hifiZen said:
A customer sent us some of those for his speaker... i hate them.
If i'm going to spend serious money on connectors, i'll get Eichmann.
dave
Re the Cardas single knob post. While they seem to be an excellent electrical connector, I always seem to be one hand short of the number required to connect the wires. One hand to tighten the knob one hand to hold one of the two wires.
They are good for a connection that won' be disturbed, if you plan a lot of changes or experiments my advice is stay away.
I used to clean my banana plug equipped wires about every 3 months (because they needed it) now with the Cardas Rhodium over silver/copper lugs it's closer to a year.
I also love the Cardas contact cleaner, while the initial price is high, that little bottle lasts a long time.
Scottmoose: Yes this is a DIY forum, but people also look here for advice on what to buy.
I think I'm about done posting here, said what I wanted to say, people may or may not agree, that's fine by me 🙂 🙂
They are good for a connection that won' be disturbed, if you plan a lot of changes or experiments my advice is stay away.
I used to clean my banana plug equipped wires about every 3 months (because they needed it) now with the Cardas Rhodium over silver/copper lugs it's closer to a year.
I also love the Cardas contact cleaner, while the initial price is high, that little bottle lasts a long time.
Scottmoose: Yes this is a DIY forum, but people also look here for advice on what to buy.
I think I'm about done posting here, said what I wanted to say, people may or may not agree, that's fine by me 🙂 🙂
hermanv said:
Precisely. Why do you think we keep banging on about system matching? To try to help people get the optimum (practical) match, that's why.
hermanv said:
Actually, the inductance of a parallel pair is determined by the ratio of the wire metal diameter to the outer insulation diameter. The scaling of the wire and insulation is of no consideration. In other words, if two wire pairs have the same insulation thickness percentage of the wire metal diameter, they will have the same inductance..(that log(a/b) term is the same)
hermanv said:
Yah, those numbers are far more reasonable...
Cheers, John
Due to manufacturing technique the smaller gauge wire will have a greater proportional insulation thickness and therefore a higher inductance.jneutron said:
hermanv said:
The thickness of the insulation is a result of selection of material, voltage withstanding, abrasion resistance, radiation resistance, coating method, number of layers, governing specification, application..ad nauseum....
Kapton, rubber, pvc, kynar, pvc, polyimide, tefzel, teflon....
Dipping, extrusion, wrapping, conformal coating.
Low voltage wire, high voltage wire..
NEC, IEC, custom specifications..
Mining, flight hardware, space, cryogenic...
A #10 awg teflon coated wire has a smaller proportion of insulation than a cat5e 24 guage conductor. A #24 polyimide coated magnet wire has a very small proportion of insulation...
If only it were just the wire diameter...
I'd love to plop the terman inductance equation on this website, something that everybody could use to find the inductance of any wire..I do not know how to do this...
Cheers, John
The following inductance equation is a close approximation (John I did this using the symbol and size font, a painful way to insert an equation. There probably is a better way).
The inductance L of a short wire pair is approximately given, as inductance of parallel plates, by L=mo(l • ts) /w, where l is the length of the short wires, w is the width, mo is the permeability and ts is the separation distance between the short wires.
This does not allow for a different permeability for the insulator and any air between the wires. Also note that "short" is not defined.
The inductance L of a short wire pair is approximately given, as inductance of parallel plates, by L=mo(l • ts) /w, where l is the length of the short wires, w is the width, mo is the permeability and ts is the separation distance between the short wires.
This does not allow for a different permeability for the insulator and any air between the wires. Also note that "short" is not defined.
Tomorrow I'll post the terman equation.
Seems to me there's a "log" thingy in there somewhere...
I believe it is setup for permeability of 1, so it's pretty much what we'd be able to use..as opposed to one of those god forsaken "universal equations" that end up being universally useless..
(you think I know these things off the top of my head???...I'm not like sy....😉
Cheers, John
Seems to me there's a "log" thingy in there somewhere...
I believe it is setup for permeability of 1, so it's pretty much what we'd be able to use..as opposed to one of those god forsaken "universal equations" that end up being universally useless..
(you think I know these things off the top of my head???...I'm not like sy....😉
Cheers, John
hermanv said:
Yah, they do tend to insert useless words like "short" with no boundaries..I hate that also.
The parallel plate approximation assumes an easy reluctance path, but it isn't quite so easy with the round conductors.
The terman equation has 3 components...first, the variables and units..
length is given in inches
D is the wire spacing, center to center
d is the wire diameter
log is base 10
delta = .25 at zero frequency.
mu is relative permeability, =1
L (uH) = .01016*length*{2.303*log(2D/d)-(D/length) + (mu * delta)}
The first part ...2.303*log(2D/d).. is the portion which describes the dipole field around the round wires..note that as long as the relation between the wire spacing and the wire diameter is the same, this equation provides the same value. If you double the diameter and double the spacing, the fraction 2D/d is unchanged.
The second ...D/length...is a correction for field enhancement when the lengths are very small.. When using the full equation for binding posts for example, this term will get you into trouble very quickly. For typical wires we speak of, this term should be ignored...zero.
The third term ...mu * delta... is the inductance within the cylindrical conductors. At DC, mu is 1 and delta is .25. At infinite frequency, delta = 0. (note: for a hollow conductor like the outer braid of a coaxial cable, this term can be considered as zero. There is no magnetic field within a hollow conductor, therefore no inductance..)
I just use part 1 and 3, set delta = .25, and plop it into a spreadsheet. What pops out is simple graphs of inductance vs wire spacing..
Cheers, John
Attachments
It is highly controversial, but the truly unfortunate part of this and other equations about the physical behavior of wire is the poor correlation with how it sounds.
Sure the audible difference between a 10 gauge wire and a 28 gauge wire does mostly follow the predicted results from equations. Nice, and it leads one to assume that the predictive results of equations for very small differences would therefore be just as valid with small differences being inaudible.
The problem is that many audiophiles including me, hear a difference between wires that have nearly identical constants as described by the equations. Two different manufacturers of 12 gauge wire end up with speaker cables that sound subtlety different.
Like I said, highly controversial, but thousands of audiophiles have spent good money on various cables. The belief that they are seduced by some kind of mental bias effect is hard to accept. This stuff is expensive, so I reason that most of these folks are well educated in order to have jobs that pay enough to afford this stuff. Being well educated should therefore warn them of the possible trap of believing that the more expensive cable automatically sounds better.
A small part of the problem has to do with how many significant figures result from applying the equations. An ordinary CD has a 2^16 resolution or 1 part in 65,536 This can also be expressed as 0.0000152 in 1, a very small number. Most audiophiles claim SACD sounds better than CD, so the presumption is that human hearing has little trouble in hearing differences smaller than 0.000015258 in 1. When I was in school it was generally accepted that 3 significant figures was a useful description of a physical event, using that standard, an equation is therefore unlikely to yield much information about how a cable might sound.
I do realize that I am doing the scientific equivalent mixing metaphors, but the idea I'm trying to push is that it just isn't as simple as many might guess.
Sure the audible difference between a 10 gauge wire and a 28 gauge wire does mostly follow the predicted results from equations. Nice, and it leads one to assume that the predictive results of equations for very small differences would therefore be just as valid with small differences being inaudible.
The problem is that many audiophiles including me, hear a difference between wires that have nearly identical constants as described by the equations. Two different manufacturers of 12 gauge wire end up with speaker cables that sound subtlety different.
Like I said, highly controversial, but thousands of audiophiles have spent good money on various cables. The belief that they are seduced by some kind of mental bias effect is hard to accept. This stuff is expensive, so I reason that most of these folks are well educated in order to have jobs that pay enough to afford this stuff. Being well educated should therefore warn them of the possible trap of believing that the more expensive cable automatically sounds better.
A small part of the problem has to do with how many significant figures result from applying the equations. An ordinary CD has a 2^16 resolution or 1 part in 65,536 This can also be expressed as 0.0000152 in 1, a very small number. Most audiophiles claim SACD sounds better than CD, so the presumption is that human hearing has little trouble in hearing differences smaller than 0.000015258 in 1. When I was in school it was generally accepted that 3 significant figures was a useful description of a physical event, using that standard, an equation is therefore unlikely to yield much information about how a cable might sound.
I do realize that I am doing the scientific equivalent mixing metaphors, but the idea I'm trying to push is that it just isn't as simple as many might guess.
If it makes any difference....
I find that the Monoprice speaker wire is VERY GOOD for the money and the cheap banana plugs they offer are not bad quality either.
I also always liked the Mogami Neglex as a relatively cheap cable, plus it is very durable if you have anyone walking in that general area.
Not high end cables, but better than you would see at your local electronic store and very cheap.
I find that the Monoprice speaker wire is VERY GOOD for the money and the cheap banana plugs they offer are not bad quality either.
I also always liked the Mogami Neglex as a relatively cheap cable, plus it is very durable if you have anyone walking in that general area.
Not high end cables, but better than you would see at your local electronic store and very cheap.
hermanv said:
Strangely enough, I cannot find anywhere within my postings, any indication that I mentioned correlation between audibility and inductance.
I provided an equation of inductance that is far more exacting than the approximation equation you posted. In addition, I explained in some detail, the design, material, and manufacturing tradeoffs and decisions which will affect the overall inductance.
If one wishes to attempt a correlation between a derived entity and a "measured or tested entity such as audibility", then one must choose a more exacting equation.
If you mean identical constants as derived using "approximation equations", then the correct saying is "caveat emptor". You get what you pay for.hermanv said:
Before any attempt at correlation, the metrics must be capable of accuracy and repeatability at the level required.. It is my firm belief that the metrics that are currently in use fall short of that requirement. (I haven't even seen a commercial load resistor that is capable of accurate portrayal of current vs voltage at audio frequencies).
hermanv said:
He he..someday I should introduce you to an aquaintance of mine at JPL...accuracy at the "3 significant figure level" allowed him to hit the broad side of a planet.. mars.. unfortunately, that was not the plan..
hermanv said:
I've no idea why you went off in this direction. I simply provided an equation for inductance that is far more accurate, and discounted some typical errors in understanding. Nothing more, nothing less..
Cheers, John
Rubbish. Any such controversy is contrived or, at best, the result of misunderstanding.
Wire, or any given conductor for that matter, has a very short list of characteristics that affect how the electricity moves through it (You, in the quantum gallery, stay out of this). All of them are measurable.
Just what a particular "sound" works out to in terms of the values of these measurable parameters is a problem with defining a "sound", not with the knowing of those parameters. If there is an audible difference between two types of wire, it is measurable. If the measurements are identical, there is no audible difference.
In other words, the trick is being able to say that this wire sounds 23 pf more capacitance-y. What the hell does that mean? The problem grows harder by several orders, as you ad differing parameters into each side of the comparison. What does an additional 23 pf of capacitance sound like in the presence of .005R less resistance?
To be sure, the difficulty in arriving at meaningful descriptors of
audible characteristics, derived from measured ones, is nigh-on impossible, but that most certainly does not mean that physical characteristics of what one listener might call "...a sharp after-burn and bouquet like an Aborigine's armpit..." can not be known precisely by a set of measurements.
Wire, or any given conductor for that matter, has a very short list of characteristics that affect how the electricity moves through it (You, in the quantum gallery, stay out of this). All of them are measurable.
Just what a particular "sound" works out to in terms of the values of these measurable parameters is a problem with defining a "sound", not with the knowing of those parameters. If there is an audible difference between two types of wire, it is measurable. If the measurements are identical, there is no audible difference.
In other words, the trick is being able to say that this wire sounds 23 pf more capacitance-y. What the hell does that mean? The problem grows harder by several orders, as you ad differing parameters into each side of the comparison. What does an additional 23 pf of capacitance sound like in the presence of .005R less resistance?
To be sure, the difficulty in arriving at meaningful descriptors of
audible characteristics, derived from measured ones, is nigh-on impossible, but that most certainly does not mean that physical characteristics of what one listener might call "...a sharp after-burn and bouquet like an Aborigine's armpit..." can not be known precisely by a set of measurements.
jrn77478 said:
Who's in the quantum gallery??
Is that like the doghouse??
jrn77478 said:
That actually assumes that the measurement apparatus is capable of resolution of the desired entity. It is not.
Unless you're holding out on us..can you do cross correlation for localization parametrics?
Cheers, John
ps...mean free path...HA..
Uh-oh. There's value in both points IMHO. However, I hear the rumbles of a potential 'measurement vs X' argument in the distance, and that's not good. So, may I suggest that we abandon that side of things, and readdress ourselves to the original question: what wire do people use with their own particular system, and why?
And on that subject, anyone using something other than copper or silver (or silver-plated copper) for the conductors?
And on that subject, anyone using something other than copper or silver (or silver-plated copper) for the conductors?
John, The thread topic is "favorite speaker wire", none of what I said was meant to be directed exclusively at you.jneutron said:
When asked what is my favorite speaker wire, I find myself compelled to mention that a given wire sounds a certain way to me. I also included a rule of thumb that all else being equal, I believe a larger gauge sounds better. That's what led to the discussion of physical constants.
jrn77478 is an excellent example of people who disagree with my opinion(s). I think wire(s) one the whole have an impact on sound quality that extends well beyond what conventional wisdom and wire equations would predict. He does not appear to agree.
All the equations and measurements of wire behavior are steady state, music is enjoyable precisely because it is not steady state. So a real discussion about the impact of wire on sound requires non-conventional measurements. As far as I know no real attempts to do this have been made.
The question was; "favorite" which is a judgment request.
planet10 said:
Really (on both points)?? This coming from the frugal-phile, I'm surprised... or are you razzing me? If not, and I am not being at all snide, I'm genuinely curious what it is you hate about the former and love about the latter? I will readily admit to never having spent the $$ on Eichmann, so I have not examined their stuff up close.
hermanv said:
Hmm. I've never encountered that problem. But, my speaker wires are stiff enough (11 awg.) that the terminated ends with spades are self-supporting. So it's pretty easy to put the spades in place with one hand. However, I can certainly see that if you were using a small gauge wire, the spade ends could be difficult to hold in place... hadn't considered that factor before.
Scottmoose said:
I wonder how aluminum would do, although I don't imagine it would last all that long in a home stereo environment. The stuff seems to fatigue and crack quite rapidly with repeated flexing.
hermanv said:
I've gone from 20 g zip to 10 & 12 g OFC, to what works well in my current system whicj is 24g cryo-treated aingle strand [[ everytime i switched to less wire things got better.
dave
Hmmm, I usually ask "How much power and how long of a run?" before aswering questions like these, but since it seems to have turned into "What are you using now on your system" thread, I will admit I use 18 gauge speaker wire from the dollar store 😀
It probably comes out of the same Shenzhen factory as the audiophool stuff anyway 😉
Cheers!
It probably comes out of the same Shenzhen factory as the audiophool stuff anyway 😉
Cheers!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.