ThorstenL. See my post #176 above. Or see your posts disappear.
Hi Bob,
I intended to show a scan of this here when I got around to scanning it, thank you for bringing this up.
Ciao T
I intended to show a scan of this here when I got around to scanning it, thank you for bringing this up.
Ciao T
I've reviewed the thread and seem to have missed your test. Can you return the favor and give me a clue as to where I can find this? merci.
I wonder for the exotic cable advocates that if you had a friend come over and do this type of experiment, would you really notice the difference and pick your cable?
Example: Testing your exotic/preferred speaker cables against two cheapo cable brands of the same gauge and length. You are out of the room and nowhere near it to hear anything.. Your trusted friend either changes the cables or not, then brings you into the room blindfolded and sits you in your listening chair and cues up a favorite piece of music that you've preselected. You sit and listen for round one, and make a check or an x if it's your cables or not.. He/she takes you out of the room and out of hearing range again, then changes the cables or not and brings you back in for round two.. Repeat all this again then take a break.. Don't go over the results and do the whole experiment again 3 times, take a break.. Don't go over the results and do the whole experiment again 3 times..
So now you have heard your cables 3 times and each cheapo cable 3 times on 3 separate sessions, for a total of 9 times hearing your preselected track of music.
How many times after listening blindfolded to your preselected track of music did you notice when your cables were used against the other brands??
Now try that with different speaker drivers and you will pick out the change quite easily..
My point/two cents: if you have the money to burn or just feel better knowing you have a great wonder cable in your system then all the best, but imo the money would be better invested into other aspects of the system or room etc
Disclaimer: I use a full Cat5 cable for each left and right channel, cheap and works for me
Hello DaveCan!
While I haven't yet done this with my speaker wires, I have done it with my ICs and can tell when they've been changed either blindfolded or standing on my head! In fact I've offered to submit to a DBT run by Sy with two stipulations:
1) It be done in my home ---{in my home because I'm intimately familar with the system/room sound}
2) The wires must be manually switched, i.e. sans an ABX box!
Thetubeguy1954 (Tom Scata)
No cite to anything you've published or done. Maybe that wasn't the post you were referring to?
That puts you head and shoulders above the philosophers.
As background to others: Tom and I have discussed this privately and at great length. As soon as we can coordinate schedules (when I was available to travel, Tom wasn't ready, he's now ready but I can't travel yet), it'll happen.
You might be interested in a simple test a friend of mine who makes speaker cables for
living has come up with. This was in response to customers who questioned the
technical basis for the design of his cables.
Its simply to use a good scope with one channel connected to the amplifier end
of a speaker cable and the other to the speaker end. One channel is inverted
and the difference between them displayed. The speaker load can be either
a real speaker, a simulated speaker or just a 6R resistor. The test amplifier
used has varied from a standard Class B amp to a Single Ended Valve amp.
The usual test signal is a square wave although sine waves and even
music can be used.
The test shows an error between the signal at the amplifier end and that at the
speaker end. This error varies between different types and lengths of cable
except the cable made by my friend which shows the smallest error and one that
doesnt change with length. Bob Cordell is on the right track on the type of cable
this is.
I have not performed this test myself only observed the results. If this test is
valid then it shows that a cable can cause errors in the signal transmission
and therefore should affect the sonics.
If there is interest in this test then I can approach my friend to show details
of the test procedure and his results.
living has come up with. This was in response to customers who questioned the
technical basis for the design of his cables.
Its simply to use a good scope with one channel connected to the amplifier end
of a speaker cable and the other to the speaker end. One channel is inverted
and the difference between them displayed. The speaker load can be either
a real speaker, a simulated speaker or just a 6R resistor. The test amplifier
used has varied from a standard Class B amp to a Single Ended Valve amp.
The usual test signal is a square wave although sine waves and even
music can be used.
The test shows an error between the signal at the amplifier end and that at the
speaker end. This error varies between different types and lengths of cable
except the cable made by my friend which shows the smallest error and one that
doesnt change with length. Bob Cordell is on the right track on the type of cable
this is.
I have not performed this test myself only observed the results. If this test is
valid then it shows that a cable can cause errors in the signal transmission
and therefore should affect the sonics.
If there is interest in this test then I can approach my friend to show details
of the test procedure and his results.
Dear Sy,
I would not want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to imply that there is a requirement for formal publication in an academic journal or the like before something may be mentioned in a post. If so, would you be so good to point where this written, if not could you clarify what you actually were saying, to avoid misunderstandings?
Ciao T
I would not want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to imply that there is a requirement for formal publication in an academic journal or the like before something may be mentioned in a post. If so, would you be so good to point where this written, if not could you clarify what you actually were saying, to avoid misunderstandings?
Ciao T
#174 contains only anecdotal evidence.
Presumably you expect that to be acceptable because it is from you.
May I also introduce my auntie Mabel's comments on my cable change she observed from the kitchen?
No? So in what way is my anecdotal evidence inferior to yours?
I really do not understand how you do not "get" this!
Presumably you expect that to be acceptable because it is from you.
May I also introduce my auntie Mabel's comments on my cable change she observed from the kitchen?
No? So in what way is my anecdotal evidence inferior to yours?
I really do not understand how you do not "get" this!
Error? I assume you mean difference. Unless the cable has zero resistance or zero length some difference is inevitable.Zeta4 said:
This test may simply be showing that a potential divider divides potential. Not necessarily an error, and not necessarily audible.
Using a square wave might show up all sorts of irrelevant stuff. I'm afraid your friend may have designed a cable which minimises things which don't matter. However, without further details it is difficult to say.
Hello Sy,
I'd like to make it crystal clear that I did not mean to insinuate to anyone that Sy wasn't willing to accept my challenge to test me as I submit to a DBT. As Sy has truthfully portaryed above, Sy and I have discussed this DBT at great length. Unfortunately when one of us was available the other wasn't and visa versa. Know that as soon as SY has the time and I hopefully, am available at that same time, we'll do a true, scientifically run DBT and the results, no matter what they are, will be published here for all to see and comment on!
Thetubeguy1954 (Tom Scata)
Last edited:
Hi,
Did I claim it contained more?
Not particularly. I do not ask anyone to accept any anecdotal evidence as fact.
Would you volunteer to be my next test subject then? I do not wish to upset any more friends, so an enemy will do splendidly.
Of course you may, I'm sure she is a splendid old gal. Hopefully not too hard of hearing, given her age...
Ciao T
Did I claim it contained more?
Not particularly. I do not ask anyone to accept any anecdotal evidence as fact.
Would you volunteer to be my next test subject then? I do not wish to upset any more friends, so an enemy will do splendidly.
Of course you may, I'm sure she is a splendid old gal. Hopefully not too hard of hearing, given her age...
Ciao T
And yet, you managed to anyway.
When one asks for a cite, it might mean to a scholarly journal, yes. It might mean to a published article in a non-refereed magazine. It might mean to a web page. It might mean to a downloadable pdf. It might mean a post on diyAudio. Anything at all like that, but what it does mean is that the test was described in detail and the explicit results given.
"Cite" does not mean philosophical ramblings and a discourse on the shortcomings of others. Nor does it mean, "I have some marvelous results but what I did and how I did it will not be revealed." It means a cite to an actual experiment.
There are some pitfalls setting this test up correctly, but if the rise and fall of the square wave is controlled, albeit most don't do this, it seems a perfectly reasonable test. If you can get the signal at the speaker terminals looking like the amplifier terminals, i.e., minimal difference, over a wide frequency range, what more is a speaker cable supposed to do?
At first sight, nothing. However, you might want it to be reasonably flexible, not too expensive, and not too good at picking up RF.Conrad Hoffman said:
Assuming the above, then 'minimal difference' is certainly sufficient but is it necessary? How minimal? Lets just suppose that a cable has been designed to minimise the peak amplitude of the 'error' in the scope test. If it does this by reducing supersonic 'error' at the expense of more audible lower frequency 'error' then a 'worse' cable might actually be better. Minimising the 'error' you are measuring is only good if you are measuring the right thing. My gut feeling is that signal subtraction to show up small differences is a better way to test amplifiers than cables.
Hi DF96
The maker of the cable is Max Townshend of Townshend Audio. He tells me he has
produced something on YouTube called "Geometry Matters" which should help
explain what his test entails and what results he gets. This should explain
things a lot better than I can. He is happy to supply any further details
of the test methodology if there is interest.
Im very interested in any constructive critisicm on the technique. Im interested
in whether the test is valid not about the details of various cable constructions.
This may help answer the question posed with the thread title. If we can establish
a valid test that can measure cable differences then it will go a long way to
separate myth from fact I hope.
The maker of the cable is Max Townshend of Townshend Audio. He tells me he has
produced something on YouTube called "Geometry Matters" which should help
explain what his test entails and what results he gets. This should explain
things a lot better than I can. He is happy to supply any further details
of the test methodology if there is interest.
Im very interested in any constructive critisicm on the technique. Im interested
in whether the test is valid not about the details of various cable constructions.
This may help answer the question posed with the thread title. If we can establish
a valid test that can measure cable differences then it will go a long way to
separate myth from fact I hope.
Last edited:
Hi,
Last time I looked this cable was of the "unrolled capacitor" type (two sandwiched foils), with a fair amount of metal in it, but Max seems to change things from time to time.
This geometry produces low impedance all across the audio range and hence the measured drop across the cable is very low at all frequencies, leading to low measured "error" with squarewaves.
Such a cable does have some other weaknesses (excessive capacitive loading for example), however it does illustrate that what some call "exotic cables" can perform better than "normal" because of their so called "exotic" construction.
My own Speaker cable based on 80 Conductor SCSI III ribbon (which, despite being using good quality industrial cable many no doubt will think of as "exotic") uses alternating connection of +/- and actually offers a similar electrical behaviour to this cable, in that it also has low DCR (16 mOhm/m), low inductance (appx. 28nH/m) and relatively high capacitance (2nF/m).
A notable improvement on solid metal ribbon cables with my approach is that it is not necessary to add flexible tails, which entails another metal-to-metal junction, instead the cable can terminate directly into simple goldplated copper spade's.
Ciao T
Last time I looked this cable was of the "unrolled capacitor" type (two sandwiched foils), with a fair amount of metal in it, but Max seems to change things from time to time.
This geometry produces low impedance all across the audio range and hence the measured drop across the cable is very low at all frequencies, leading to low measured "error" with squarewaves.
Such a cable does have some other weaknesses (excessive capacitive loading for example), however it does illustrate that what some call "exotic cables" can perform better than "normal" because of their so called "exotic" construction.
My own Speaker cable based on 80 Conductor SCSI III ribbon (which, despite being using good quality industrial cable many no doubt will think of as "exotic") uses alternating connection of +/- and actually offers a similar electrical behaviour to this cable, in that it also has low DCR (16 mOhm/m), low inductance (appx. 28nH/m) and relatively high capacitance (2nF/m).
A notable improvement on solid metal ribbon cables with my approach is that it is not necessary to add flexible tails, which entails another metal-to-metal junction, instead the cable can terminate directly into simple goldplated copper spade's.
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.