anatech said:
Not my test... one of the local guys at Shaw cable (& measured using some of their test kit)... the web page is fairly explicit as to how the test was conducted.
dave
As I said to Johan,my english is not as good as yours so can SY,poobah and burnedfingers explain to me the joke with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Heisenberg's dog please?
I think Poobah summarized it best: "The problem with the uncertainty principle is that it's only correct if and only if you don't understand it..."
Heisenberg and Bohr would insist the cable only exists when being measured.
"The concept of the path of an electron between two successive measurements is meaningless."-- Heisenberg
I'm sure Poobah and Co have more to add.
Heisenberg and Bohr would insist the cable only exists when being measured.
"The concept of the path of an electron between two successive measurements is meaningless."-- Heisenberg
I'm sure Poobah and Co have more to add.
Terminated with 0.22 ohm. That's designed to show up differences which are insignificant with real-world loads. If you made the load a speaker, those curves would overlay each other pretty closely. The differences due to L and C show the most effect in the top octave where spekaer impedances are generally rising. No info was given about a crucial variable, the way the cable was laid out (i.e., loop or straight line).
PK, my bad joke was in reference to Schroedinger's Cat, a famous "paradox" that really isn't, with a reference to controversies in early quantum theory between Heisenberg (matrix methods) and Schroedinger (diffusion equation). The target is the silly stuff that the cable peddlers throw out there to explain why their bazillion dollar cables work so much better than cheap stuff despite no-one being able to hear the differences in any sort of controlled testing.
It really is just R, C, and L. Magic is fun to believe in but must be left to the imaginations of our children for us to be allowed to concentrate our efforts in useful areas.
PK, my bad joke was in reference to Schroedinger's Cat, a famous "paradox" that really isn't, with a reference to controversies in early quantum theory between Heisenberg (matrix methods) and Schroedinger (diffusion equation). The target is the silly stuff that the cable peddlers throw out there to explain why their bazillion dollar cables work so much better than cheap stuff despite no-one being able to hear the differences in any sort of controlled testing.
It really is just R, C, and L. Magic is fun to believe in but must be left to the imaginations of our children for us to be allowed to concentrate our efforts in useful areas.
Panicos K,
No, no, no! No offence taken by me or given by you! To be "saddened" simply meant that I thought I explained (in this case) universal principles, not my particular opinion, and that I was perhaps not successful. It could also have to do with my perhaps inadequate explanation. Anyway, your post is most welcome, and do not bother about the language - I cannot speak yours at all!
Planet 10,
I am not here to criticise or above all to knitpick (heavens forbid!) But the neat graphs given by you and the explanation in the original script can serve as an example to illustrate.
Firstly, for the reasons given (if I understand correctly) the author used 0,22 ohm as a load. Make the load small enough and, if the generator can cope, at some time any cable will present a counting series impedance. But calculating back, I found the inductance that gave rise to the shown increased series impedance (blue trace) to be about 1,8 uH. That is nothing abnormal for loudspeaker cables, and in an 8 ohm system will not matter until well into the hundreds of KHz, if not MHz. (I did not see a generator impedance; it could not have been zero.) Similar re phase shift; our speakers are not 0,22 ohm.
Furthermore characteristics at 100 MHz is mentioned, where cable length and characteristic impedance comes in - what is remotely the relevance to audio? Etc. - I do not want to dominate the thread.
Regards!
No, no, no! No offence taken by me or given by you! To be "saddened" simply meant that I thought I explained (in this case) universal principles, not my particular opinion, and that I was perhaps not successful. It could also have to do with my perhaps inadequate explanation. Anyway, your post is most welcome, and do not bother about the language - I cannot speak yours at all!
Planet 10,
I am not here to criticise or above all to knitpick (heavens forbid!) But the neat graphs given by you and the explanation in the original script can serve as an example to illustrate.
Firstly, for the reasons given (if I understand correctly) the author used 0,22 ohm as a load. Make the load small enough and, if the generator can cope, at some time any cable will present a counting series impedance. But calculating back, I found the inductance that gave rise to the shown increased series impedance (blue trace) to be about 1,8 uH. That is nothing abnormal for loudspeaker cables, and in an 8 ohm system will not matter until well into the hundreds of KHz, if not MHz. (I did not see a generator impedance; it could not have been zero.) Similar re phase shift; our speakers are not 0,22 ohm.
Furthermore characteristics at 100 MHz is mentioned, where cable length and characteristic impedance comes in - what is remotely the relevance to audio? Etc. - I do not want to dominate the thread.
Regards!
SY,
Wasn't it ultimately decided that Shrodinger's cat was a mess of sillyness? Wasn't the resolution in having many cats in many boxes and finding half of them dead?
Wasn't it ultimately decided that Shrodinger's cat was a mess of sillyness? Wasn't the resolution in having many cats in many boxes and finding half of them dead?
The better resolution is understanding that even with an inanimate particle counter, the quantum state collapses since a measurement has occured. No human intervention is needed.
I still think that the orange speaker cables from Home Depot are the best -- particularly for Class D.
Hi Dave,
Just some idle musings. Not only are the test results open to examination, but also the test itself. I am not disagreeing with these tests, I'm just trying to understand all the possible variables.
-Chris
Maybe. I would have liked to have seen the plot of the resistor alone along with non normalized wire measurements. Also the response at the "feed end" so we knew for sure what was going in. It almost seems as though the capacitance in the CAT-5 (not all amps may be happy with this) may be reacting with the inductance of the load resistor.
Just some idle musings. Not only are the test results open to examination, but also the test itself. I am not disagreeing with these tests, I'm just trying to understand all the possible variables.
-Chris
When attention is paid to the workings of a speaker box (or cat) particularly the crossover and speaker coils and the impedances presented by all the components across the audio spectrum then the idea of speaker cables making a difference sounds a bit ..."insert favourite descriptive word here".
Q
Q
I am with you Chris... I didn't the find procedure described accurately enough to duplicate the test. Lamp cord rolling off in the audio band doesn't sit right. Seems like we are looking at a wire wound resistor test.
What is very odd... look at the phase plots... there is a maxima at the high freqs... the phase shift begins reversing, that implies a pole and a zero... weird.
😕
What is very odd... look at the phase plots... there is a maxima at the high freqs... the phase shift begins reversing, that implies a pole and a zero... weird.
😕
Hi guys,
I am fully agree that the speaker cables do make differences!
but unfortunatelly our ears does not detect the differences....!
I am fully agree that the speaker cables do make differences!
but unfortunatelly our ears does not detect the differences....!
don't you know that your senses are very tolerant. if not, it may you see your screen, or tv, as single dot moving. or you'll see frame by frame on cinema, an so on.
So what is the difference?
we are not listening signal from other planets but just the lady sing thats all....
So what is the difference?
we are not listening signal from other planets but just the lady sing thats all....
Splitting micro-hairs
You guys are really getting off the deep end arent-cha...
There are way too many other variables that present a truely audible difference in the sound quality...I merely have to walk thru the room to hear bass "nodes" coming & going...beaming effects of HF, reflections of HF, midrange muddiness coming & going....just the twelve foot walk from the kitchen to the listening point on the sofa.
_______________________________Rick.........
You guys are really getting off the deep end arent-cha...
There are way too many other variables that present a truely audible difference in the sound quality...I merely have to walk thru the room to hear bass "nodes" coming & going...beaming effects of HF, reflections of HF, midrange muddiness coming & going....just the twelve foot walk from the kitchen to the listening point on the sofa.
_______________________________Rick.........
Re: Splitting micro-hairs
A valid point, certainly. Many system differences are swamped by bad (or good) speaker and room interaction.
But one could stretch the point too far. In thinking that the speaker/room interface is so huge an influence on the sound that everything else is insignificant, we would ignore some very important parts of the overall system. Most of us try to strike a balance in the system. We often spend too much money on small things that don't count for much, while ignoring the big things that do. Why? It's easier that way.
It comes down to a choice:
1) I have to buy better speakers, or move them around, or spend time and money on acoustic treatment. That's hard.
2) Just let me buy "better" cables to improve my system. That's easy.
I certainly agree with the idea of, and have direct experience with, how much a room can transform an audio system. But within a given room/system small changes can and will be noticed. Are we wrong to focus on small things like cables while neglecting big problems like speakers and acoustics? Yes. But many of us do, just because it’s often easier to believe in magic. Whether or not magic exists might be beside the point.
So Richard’s point about other things being much more important than speaker cables is a very, very important one, but we shouldn’t extend it to say that small details don’t matter. They do, but only in small amounts. =)
“What forest? If only all these trees weren’t in the way – I’m sure I could see it. Maybe I should buy better glasses.”
Richard Ellis said:
A valid point, certainly. Many system differences are swamped by bad (or good) speaker and room interaction.
But one could stretch the point too far. In thinking that the speaker/room interface is so huge an influence on the sound that everything else is insignificant, we would ignore some very important parts of the overall system. Most of us try to strike a balance in the system. We often spend too much money on small things that don't count for much, while ignoring the big things that do. Why? It's easier that way.
It comes down to a choice:
1) I have to buy better speakers, or move them around, or spend time and money on acoustic treatment. That's hard.
2) Just let me buy "better" cables to improve my system. That's easy.
I certainly agree with the idea of, and have direct experience with, how much a room can transform an audio system. But within a given room/system small changes can and will be noticed. Are we wrong to focus on small things like cables while neglecting big problems like speakers and acoustics? Yes. But many of us do, just because it’s often easier to believe in magic. Whether or not magic exists might be beside the point.
So Richard’s point about other things being much more important than speaker cables is a very, very important one, but we shouldn’t extend it to say that small details don’t matter. They do, but only in small amounts. =)
“What forest? If only all these trees weren’t in the way – I’m sure I could see it. Maybe I should buy better glasses.”
- Status
- Not open for further replies.