Johan Potgieter said:
Johan,
I feel compelled to at least tell you why I don't wanna argue anymore.
It has to do with little old ladies.
I once was responsible for an acoustic product, a headphone. Not a great headphone, but one that filled the classrooms of a couple generations of Yank's. It was a mature product to say the least. I got a call one day, that the product was experiencing big yield issues at final test. The product was tested by THD at several stages, and only failed the final listen tests where a sweeped sine was put through it. This was the same sweep used for THD.
Sure enough, it was a hidious buzz. Anyone could have heard this.
I spent the next few days trying to devise a test to actually measure the problem. Turns out it was never a good test for production. I had to FFT the distortion output from a AP System one. It was a 14th order distortion down 80dB from the fundimental. That's 0.01%, and it was totally obvious even to non-audiophiles.
I agree with ohms law when I want to measure volts and amps and stuff.
There is another example where a good friend of mine with what I refer to as phonographic hearing built an amp. He has the gift that he can recall how something sounded for hours, days, months and even years. Well, he built this amplifier. By the way, he didn't even have a scope!, just a sharp pencil, a volt meter, and his ears.
He called me one day to ask me why this or that would matter. It had to do with a very subtle trim on a low gain 2nd stage diff amp. His trim pot had something like a 75uA range on a pair that was running at almost 10mA. I told him he was smoking to much pot.
Then, I went to visit him. Amp sounded great, one of the best (he made another type for me) I'd ever heard. You were there!
Anyways, he got to turning the trim pot. I about fell off my chair when I heard the whole amp colapse.
I studied the circuit a bit, but kind of just accepted that it worked.
Its very similar to the Solid state sting called "distroyer" if you want to look at the topology.
So, you assume ohms law, and state some dB criteria. That might just be a mistake. If things down 80dB be heard and wierd stuff like that discribed, then the the whole shooting match of when it matters needs to change.
I've ran into to many things in my life to pretend I can predict the sound of all things. That's me though. I'd just rather listen to the music.
On double blind. I find that put on the spot, I get nervous and guess. I need lots of time to come to good conclustions. I also like to have help. two or three pairs of ears help.
Some tests are just obvious, like bad (but ohm out right) RCA cables and speaker cable examples I've personally had, but when it gets to fine tuning, I think coherent detection is important i.e. not blind. That is to say, blind test in the detailed developement of audio gear I find as a incumbrence.
Maybe for final, debunking its okay
Ohms law is believed to be mostly right, although M-theory may modify the results. ;>) The errors come in the assumptions about how good it needs to be, and low and behold, the secondary affects (down 80 dB). Assumptions matter!
Regards,
Mike
clarification
The amp didn't collapse, the stage and musicality did. It got flat sounding, and you could tell the sound was comming from the speakers. Oh, maybe that was good though, since that was actually what was happeings ;>)
Regards,
MIke
Portlandmike said:
The amp didn't collapse, the stage and musicality did. It got flat sounding, and you could tell the sound was comming from the speakers. Oh, maybe that was good though, since that was actually what was happeings ;>)
Regards,
MIke
Hi Mike,
OK.
You got me to ponder for a long time on what you posted, and that does not happen too often these days (please pardon if this sounds like vanity; not intended).
Having worked in a research lab for most of my employed life, "loose" ends often kept us up into the small hours and were then mostly solved. It gave a rewarding feeling, but then perhaps it was unfortunate in another sense.
Also I have perhaps suffered from too much flak from folks with an attitude of "I have made up my mind - don't confuse me with facts". (and I am NOT including you in that brigade). It came up in talk, writing and lectures. One builds up a defence mechanism with time. I am sure you know what I mean.
I think I have put my views as well as I am able to - the things that do not make sense, not because of possible doubt or lack of knowledge, but because of contradiction in what we are certain of, however small that area might be.
And yes (before I create the wrong impression), I also do sit down and simply just listen - not as often as I would like to because of daily demands - but still.
I appreciate your respectful and courteous debate, and wish you well with your undertakings. I will end my participation then, except perhaps for answering whatever quieries I feel equipped to.
Warm regards,
Johan
OK.
You got me to ponder for a long time on what you posted, and that does not happen too often these days (please pardon if this sounds like vanity; not intended).
Having worked in a research lab for most of my employed life, "loose" ends often kept us up into the small hours and were then mostly solved. It gave a rewarding feeling, but then perhaps it was unfortunate in another sense.
Also I have perhaps suffered from too much flak from folks with an attitude of "I have made up my mind - don't confuse me with facts". (and I am NOT including you in that brigade). It came up in talk, writing and lectures. One builds up a defence mechanism with time. I am sure you know what I mean.
I think I have put my views as well as I am able to - the things that do not make sense, not because of possible doubt or lack of knowledge, but because of contradiction in what we are certain of, however small that area might be.
And yes (before I create the wrong impression), I also do sit down and simply just listen - not as often as I would like to because of daily demands - but still.
I appreciate your respectful and courteous debate, and wish you well with your undertakings. I will end my participation then, except perhaps for answering whatever quieries I feel equipped to.
Warm regards,
Johan
Hey guys, don't run off just when things are getting interesting!
For me, this is not an emotional charged issue because I'm on the fence about the cable thing. I don't think it should make a difference (except for current capacity) but I have heard a difference, or thought I have.
With cables, like a lot of other audio stuff, there is a lot of the "Emperor’s New Clothes" syndrome. If my audiophile buddy or some reviewer says he can hear a big difference in cables, I don't want to appear a tin-eared idiot, so I feel obliged to hear it too.
And if those $200 cables make such a difference, then $2500 cable must sound sooooo much better.
It's well known that if you set up a test to fool people, you will fool them. Show business is based on this. The test with the guy pretending to switch cables is a good example. Also Thomas Edison's test of live orchestra vs. recorded - who would be fooled by that? Many people were.
AB test results can easily be skewed by which item is tested last. People tend to favor the second choice. Want to test Coke vs. Pepsi? Put the one you want to win second.
OK, back to the science.
Points and questions:
Wavelength of the signal has been quoted as a factor in signal reflections. Can you explain why? I ask because the ringing in video and VGA can be seen at fairly low frequencies, e.g., 36KHz or 48KHz scan rates. Even at the lowly 15KHz video rate. I have seen it in 30cm cables as well as 50 and 100M cables. It appears to be the same. Granted, the bandwidth of these signals is high, up to 50MHz or more, but the ringing seems to be related to the scan rate, not the bandwidth. Could this be happening in speaker cables?
I don't believe that we don't have the means to measure what could be causing the sound of cables (if there is one), it's just that we don't know what to look for - yet.
For me, this is not an emotional charged issue because I'm on the fence about the cable thing. I don't think it should make a difference (except for current capacity) but I have heard a difference, or thought I have.
With cables, like a lot of other audio stuff, there is a lot of the "Emperor’s New Clothes" syndrome. If my audiophile buddy or some reviewer says he can hear a big difference in cables, I don't want to appear a tin-eared idiot, so I feel obliged to hear it too.
And if those $200 cables make such a difference, then $2500 cable must sound sooooo much better.It's well known that if you set up a test to fool people, you will fool them. Show business is based on this. The test with the guy pretending to switch cables is a good example. Also Thomas Edison's test of live orchestra vs. recorded - who would be fooled by that? Many people were.
AB test results can easily be skewed by which item is tested last. People tend to favor the second choice. Want to test Coke vs. Pepsi? Put the one you want to win second.
OK, back to the science.
Points and questions:
Wavelength of the signal has been quoted as a factor in signal reflections. Can you explain why? I ask because the ringing in video and VGA can be seen at fairly low frequencies, e.g., 36KHz or 48KHz scan rates. Even at the lowly 15KHz video rate. I have seen it in 30cm cables as well as 50 and 100M cables. It appears to be the same. Granted, the bandwidth of these signals is high, up to 50MHz or more, but the ringing seems to be related to the scan rate, not the bandwidth. Could this be happening in speaker cables?
I don't believe that we don't have the means to measure what could be causing the sound of cables (if there is one), it's just that we don't know what to look for - yet.
Panomaniac,
Regarding your question about reflections, the highest frequency would be the one that needs accomodating. You would know that reflections get serious over a 1/4 wavelength of cable. (The quarter wave transformer, etc, most useful in r.f.) But if we take a cable of 20m, which is already quite long for domestic use; that is a factor of 120 shorter than a quarter wavelength at 20 KHz (also bringing in a propagation factor of say 66%).
There seems to be agreement that this will show negligible influence regarding matching, line impedance effect, refections etc. As said before there are also comparative effects; considering the substantial variation in load impedance presented by a loudspeaker, a less that 1% further influence by lack of matching is hardly significant - the effect of the loudspeaker impedance will totally mask it.
I might point out that someone published exactly such an experiment, claiming that certain aberations found in square wave rise time did prove that cable impedance mattered. But the frequency components contained in those aberations were quite above the audio spectrum.
Regards.
Regarding your question about reflections, the highest frequency would be the one that needs accomodating. You would know that reflections get serious over a 1/4 wavelength of cable. (The quarter wave transformer, etc, most useful in r.f.) But if we take a cable of 20m, which is already quite long for domestic use; that is a factor of 120 shorter than a quarter wavelength at 20 KHz (also bringing in a propagation factor of say 66%).
There seems to be agreement that this will show negligible influence regarding matching, line impedance effect, refections etc. As said before there are also comparative effects; considering the substantial variation in load impedance presented by a loudspeaker, a less that 1% further influence by lack of matching is hardly significant - the effect of the loudspeaker impedance will totally mask it.
I might point out that someone published exactly such an experiment, claiming that certain aberations found in square wave rise time did prove that cable impedance mattered. But the frequency components contained in those aberations were quite above the audio spectrum.
Regards.
Hi, I am new to fourm. I enjoy the info on all the threads. I would like to state that I am an novice. I have tried several kinds of cable, but none of the high end stuff. I like my cat5 cables, after all I built them, and I have no test equipement but my ears. Anyway my question/thoughts are, if I tune in a good strong fm station it can play loud with little distortion that I can hear, sure not as clear as from a source like a cd or even a phono, but still very good for having no hardwire connection between the source(fm transmitter) and my speakers.
What it we had no speaker cables at all, just some type of transmitter at amp and receiver at speakers?
Dan
What it we had no speaker cables at all, just some type of transmitter at amp and receiver at speakers?
Dan
No matter what you do, you still need a connection between the amplifier and the speakers even if the source is not directly connected. Transmitting at the source is at least semi practical. Transmitting after the amplifier and then receiving at the speakers is not.
Should work perfect with digital playback if you place the D/A converter in the speakers. But why go thru the trouble?
cables make a difference?...naw...
after all, all they do is carry the signal!(argueable)
Arguements concerning what we hear or not and the reasons why or why not kinda bore me... It's all be done before.
Most folks look for complicated answers, while ususally simple ones answer the question.
my criterion for cables may differ from yours, but I look at the complete system, within the cable, and then the complete "macro"system:
1) good quality conductors
2) good quality dielectrics
3) constructed using proper methods
4) good quality mechanical connectors.
Any variance of resistance, or capacitance "creates" a change. (just look at Bruce Brisson's designs, Transparent audio, MIT etc, that "box" on the end of the cable is a tuning network used to alter the performance of the cable by minimizing or enhancing various electric properties of the cable). The dielectric, seems to me, often overlooked by us "layman". It has a profound effect on the degradation of the signal. Most cables are constructed using appropriate construction techniques and materials. There is a huge vaiety of the quality of the mechanical connectors.
In the macro system , how does the cable equipment interface work and more importantly how does it sound? It all depends on the voicing of the equipment (all equipment is voiced unless viewed as an aplliance by the manufacturer). How well does the equipment match the other in terms of electrical characteristics?
Planet10 one lined it.. but ya
cables DO make a difference.
after all, all they do is carry the signal!(argueable)
Arguements concerning what we hear or not and the reasons why or why not kinda bore me... It's all be done before.
Most folks look for complicated answers, while ususally simple ones answer the question.
my criterion for cables may differ from yours, but I look at the complete system, within the cable, and then the complete "macro"system:
1) good quality conductors
2) good quality dielectrics
3) constructed using proper methods
4) good quality mechanical connectors.
Any variance of resistance, or capacitance "creates" a change. (just look at Bruce Brisson's designs, Transparent audio, MIT etc, that "box" on the end of the cable is a tuning network used to alter the performance of the cable by minimizing or enhancing various electric properties of the cable). The dielectric, seems to me, often overlooked by us "layman". It has a profound effect on the degradation of the signal. Most cables are constructed using appropriate construction techniques and materials. There is a huge vaiety of the quality of the mechanical connectors.
In the macro system , how does the cable equipment interface work and more importantly how does it sound? It all depends on the voicing of the equipment (all equipment is voiced unless viewed as an aplliance by the manufacturer). How well does the equipment match the other in terms of electrical characteristics?
Planet10 one lined it.. but ya
cables DO make a difference.
Originally posted by Trebla
Yes 26 years and still no definitive answer.
Which rather suggests that there isn't one.
Even if in the year 2050 it turns out that all cables do sound the same. It doesn't alter the fact that swapping two sets of cables (speaker or interconnect) usually results in an audible difference, whether it be subtle or obvious.
So the electrical and mechanical properties of the individual cables must be changing the way that the amp and/or speakers work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There Is a Definitive Answer
and was proven 21 years ago
http://stereophile.com/reference/1095cable
Yes 26 years and still no definitive answer.
Which rather suggests that there isn't one.
Even if in the year 2050 it turns out that all cables do sound the same. It doesn't alter the fact that swapping two sets of cables (speaker or interconnect) usually results in an audible difference, whether it be subtle or obvious.
So the electrical and mechanical properties of the individual cables must be changing the way that the amp and/or speakers work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There Is a Definitive Answer
and was proven 21 years ago
http://stereophile.com/reference/1095cable
Oh lord make it stop
When are people going to stop posting questions about cables? Everytime it turns in to this big arguement.....you can't hear the difference...yes i can....show me the measurement....measurements don't matter............etc
My head hurts just thinking about.
When are people going to stop posting questions about cables? Everytime it turns in to this big arguement.....you can't hear the difference...yes i can....show me the measurement....measurements don't matter............etc
My head hurts just thinking about.
Hi,
I feel it's been very well explained here already why it can make a difference in certain amps, if for instance they're already on the verge of instability a little added capacitance can have rather obvious effects.
That makes alot of sense to me. Given this thread I recently tried radically different cables on an amplifier that should be all but immune to such changes in load (UCD). At first I thought the highs were perhaps a little more prominent, but quickly noticed I was just fooling myself and there really was no difference at all, made obvious just by sitting in the right listening position with some A/B testing from left to right.
So now I think cables can make a difference, but ideally they won't, and the deciding factor is the amp in question.
I feel it's been very well explained here already why it can make a difference in certain amps, if for instance they're already on the verge of instability a little added capacitance can have rather obvious effects.
That makes alot of sense to me. Given this thread I recently tried radically different cables on an amplifier that should be all but immune to such changes in load (UCD). At first I thought the highs were perhaps a little more prominent, but quickly noticed I was just fooling myself and there really was no difference at all, made obvious just by sitting in the right listening position with some A/B testing from left to right.
So now I think cables can make a difference, but ideally they won't, and the deciding factor is the amp in question.
classd4sure said:
I have heard massive differences in cables on my system. It will be interesting to see if I can hear them with the UcD.
the only problem is much of the differnce I've heard the UcD doesn't seem to do very well, that being the .... live dynaimics of music, as opposed to the stage, which the UcD does quite well. My UcD is a bit laid back in the "live dynamics compared to the best I've heard.
I"ll have to get to that experiement someday. It seems an amp with a cap setting the high frequency output impedance would seem to be less sensitive to cable. Then again, I also don't hear as much difference between SACD and red book with the UcD either. I suspect that has to do with the band limiting of the UcD.
My experience has been the opposite of your last statement, that being the better the system, the more differences in cable can be heard.
Mike
Mike
classd4sure said:
I agree with this as well...but if you have an amp that is that unstable, the last thing you should be worrying about is cables. That's just putting a band-aid on. But yes......I agree that poor amplifiers can be "helped out" by better cables.
My whole point in the first post was......this is beating a dead horse......not that there is anything wrong with beating some animal corpses....it can relieve stress. But let's just leave this topic alone. If anyone wants a reminder they can do a search and see the hundreds of threads already talking about this topic.
Sauuuuuce,
You do not like the subject, yet you take part! Why not just skip the thread? (If you do not like a programme on the radio, turn it off!)
But that in lighter vein🙂
I would agree with you that there is a boring element here, but we disagree on what exactly it is. I would like to honour my undertaking in the post to Portlandmike that I am going to bow out, yet in the process I am constantly expected to accept lying down that 3+5=11! How easy has it become to simply get bored with all standpoints not agreeing with your own?
If I may take the example of the scoops-on-cars and ferrite-magnets-on-fuel-pipes that many people will swear make a difference, and even show experiments to prove their point, sending science sprawling .....?
Yes. it is easy (although I would rather say convenient) to have a position that is dangerously close to "I have made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts". I am not saying that folks willfully adopt that. But as I said before, in my profession as a research EE we did not have the luxury of telling the Boss "This bores me; include me out." Perhaps that is my disadvantage, and renders me incompetent to take part here.
As I wrote in a recent local article, in reality I am not aware that there is a debate here. It is mainly when folks insist on forcing science into untenable moulds that this comes up. We can really leave this alone, so long as it is accepted that some people will hear differences clear to THEM, without trying to cook up pseudo-science and black magic to support it. But to ask any scientist to believe in fairies because someone's senses indicated their existance and then expect him to shut up, is a little thick. I think that is fair!
Just in reply to Nanook (post #89 - I think!). I agree that construction and good mechanics are often overlooked entities. But wire and dielectric quality not (naturally provided that they are of minimum standard). There have been just too many tests (also listening) to make that clear. In the broader scene of electromagnetic waves audio is a small increment down at the d.c. end. Your tv antenna cable using ordinary standard insulation and wire handles a frequency range a thousand times wider than audio. If you can hear a difference, look elsewhere for an explanation.
Regards!
You do not like the subject, yet you take part! Why not just skip the thread? (If you do not like a programme on the radio, turn it off!)
But that in lighter vein🙂
I would agree with you that there is a boring element here, but we disagree on what exactly it is. I would like to honour my undertaking in the post to Portlandmike that I am going to bow out, yet in the process I am constantly expected to accept lying down that 3+5=11! How easy has it become to simply get bored with all standpoints not agreeing with your own?
If I may take the example of the scoops-on-cars and ferrite-magnets-on-fuel-pipes that many people will swear make a difference, and even show experiments to prove their point, sending science sprawling .....?
Yes. it is easy (although I would rather say convenient) to have a position that is dangerously close to "I have made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts". I am not saying that folks willfully adopt that. But as I said before, in my profession as a research EE we did not have the luxury of telling the Boss "This bores me; include me out." Perhaps that is my disadvantage, and renders me incompetent to take part here.
As I wrote in a recent local article, in reality I am not aware that there is a debate here. It is mainly when folks insist on forcing science into untenable moulds that this comes up. We can really leave this alone, so long as it is accepted that some people will hear differences clear to THEM, without trying to cook up pseudo-science and black magic to support it. But to ask any scientist to believe in fairies because someone's senses indicated their existance and then expect him to shut up, is a little thick. I think that is fair!
Just in reply to Nanook (post #89 - I think!). I agree that construction and good mechanics are often overlooked entities. But wire and dielectric quality not (naturally provided that they are of minimum standard). There have been just too many tests (also listening) to make that clear. In the broader scene of electromagnetic waves audio is a small increment down at the d.c. end. Your tv antenna cable using ordinary standard insulation and wire handles a frequency range a thousand times wider than audio. If you can hear a difference, look elsewhere for an explanation.
Regards!
Kudos Johan!!!!! I agree with you. Seems you are a better wordsmith than I. I am more of a cynical a-hole than a talker.
cheers
cheers
A compliment! I can now go to bed peacefully (it is almost 2 a.m.)
😀 😀
Seriously, I hope you can understand (if not necessarily agree with) my position, and if so I am greatly encouraged.
Regards.
😀 😀
Seriously, I hope you can understand (if not necessarily agree with) my position, and if so I am greatly encouraged.
Regards.
Johan...
well I am not looking for any explaination. I think I understand the basics of cables well enough (I'm no EE, but hey does Physics count for anything?...). I was just stating (I guess) what I feel are obvious points. Any change to inductance , resistance or capacitance will produce some kind of "effect". Whether one hears a difference is a very personal matter... I get pretty annoyed at low level "hums" and "buzzes" or anything that detracts from the music that I try to listen to. My wife on the other hand can often listen past the annoyances..
My goal is to spend less time "analyzing" and more time listening. An early experiment,years ago, was the use of a quad conductor microphone amp for interconnects. I was, and still am pretty pleased with these, all things considered (and the ridicuously low cost helped too, 🙂 )
There have been many who have used RG59 or equivalent, I personally use cat5 network cable, and have used it for both loudspeakers and interconnects to good effect. I also have some respectable "salon" type cables, but nothing terribly expensive. If I'd have known then what I know now, I could have saved a considerable amount of money.
And I couldn't resist a response to a "do cables make a difference?" thread. Ultimately so many don't trust their own hearing , and need confirmation or denial from others.
and hey, be kind to animals...
well I am not looking for any explaination. I think I understand the basics of cables well enough (I'm no EE, but hey does Physics count for anything?...). I was just stating (I guess) what I feel are obvious points. Any change to inductance , resistance or capacitance will produce some kind of "effect". Whether one hears a difference is a very personal matter... I get pretty annoyed at low level "hums" and "buzzes" or anything that detracts from the music that I try to listen to. My wife on the other hand can often listen past the annoyances..
My goal is to spend less time "analyzing" and more time listening. An early experiment,years ago, was the use of a quad conductor microphone amp for interconnects. I was, and still am pretty pleased with these, all things considered (and the ridicuously low cost helped too, 🙂 )
There have been many who have used RG59 or equivalent, I personally use cat5 network cable, and have used it for both loudspeakers and interconnects to good effect. I also have some respectable "salon" type cables, but nothing terribly expensive. If I'd have known then what I know now, I could have saved a considerable amount of money.
And I couldn't resist a response to a "do cables make a difference?" thread. Ultimately so many don't trust their own hearing , and need confirmation or denial from others.
and hey, be kind to animals...
Johan Potgieter said:
Johan,
I hope you had a good nights sleep!
I may clarify that I do believe all the wire stuff can likely be explained on technical grounds, the details are in the technical grounds. Like I posted on an earlier posts, there are often affects/distortions/sounds, that we hear that are rather suprising that we do hear. I tend to get "tired" you might say, when I don't feel like the detail required to explain things is at a deep enough level, and I'm also pretty sure if it was, I'd need/rather wait for the results. Call me lazy, or maybe I'm just busy trying to do electroacoustic things that have ever yet to be done! Bigger fish to fry you might say. Its just prioritizing, my apologies if it was ever rude.
You say it makes sense that interconnects matter. Wow. I"m not disagreeing but why that now?
Just ponder what a bundle of wire really is but a bunch of not exactly clean junctions under less than extreeme pressure!
On one hand, I can dismiss it with the wave of a hand. Then I go and hear some big difference in cables and ..... I log it off in my, "if I could live forever, I'd look into that" list.
In reality, I don't get as much time to listen to music let alone wire or worse yet, analyzing wire. Kids seemed like such a blessing at the time ;>) At least I can simulate an amplifier, but I doubt even good simulations of wire would help, but hey, maybe someone should just apply that, and toss out the "rule of thumb" stuff and look at it with the required details, like what affects could be down there 80dB that are not linear, like junctions between connected imperfect conductin crystals with different......
I think you get the idea of where I suspect it would get interesting.
Some differences may be frequency response, which I see most analysis going to, but those are less interesting imo.
I'd say I'll bow out now.... but I didn't keep my last bow out, so maybe it will just be, talk to you later :>)
Mike
- Status
- Not open for further replies.