I'd like to go the other way on the topic of cables... if cables alter the sound then it follows that the voltage signal that passes through the cable is altered, either by the cable itself or the network effect the cable has on the surrounding circuitry. If we measure - with sufficient input impedance - the voltage at either end of the cable with today's finest amplification - and get differences in the two signals at levels that drop below audibility - then we have to assume it is the network influence that causes the different sound caused by cables... If that is the case then you can assume that some equipment may have designs that are more influenced by cables than others - and that some designs may not be influenced by cables in any way.
In most cases the network is actually somewhat consistent between the majority of equipment... for instance a power amp driving a loudspeaker.
In these cases you might be able to jump to the statement that most cables with most amplifiers and most loudspeakers to not effect the signals that reach the loudspeakers differently. Any differences observed then would not be discernible in a blind test.
In most cases the network is actually somewhat consistent between the majority of equipment... for instance a power amp driving a loudspeaker.
In these cases you might be able to jump to the statement that most cables with most amplifiers and most loudspeakers to not effect the signals that reach the loudspeakers differently. Any differences observed then would not be discernible in a blind test.
Hi Shaun and Carl, glad you guys are up for it! I have had some thoughts about methodology, but would like to think them through a bit more before embarking on a test then having some rabid, nihilistic, logic dominated, lead-eared non-believer shoot the whole thing down in flames because of "incorrect" methodology.
My initial objective is to demonstrate (or negate) once and for all, in a manner acceptable to all (or at least the overwhelming majority of people who have been participating in this discussion), the premise that cables can influence the sound of a hi-fi system.
My second objective is to experiment with all possible cables in the system to demonstrate (or negate) the premise that they can all play a role in the sound of the system.
I think that ought to be enough to start with, but if anyone out there feels strongly about including something else in the test, speak out now or forever hold your peace.
Happy new year to all diyAudio members and their families.
William.
My initial objective is to demonstrate (or negate) once and for all, in a manner acceptable to all (or at least the overwhelming majority of people who have been participating in this discussion), the premise that cables can influence the sound of a hi-fi system.
My second objective is to experiment with all possible cables in the system to demonstrate (or negate) the premise that they can all play a role in the sound of the system.
I think that ought to be enough to start with, but if anyone out there feels strongly about including something else in the test, speak out now or forever hold your peace.
Happy new year to all diyAudio members and their families.
William.
hihopes said:
But, is there anyone that doubt that? It's obvious for anyone with basic insight in physics/electronics that a cable can have various influences on the performance of audio gear.
What would be more interesting IMO is a test that shows audible differences that can not be explained by known causes and measurements.
If you succed with that you have done something no one has ever done before. But picking out cables in blind tests has been done and always has there been an explanation and something that could be eliminated by proper design.
/Peter
Pan said:
For sure, is that not the reason for the last hundred pages?
There, fixed it for you. But we are supposing well designed cables.
link to those tests where cables HAVE been picked?
Andy, would you like to comment on this, as I recall you have a belief that ALL dbts (by design and execution) are flawed and biased hence it's obvious that cables cannot be picked under dbt conditions. Seems you are worng, but we'll wait till we get the l;inks, I agree.
Just hope it's not the bird with the mother picking the difference thru a wall whilst doing the ironing....sheessshhhh
EDIT just re-read your post peter, and I could have gotten it backwards first time thru. I think we are saying the same thing, ie it's probably easy to design a BAD cable that WILL affect the sound, and yes you could pick those.
If that is what you meant, then sorry for getting it wrong. Additionally, if that is what you meant then I understand the reference you made to that can not be explained by known causes and measurements.
Basically ANY ordinary expensive audiophile cable should be ok. Eg, there was initially concern that the network box in Mike Lavignes cables could contain god knows what, some sort of LCR network that would affect the signal. However, even with that network box none of the participants could pick it over monster cable.
so gut feel, any wire will do for the test.
how about as a control, someone make up a cable DESIGNED to alter the sound, ie EXTREMELY inductive or something, you know, waaay over the top.
It would not surprise me that even when deliberately setting out to alter the signal that the end results are surprisingly small.
Terry,
thanks for taking a turn halfway thru your post! ;-)
Yea, I think we have a similar view on this.
I have heard differnces between cables myself a couple of times but I don't doubt* that could be measured as a change in frequency response or amp instability into capacitive load.
*I did doubt that back then but since then I have learned a lot and performed blind listetning tests that have taught me how very small changes in frequency response we actually can hear sometimes.
/Peter
thanks for taking a turn halfway thru your post! ;-)
Yea, I think we have a similar view on this.
I have heard differnces between cables myself a couple of times but I don't doubt* that could be measured as a change in frequency response or amp instability into capacitive load.
*I did doubt that back then but since then I have learned a lot and performed blind listetning tests that have taught me how very small changes in frequency response we actually can hear sometimes.
/Peter
Happy New Year.
I agree with the above posts. I also think the issue is whether LCR covers the 'real' (not imagined) differences heard by people, or do we have to admit that our electrical theories and measurements are missing something.
So I propose a test that uses two cables with the same LCR but different materials and geometry.
My money is on no difference.
I agree with the above posts. I also think the issue is whether LCR covers the 'real' (not imagined) differences heard by people, or do we have to admit that our electrical theories and measurements are missing something.
So I propose a test that uses two cables with the same LCR but different materials and geometry.
My money is on no difference.
fredex said:Happy New Year.
I agree with the above posts. I also think the issue is whether LCR covers the 'real' (not imagined) differences heard by people, or do we have to admit that our electrical theories and measurements are missing something.
So I propose a test that uses two cables with the same LCR but different materials and geometry.
My money is on no difference.
Agreed - but also hugely dissimilar price. ie: One magnet wire, one high-end well-reviewed esoteric cable $+++
rdf said:
If this is the start of all of us working together to iron out the protocol then that's fantastic. But, you will have to explain it a bit better, at least for me, I don't mind being the town idiot if we get a very clear position at the end of the day.
Eg, RFI and microphonics, would that not have more to do with interconnect properties rather than speaker cables?? Guess we need to decide what exactly is being tested at each stage and take care not to mix results.
Additionally, I suspect that anything that can increase the chance of detection is a good thing, example, the system and room on which the test should be done is best done on the system of the guy who is a cable believer rather than the disbeliever (given a choice in any one locale). that maximises the chances of detection and removes a lot of objections (many of which are valid) to test results.
Sorry terry, didn't realize the focus had shifted to just a speaker cable test. A couple very long days at work. When setting up a test to determine the impact of factors X, Y or Z on result N, any additional factors with potential effects on N must be considered and controlled as part of the protocol. Many high feedback amplifiers for example return the signal at the speaker terminals literally to the input device, one terminal from the RCA connectors. If the potential for RFI (again, example) isn't considered the results, null or significant, are weakened by the omission and open to objection. It's a matter of saying factor X was considered, its presence measured, and the result shows it's either below the threshold of measurement/audibility or corrective measures were applied to get it there.
A more basic roadblock might be finding two cables with equivalent wide band LRC but different geometries. And wide band might mean really wide. Was it Self who found different cables resulted in different frequency responses and peaking in the AM band?
A more basic roadblock might be finding two cables with equivalent wide band LRC but different geometries. And wide band might mean really wide. Was it Self who found different cables resulted in different frequency responses and peaking in the AM band?
I think that if we are going to find a measurable change that is also reflected in a subjective evaluation, via DBT, the meat of the problem will be found in dielectric constant X dielectric surface area, adjacent to copper wire X copper surface area. Forget about L and R and look carefully at the C, and in the picofarad range at that. No other combination I poked at had anything like the subjective change found with altering dielectric constant and area covered by C on an adjacent wire surface. And you are going to have to have pretty massive AC accessible copper surfaces at that.
Bud
Bud
I'm not saying it has shifted to anything specific at all, but maybe saying we should decide what we are testing first. And I hope I don't come across as dictating anything here!!
To even get something off the ground I think we need to take the baby steps first, and not get too precious. But conversely, we do not want to do a slapdash job of it, would turn all off for the future. So a robust, well designed yet simple test that is of value is what we need.
From all accounts, to do a well constructed test takes determination and effort, tbh it does not sound like a walk in the park or someones definition of a fun day out!
Hence, part of what we're doing right now is being very specific about what we're testing, as you say to get all parties to agree with the procedure and hence the results.
Sounds like with your description you are far ahead of me technically, that's fine. Guess all I want in any test is simply two things only, level matched and unsighted.
whatever we test or how we do it is fine by me (at the moment, maybe I would recognise something later on ???)
Whilst we're at it, any takers in NSW??
Looks like some have put their hands up as an expression of interest, but not many really.
To even get something off the ground I think we need to take the baby steps first, and not get too precious. But conversely, we do not want to do a slapdash job of it, would turn all off for the future. So a robust, well designed yet simple test that is of value is what we need.
From all accounts, to do a well constructed test takes determination and effort, tbh it does not sound like a walk in the park or someones definition of a fun day out!
Hence, part of what we're doing right now is being very specific about what we're testing, as you say to get all parties to agree with the procedure and hence the results.
Sounds like with your description you are far ahead of me technically, that's fine. Guess all I want in any test is simply two things only, level matched and unsighted.
whatever we test or how we do it is fine by me (at the moment, maybe I would recognise something later on ???)
Whilst we're at it, any takers in NSW??
Looks like some have put their hands up as an expression of interest, but not many really.
Just recently, a friend was asking what interconnect with a length of 5M would be good to work with my active speakers. Since I did not think inteconnects more expensive than my speakers made sense, I tried using twin ethernet cable solid core with a braided shield added. The sound was really clean, and even sounded a bit better than a pair of old 2M of MIT330 interconnects I was using (much to my surprise). The only thing was I had to reduce the volume of the amp a bit because some noise was coupling in.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.