graeme
Edit:
I think the fact that they also advocate the use of cable isolators is further evidence of their snake-oil philosphy. I've never heard of anything so absurd as sonic improvements brought about by lifting speaker cables off the floor. If you have a look at http://cableisolators.com and then have a look here you'll see a strking similarity between the cableisolators and the Pin-type insulators on the bottom of the page of the suzhou website. Yep, cable isolators are standard porcelain HV insultors used in a multitude of industrial and power transmission applications. Another means to make a shed load of cash out of gullible audiophiles. |
|
|
| jneutron |
Just looked at the anticable website.
The numbers they give for inductance of the 12 guage pair twisted is incorrect. It is waaaay too high.
They did not autocal their meter prior to the measurement.
Hmm..
Here's what L looks like in that spacing regime..
Note: vertical is nanohenry.. .3 uH is off the chart upwards.
Horiz is inches. Sorry for the lack of accurate designators, it's a chart I did a year or so ago.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| dfdye |
| quote: | Originally posted by gfinlayson
If you have a look at http://cableisolators.com and then have a look here you'll see a strking similarity between the cableisolators and the Pin-type insulators on the bottom of the page of the suzhou website. |
I love the part about the "specially formulated conductive glaze"!!! lol!!!
I am not suprised that some Joe Schmoe off of the street who has no idea of how electrons work would fall for stuff like this, but the people who are REALLY into high end audio should @#$# well know better. If you insist on getting your cables off of the floor, a simple 2X4 block will insulate JUST as well for the powers we are dealing with!!! Whether the 2X4 is even hypothetically beneficial is another discussion all together! I guess the next thing they will be selling is Audiophile carpet and wall paint!!! |
|
|
| dfdye |
| quote: | Originally posted by billabong
Don't forget that beau2317 started this thread to share his discovery of an inexpensive 'simple' 12g speaker cable that is receiving very favourable comment. "simple" here refers to a 12g single strand, solid core wire with a very thin insulating coating. |
True! Though I would also guess than any solid core copper wire of that size would have excellent electrical conductivity. Further, under these conditions, I doubt very much that anyone could pick out the difference in the insulation in a true blind listening test (or even a detailed electrical ananlysis!) |
|
|
| billabong |
gfinlayson,
Thanks for the explaination of copper wire production. You've convinced me that normal polyurethane coated wire is used in the Anti-Cables.
Should I decide to try similar cables to the Anti-Cables, i'll take your original advice and make my own. However,as dfdye pointed out it is doubtful one would be able to hear the difference between thin and thick insulation, so I may not bother unless I need additional cables.
gfinlayson and dfdye,
Isolators for cables sure does sound way out.
Many years ago The Absolute Sound audiophile magazine had a very special (and rare) woman writer who had acute (golden eared?) hearing. I remember she used Magneplanar speakers.
Oneof the things she could detect was the beneficial effect of isolators on audio cables. I for one am not going to say that what she heard is bunkum, snake oil or whatever.
dfdye,
I agree with you that just about any solid core 12g wire would have excellent electrical conductivity.
It was a few dacades ago that singl | | | |
