If I get around to more research then I'll publish, until then you are welcome to look at the existing research.
L, R, & C and variations there of are not all that is happening! One big issue is EMI reception. That varies with cable design and importance with amplifier design. There are other issues and when I see a cable Guru address them, I might pay more attention!
Conclusion, speaker design (different XO choices including linear phase), speaker placement, room treatments, active control (auto EQing or similar) have a far more meaningful effect then any cable ever discussed online. From what I have seen from 99.9% of all rooms and all speakers I think people might want to consider working on improving those instead of fussing over cables
I just saw a quote for 60K++ for a speaker system in a room that can be fixed acoustically for a few hundred!
Articles on room acoustics get published every so often but I never see reader's comments afterwards...
yeah, I see pictures of $500K systems on audiogon, it includes about $50K in cables but I see the room and think what an horrible room. Zero control of room modes.
If someone is going to spend so much time and $$$ on the changes that people can not even show a measured difference in the soundwave (the only thing that really matters), I would think they would look at the room first and do some changes that actually does change (in a good way) how soundwaves interact with the room but then again audio science and having a crap load of money does not seem to have much of a correlation.
Last edited:
Hi,
Hmm, so you seem to suggest that polar and CSD measurement show conclusively all about the performance of a Music playback system. If this is not the case please clarify.
Otherwise I doubt such a position is tenable. There are still plenty of other measurements one may take that are also relevant.
Ciao T
Hmm, so you seem to suggest that polar and CSD measurement show conclusively all about the performance of a Music playback system. If this is not the case please clarify.
Otherwise I doubt such a position is tenable. There are still plenty of other measurements one may take that are also relevant.
Ciao T
Hi,
There may be something to this. However, I know from my experimentation that many null results may be more down to "Nocebo" than the absence of audibly different stimuli and bad statistics.
So one may suggest that much of what is present in regards to Cables is induced by a combination of real differences, placebo and nocebo effects and a lack of valid and meaningful statistics.
This way we can actually take corrective action and get this whole silly debate towards an evidence based approach, which is currently sorely lacking on all sides of the debate.
All I ever read is that "he said that she said that he said that she said" ad nauseam...
Ciao T
There may be something to this. However, I know from my experimentation that many null results may be more down to "Nocebo" than the absence of audibly different stimuli and bad statistics.
So one may suggest that much of what is present in regards to Cables is induced by a combination of real differences, placebo and nocebo effects and a lack of valid and meaningful statistics.
This way we can actually take corrective action and get this whole silly debate towards an evidence based approach, which is currently sorely lacking on all sides of the debate.
All I ever read is that "he said that she said that he said that she said" ad nauseam...
Ciao T
I wonder if the concepts that migeO has been championing here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...iant-leap-maturizing-audio-3.html#post2616725 might be utilized to help us understand the subjective claims about cable differences. Certainly the wavelet analysis was the only form of analysis that showed the differences between EnABL'd and untreated speakers and did so quite convincingly, even to the stalwart defenders at the razors edge of Occam.
Here is a source for this analysis software Elias Pekonen Home Page I wonder if perhaps Simon, who has actually measured these differences, might waste some of his life applying his test signals to wavelet analysis.
Bud
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...iant-leap-maturizing-audio-3.html#post2616725 might be utilized to help us understand the subjective claims about cable differences. Certainly the wavelet analysis was the only form of analysis that showed the differences between EnABL'd and untreated speakers and did so quite convincingly, even to the stalwart defenders at the razors edge of Occam.
Here is a source for this analysis software Elias Pekonen Home Page I wonder if perhaps Simon, who has actually measured these differences, might waste some of his life applying his test signals to wavelet analysis.
Bud
polars and CSDs are going to show the differences if they really exist (ie. rolled off highs, tighter bass, etc are easily seen in those measurements). We can start there.
This has nothing to do with "Music playback system", it has everything to do with any part of the chain altering the soundwave the speaker creates. Its really important in the world of science to atleast break everything down to "first principles" because we can not describe anything about music playback systems if we do not understand the fundamental soundwave and how its changing.
I think of it this way...
1. 100% of the signal chain ends at the speaker. The speaker is what produces soundwaves and what you hear in room.
2. If the speaker is producing 100% of the sound in the room then we are able to measure what happens to that soundwave when each IC, each speaker wire, even each amp is connected. There can not be a change in what you hear without the soundwave being different. Measurements pick up this difference far beyond what anyone's ears can.
3. The soundwave is the only thing that is important to what changes actually occur and if any IC, any speaker wire, any amp is doing something different then the soundwave will change.
Conclusion for me is to measure the soundwave for any change. You know all about measurements and how many can be done. I have two questions.
1. Are you saying the soundwave from a speaker can be altered and NOT picked up by a measurement?
2. Are you saying that the soundwave could be exactly the same during cable testing but you will hear something different?
FWIW, Im not trying to say there is zero changes. I have just been asking for audio measurements to validate these opinions and it seems the people believing they hear something different are not those who measure speakers. It just seems that way but I always wonder why people do not measure when it comes to scientific testing of products. I do like spending $$$ if there is a real difference so if there is a scientific difference Im ready to improve my system.
Last edited:
Im definitely a fan of what Elias and mige0 are doing with wavelets, did they actually post those differences on your thread?? Would you mind giving me the post #, its a long thread
Measurements validate it one way or another. All I ever read is opinion without scientific validation. All of the science over the 20+ years I have followed this tells me one thing.
Most people honestly are horrible testers and shouldn't post their opinion as any sort of fact in all these discussions
I do know one thing during my my University years (Univeristy of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada). I won probably $5K in proving audiophiles wrong all the time they were shocked constantly how their precious amps and speaker wires didnt actually matter as much as they thought
Thanks for sending this. But I think it would only be useful if plots were shown of the loudspeaker's impedance vs frequency and the inductive and capacitive components thereof. Some interesting correlations might show up. This measuring set up is flawed otherwise. The same cable could do well on one loudspeaker, and badly on another, and with another cable, the results could be reversed.
Vacuphile, the loudspeaker was a Sonics Allegra and the first plot shows that the impedance curve is reflected into the cable. It is a 3 way reflex design with a minimum impedance of 3.3 Ohm. This is rather low impedance and with a higher impedance speaker, thinner cable would perform ok. Most speakers have also a rising trend of the impedance in the treble due to voice coil inductance so even a higher inductance cable would work. The loss in the treble and frequency dependent loss of volume in a cheep 0.75qmm PVC cable could of cause also be equalized in the crossover or by the use of electronics, analog or digital. If then there is still a considerable difference in sound to the non equalized exotic cable i would be surprised. Yes you are correct, this test is only valid with the speaker and amp combination i used but is has shown that there is not simply a treble and volume loss in cables but also it forms a frequency dependent divider due to reactance. A "normal" customer has no idea about that so he is simply swapping cables and hears differences. This could be due to simple, linear differences in frequency response, although minuscule.
Is that a valid 3rd party test?? Is it just a link so I can read it too?
btw, Even Monster and BOSE are famious for their "white paper" stuff.
Yes, i think the essence is valid. i did the test myself when i was CEO of Sonics so it contains some sales blurb. I mentioned that in my previous post. Sorry for that. You can read the complete thing under SONICS® - Audioequipment Lautsprechersystems Schallwandlersysteme der Marktführer "Technics".
I found also another effect in cables that has to do with a residual noise. I was much criticised for that on a german forum so it is not contained in the JPEG picture. I measured with 16 bit precision so it could be an experimental artifact. I was prepared to do that noise measurement again with 24bit and averaging but i did not come that far. Reading the replies on that particular forum really slaughtered my motivation. Today i take a pragmatic view. I know what i like and simply compare the cables in my system by listening. Let me only say so much that an excellent performing cable can be bought for less then 3,-€ a meter. I see no reason to spend a fortune on cables. On the contrary. I found that most exotic cables that make "a huge difference" have enormous capacitance ( low level cable ) or considerable band pass limiting ( loudspeaker cable ).
Also some loudspeaker cables are so low in inductance and from not so good isolation material that the capacitance sky rockets. That drives the amps into oscillation. Maybe not so much that they fail but enough to add some "sparkle".
I found also another effect in cables that has to do with a residual noise. I was much criticised for that on a german forum so it is not contained in the JPEG picture. I measured with 16 bit precision so it could be an experimental artifact. I was prepared to do that noise measurement again with 24bit and averaging but i did not come that far. Reading the replies on that particular forum really slaughtered my motivation. Today i take a pragmatic view. I know what i like and simply compare the cables in my system by listening. Let me only say so much that an excellent performing cable can be bought for less then 3,-€ a meter. I see no reason to spend a fortune on cables. On the contrary. I found that most exotic cables that make "a huge difference" have enormous capacitance ( low level cable ) or considerable band pass limiting ( loudspeaker cable ).
Also some loudspeaker cables are so low in inductance and from not so good isolation material that the capacitance sky rockets. That drives the amps into oscillation. Maybe not so much that they fail but enough to add some "sparkle".
Hi,
It will show some differences, however to shoe up these need to be gross. More over, it would likely not show anything if RFI produces additional low level distortion, which would be measurable using appropriate methods and may very well be audible.
Correct, however CSD is a blunt tool for much of these alterations.
Absolutely, however many audible differences will have minimal impact on CSD plots while other stuff that shows up big on CSD plots has low audible impact.
In order to declare that anything audible or measurable in the system chain will show up in CSD plots and anything that does not show up is not worth bothering with you would have to show proof, if you want to be scientific.
Do you have such proof?
Sure, but CSD plots have a very specific view of looking at things, one that is time domain /amplitude focused, so there will other stuff that shows little impact. It is one metric we may wish to look at, but not all we need to...
Yet you did not ask for all the possible measurements to be shown, or for the raw data to be supplied or any such, you asked for one special very limited set of measurements
No, I am saying that a CSD plot does not show all possible alterations in a manner that is clearly visible.
As far as a CSD Plot is concerned, I would say that many changes may not be apparent from comparing two of them of the same speaker.
Yet you ask for specific measurements which will highlight some types of changes but not others. So you have selected a specific measurement, in which case I would expect you to provide justification why this specific set of measurements would be approriate, to illustrate for example RFI/EMI and other factors that have been postulated here.
So please do so.
Who says they do not? However, not everyone seeks to publish, others do.
What if there is an actual difference that fails to show up in your set of two specific "scientific" measurements that exclude all other possible measurements? Does that make these differences "unscientific"?
And who said (again) anything about spending $$$. If you want to debate prices I do not think this is the place or thread.
You proposed a set of measurements, that you wanted to be shown by anyone saying they heard a difference. Not only that, but actually measurements that are quite complex to make (polar plots).
Surely, before you can expect anyone to comply with such an extraordinary request, you should provide proof that the whole effort produce something that will highlight any differences clearly. So please, instead of waffling about dollars, why not provide your proof (and for all those who may be unaware of how to make your measurements a detailed set of instructions - thank you I know how to make these BTW, though polar plots are difficult with my available resources, doung a few off axis measurements is timeconsuming enough)...
Ciao T
It will show some differences, however to shoe up these need to be gross. More over, it would likely not show anything if RFI produces additional low level distortion, which would be measurable using appropriate methods and may very well be audible.
Correct, however CSD is a blunt tool for much of these alterations.
Absolutely, however many audible differences will have minimal impact on CSD plots while other stuff that shows up big on CSD plots has low audible impact.
In order to declare that anything audible or measurable in the system chain will show up in CSD plots and anything that does not show up is not worth bothering with you would have to show proof, if you want to be scientific.
Do you have such proof?
Sure, but CSD plots have a very specific view of looking at things, one that is time domain /amplitude focused, so there will other stuff that shows little impact. It is one metric we may wish to look at, but not all we need to...
Yet you did not ask for all the possible measurements to be shown, or for the raw data to be supplied or any such, you asked for one special very limited set of measurements
No, I am saying that a CSD plot does not show all possible alterations in a manner that is clearly visible.
As far as a CSD Plot is concerned, I would say that many changes may not be apparent from comparing two of them of the same speaker.
Yet you ask for specific measurements which will highlight some types of changes but not others. So you have selected a specific measurement, in which case I would expect you to provide justification why this specific set of measurements would be approriate, to illustrate for example RFI/EMI and other factors that have been postulated here.
So please do so.
Who says they do not? However, not everyone seeks to publish, others do.
What if there is an actual difference that fails to show up in your set of two specific "scientific" measurements that exclude all other possible measurements? Does that make these differences "unscientific"?
And who said (again) anything about spending $$$. If you want to debate prices I do not think this is the place or thread.
You proposed a set of measurements, that you wanted to be shown by anyone saying they heard a difference. Not only that, but actually measurements that are quite complex to make (polar plots).
Surely, before you can expect anyone to comply with such an extraordinary request, you should provide proof that the whole effort produce something that will highlight any differences clearly. So please, instead of waffling about dollars, why not provide your proof (and for all those who may be unaware of how to make your measurements a detailed set of instructions - thank you I know how to make these BTW, though polar plots are difficult with my available resources, doung a few off axis measurements is timeconsuming enough)...
Ciao T
Joachim,
I think it is an easy test to do and it would be useful if high end audio outlets would help their customers in this way to choose the right speaker-cable combination. Problem with doing so is that the unscrupulous could make a +/- .05 dB curve look like a roller coaster. But, if implemented truthfully, it could bring everything on a higher plane.
I think it is an easy test to do and it would be useful if high end audio outlets would help their customers in this way to choose the right speaker-cable combination. Problem with doing so is that the unscrupulous could make a +/- .05 dB curve look like a roller coaster. But, if implemented truthfully, it could bring everything on a higher plane.
Problem is, it's old news and totally unremarkable. See the Greiner and Davis papers I've cited previously that go back 20-30 years, as well as the frequency response changes shown by The Audio Critic when modeling several commercial cables with a loudspeaker load (in their case, a Carver Amazing). The "listening" comments are pure ad fluff.
If a pathological cable causes a 3dB droop in the frequency response, it will be audible. So... don't use pathological cables.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.