Technical discussion on loudspeaker cable

[jneutron]

Re: Re: Re: Reply to Original Posted Question, Part 3

I don't think that dragging Mr. Pease's misinformed personal opinion of me into the technical discussion is truly relevant, nor is it helpful for you take the attitude that you have on this subject. What happened to all those platitudes and urges to have honest technical discussions?

What does his opinion of you have to do with anything???
Do not attempt again to personalize this discussion..here is the statement again..please read it this time..

What does Pease have to say about your assertions of DA and speaker wires??

Note the words "your assertions of...."

From what I recall, he thinks very little of your assertions..I have no clue as to what he thinks of YOU, nor am I interested..please remain on topic.

Is it relevant if the person who listened to your dual coaxial speaker cables thought you were a XXXXXX!!!!!??????

For a while he did waffle back and forth, he was having some difficult times...and yes, the fact that he had lots of good things to say about the wires as well as some critical comments (even though YOU believe he thinks me an XXX)..lends even more weight to his opinions..

I think that the data presented at Mr. Pease's web page is relevant, and can stand on it's own. That Mr. Pease is upset about my referencing it is another matter entirely.

Who said he was upset? I was referring to the casual, selective picking, of some info, while summarily rejecting what does not please you..

I hope that you can refrain from the snide comments and covert attacks in future posted replies to me and others. .

Your comment would carry weight, had snide comments been made...love the "and others"...you are alone in mis-reading, Jon..

You are over-reacting..please read the posts accurately.

And as I have stated before, I think that you are mis-stating the level of stress necesary for capacitor distortions to show up..

Actually, no..I point out that the stress levels on speaker wires is two to three orders of magnitude lower than the data you choose to pick. And I point out that you have never found that which you say is audible...

The measurements in the "Picking Capacitors" article were not taken near the dielectric breakdown point, they were taken at more or less normal line level voltages...

Which means what? If you want to compare apples to apples, you need to use apples..If you want to prove these assertions, either subject speaker wires to kilovolt level signals, or bring cap signal levels down to millivolt.

AND, there was absolutely no scientific control in that article..capacitor values and geometries were selected without control of jellyroll construction, interdigitated leaves, plate thickess, nuthin....while a very good article as a first effort, it falls very well short of providing engineering information.

It's really an excellent, eye opening article for it's day..but, we've learned so much more since, some which trashed the initial thoughts on reasons, some reinforcing..you have to continue to learn. ESL involvement is one significant aspect they didn't understand back then..you know, why an electrolytic drops by near 50% at 20Khz?..

In point of fact, DA manifests at low voltages, and is not limited to a high voltage situation....

You are stating that which is already provided by Pease..

Apply it to speaker wires, with the applicable voltage gradients..

Speaker cables in the home can be exposed to voltage levels of close to a hundred volts, modern SS power amps are now readily available in that range of output. ....

You already know I use rmx 1450's..

You neglect the fact that the dc flashover for speaker cables, as a result of dielectric thickness, is in the 10 plus kilovolt range..do the math...

The other factor is, we are not talking about nice, neat, tidy normal capacitor dielectrics, we are in fact, including PVC, which is a terrible quality dielectric when compared to PE or teflon.

Nobody said otherwise..you assert all this stuff, but where is the data? Any data whatsoever would be a starting point..and I've pointed out that your load is useless..physically, it stores way too much energy...you can't fix that...

We have the measured levels from the various articles I cite, including the "A Real-Time Signal Test for Capacitor Quality" article in Audio Amatuer. You may not like the test procedures, but there IS some data there, as long as you don't deliberately close your eyes and discount it completely.

When I see "wires", or "wire insulation stresses" in the title, that'll float my boat..simply transplanting test results from capacitors to wires, is not proof of anything..

Was this entirely neccessary, with the nasty comments?

Again you rail against personal attack that is not there...silly.

First, few retail speaker cables have a characteristic Z close to that of the load, and while there are some DIY speaker cable designs that come a bit closer, including my own CC89259, the braided CAT5, and your double coax (which is conceptually the same as the patented Wire World speaker cables), very very few of them really get down all the way where they would need to be.

Never said so..I said going low Z give the most capacitance from which to measure the effect..since you have NEVER found it, I pointed out how to maximize the possibility..the WW wire is solenoidal, with pitch ratio and conductor quantity controlled for some god forsaken screwball reason..

Secondly, if the sheer amount of capacitance can be avoided, then why not avoid it? Your criteria is limited to that of your own theories, which I have not yet begun to discuss, and I keep reminding you of this, and you keep ignoring it and insisting on forcing those theories into the discussion, even when they are at the moment, out of place..

Avoid it? not if you wish to find it in test..And my criteria is clearly stated, please learn it if you wish to point it out, as you keep making errors..

The criteria has simply been stated as minimization of internally stored energy.period..this happens only when line Z equals load Z. Localization theory I have presented is what should have been the first thing to do in the industry, long before soundstage became a goal. I embarked on a study of it because all the "high end" audio guys failed miserably at addressing this aspect of human hearing. And it is required to establish test criteria, otherwise the path forward will be nothing but stumbling about in the dark..

Do you honestly think that only YOUR theories are worthy of discussion, and all else must be ignored or the subject turned back to only your theories?..

Learn the theory, then discuss it..pretending to be a victim is of no use..

I was not satisfied with your figures at that time, and have not verified that they are correct...

It is irrelevant whether you are satisfied or not..it is the direct application of equations which are in five e/m textbooks on my shelf..(Rojansky, Vladimir, EM fields and waves, (3rd edition, I believe), Dover, 1979...pages 320,321)..and it is my work environment..

This is still in the nature of insisting that only your theories are relevant, and all else is so much drek. Measuring what you are calling localization may not be the only factor we need to be concerned with. ...

Understanding the basis of sound propagation and localization from multiple sources is the foundation of all soundstage reproduction..you divert from the fact that it has been neglected, when instead, you should be learning..

However, if we take one moment to look at the basic numbers you have been posting, then it would seem that you are advocating a very small amount of signal distortion as an issue, when you reference 0.03 dB differences, that is roughly equivalent to about -50 dB down or more. Some of the other numbers you have posted are also fairly far down there if converted to how many dB down that would be.

I find it odd that when I mention -90 dB, and have given an example of why I think that this is relevant, you call it pure hogwash, yet when you mention some very small amounts of signal distortion, those are perfectly relevant....

It's about time you actually read the numbers dude..

But you still don't comprehend english very well..I said the hogwash is referring to the test equipment and -90 dB. Aren't you aware that FFT's with even 50Khz bandwidth don't find ITD at the 2 to 5 uSec level?? And your power loads don't draw current at that speed..You might as well be talking about using a teaspoon as a measuring device..

As I stated, YOU are allowing preconceptions to keep you from realizing where we agree ..your para here is the first time I have seen you even start to understand what I am discussing..Hey, it's only been a year or so..I'm patient.. if the concepts were easy, everybody'd already know them...and, it's only a start..the difficult concepts are ahead..

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Guys, let's keep our eyes on the technical issues here, not characterizations of other people.

I believe I have been doing so..but thanks for the reminder.

Cheers, John

 

[jan.didden]

Messieurs Moderators,

Do we really need to figure out all about localisation, ITD (whatever that is), IDD etc before we can finally get back on topic? Shouldn't this thread be split into the original one, and one on John's hobby horses? (Which, as I have said earlier, are quite interesting, but also quite off-topic).

Jan Didden

 

[jneutron]

Messieurs Moderators,

Do we really need to figure out all about localisation, ITD (whatever that is), IDD etc before we can finally get back on topic? Shouldn't this thread be split into the original one, and one on John's hobby horses? (Which, as I have said earlier, are quite interesting, but also quite off-topic).

Jan Didden

Hobby horse...what an interesting thing to say..

ITD is the ear to ear delay we use to find a sound source in space.

IID is the ear to ear intensity difference we use to find a source in space.

They interact..

Haven't you ever listened to a CD off the computer soundcard, only to find that regardless of how you try to balance levels, the stupid image is slightly to the right (mine, anyway)?

It took a while to find it, but it turned out that my sound card mux'd the inputs...only one A/D....only one S/H... So, one channel has a half delay w/r to the other...

The only way I can center the image is by adjusting the "pan" pot.. And still, it doesn't correctly place the images...

I spent days trying to balance the channel levels..and cleaning my ears, rotating headphones, changing headphones...you name it..

It was a parameter that is ignored..don't exist...

And, one you do not think applies to what we hear...sorry to upset your wagon...

...Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the answer to the poster's question, without localization, is simply":low L, low C, and Low R...

What's left?? Reductionism applied here only brings us down to the argument of less filling/tastes great..and the nonsense flames that so far, have been absent here..

Cheers, John

 

[jan.didden]

An interesting post...Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the answer to the poster's question, without localization, is simply":low L, low C, and Low R...

What's left?? Reductionism applied here only brings us down to the argument of less filling/tastes great..

Cheers, John

John,

You do a lot of engineering and precious little of scientific thinking. As I have tried to convince you and others before, if suffices to show that the non-linearities of cables, however you want to call or specify them, are significant in comparison to the non-linearities of the other components like speakers, xover, amps, to make the case for possible cable audibility.

Example: you have shown a long time ago a graph of characteristic impedance referred to the load impedance, and the energy storage. You convincingly showed that energy storage is at the minimum when the CI equals the load impedance. BUT, that was in the tens of microjoules ranges. A 1 watt signal over time represents 1 joule, so you have convincingly shown that even with a CR way off the mark, the energy storage effects are 80-100dB below a 1 watt signal level. Now, that is interesting, it would shine a clear light on cable influence if we somehow could get a handle on how this would influence audibility of that particular cable property. But instead, very unscientifically, you ramble on about how CR = Zload is required, and IDT, and localisation.

While all this does a good job of showing your proficiency and expertise, it IS off topic. You have, in effect, hijacked this thread for reasons we can only guess at.

Jan Didden

 

[jneutron]

You do a lot of engineering and precious little of scientific thinking.

Interesting...incorrect, but interesting..

Example: you have shown a long time ago a graph of characteristic impedance referred to the load impedance, and the energy storage. You convincingly showed that energy storage is at the minimum when the CI equals the load impedance. BUT, that was in the tens of microjoules ranges. A 1 watt signal over time represents 1 joule, so you have convincingly shown that even with a CR way off the mark, the energy storage effects are 80-100dB below a 1 watt signal level. Now, that is interesting, it would shine a clear light on cable influence if we somehow could get a handle on how this would influence audibility of that particular cable property. But instead, very unscientifically, you ramble on about how CR = Zload is required, and IDT, and localisation..

So far, you have railed about my inaccuracies with the speed of sound, you were off by a factor of ten.

You don't know what ITD and IID are, even though I've detailed what they are..

You didn't know what a joule was...and still apparently do not..

A joule is a watt-second.

a 100 watt 10Khz signal puts 100 joules into the load every second..a ten Khz signal is .1 milliseconds per cycle..one lobe is 50 uSec..

100 watts in a second is:
10 watts in .1 sec
1 watt in 10 milliseconds
100 milliwatts in 1 millisecond
10 milliwatts in .1 millisecond, or 100 uSec.
1 milliwatt in 10 uSec, or 5 milliwatts in 50 usec.

(and yes, it's watt-seconds), I tired of typing that.

Now, 10 microjoules is what percentage of 5 milliwatts? .2%

.2%...hmmm..

Now, increase the inductive storage an order of magnitude or two...like zip cord does..is 2%, 5%, 20% important?? Audible??

At 10 kHz, I don't know..

While all this does a good job of showing your proficiency and expertise, it IS off topic.

Wait a minute...didn't you say "precious little of scientific thinking"

I recommend you review any math you post, understand the definitions you wish to use, and get your units right (units are the most difficult to keep straight..) I've been very gentle in correcting all your errors, as I am confident you have a lot to contribute.

I also try to get the math and units right, and would hope others check and correct me as required..

You have, in effect, hijacked this thread for reasons we can only guess at.

Actually, it's dead nuts on target..you seem to only want to derail a discussion of the metrics required in the determination of wires and the application..

Unless, you are content with just telling us that a wire is just a wire??

A topic you do not understand is one to learn...not ignore..

Cheers, John

PS...sorry to have edited the other post while you were responding...it was unintentional..

 

[soongsc]

Messieurs Moderators,

Do we really need to figure out all about localisation, ITD (whatever that is), IDD etc before we can finally get back on topic? Shouldn't this thread be split into the original one, and one on John's hobby horses? (Which, as I have said earlier, are quite interesting, but also quite off-topic).

Jan Didden

ITD and IID are quantifiable values. Based on analysis and testing, there will be a certain threshold beyond which image sift is detectable. The values of which I think had been mentioned earlier.

These values can be used to determine what tolerances between the left and right channels must be maintained in order for cable differences not effect image stability. Which is part of cable difference not dicussed yet. But since other factors such as drivers themselves outweight what the cable can contribute. So I think it's good information. It's not the main driving factor though.

 

[SY]

Guys, I'm dead serious. jneutron, take a day off from this thread until I figure out a way to split it and you figure out a way to express your thoughts on the technical matters without dragging personalities and motivations into it. 24 hours. Official Mod Warning.

Jan, if you could email me with a suggestion on how to split this, I'd be grateful.

 

[jneutron]

ITD and IID are quantifiable values. Based on analysis and testing, there will be a certain threshold beyond which image sift is detectable. The values of which I think had been mentioned earlier.

These values can be used to determine what tolerances between the left and right channels must be maintained in order for cable differences not effect image stability. Which is part of cable difference not dicussed yet. But since other factors such as drivers themselves outweight what the cable can contribute. So I think it's good information. It's not the main driving factor though.

Be careful..the values I mention are those responsible for a stable image to within 6 inches. It is without regard to what we CAN discern at that distance and angle..

Since I can hear these ITD effects clearly within headphones at the 11 uSec level without any problem whatsoever, I would certainly believe it can be heard in a speaker system..and, I note, my headphones ain't the greatest, not level matched, no mass match, no level accuracy match, no transient match, nothing special whatsoever...just the standard production headphones..Audio-technica ATH-M30..

I have made no claim that ITD and IID are the main driving factors..However, the alternative is what, dielectric involvment, motor-generator, cable lifters, sandbags, insulation color?

The alternate argument is 20 to 20K, +/- .5dB (give or take), and wires don't make a diff? The century old definition of monophonic hearing?

You have alternate scientifically based arguments to support why cat5, or ribbon, or whatever wires chosen can make any difference whatsoever?

I am trying to address what we hear in a scientific fashion, as that is the end result to specifying wires, no?

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Guys, I'm dead serious. jneutron, take a day off from this thread until I figure out a way to split it and you figure out a way to express your thoughts on the technical matters without dragging personalities and motivations into it. 24 hours. Official Mod Warning.

Jan, if you could email me with a suggestion on how to split this, I'd be grateful.

Darn it...posted first...sorry.

As for splitting, there's one problem I keep on coming up against..the graphs and equations and such keep getting spread over tens of pages..can anything be done w/r to that?

As for splitting...I'll think about that as well..Localization seems like an "everything else" topic. Would you prefer just deleting all my posts here, and I start a fresh post at everything else?

Or, perhaps just delete all my posts, and I just go away, solving your mod problem..whichever you prefer.

Cheers, John

 

[soongsc]

Guys, I'm dead serious. jneutron, take a day off from this thread until I figure out a way to split it and you figure out a way to express your thoughts on the technical matters without dragging personalities and motivations into it. 24 hours. Official Mod Warning.

Jan, if you could email me with a suggestion on how to split this, I'd be grateful.

You guys have a tough job!😀 Maybe we should just all take a vacation from this thread until someone has something new to talk about.

 

[poulkirk]

Loudspeaker Cables

I have recently retired from a long career in designing and manufacturing Professional Audio Equipment for Radio Broadcast Stations and have a keen interest in High Quality Audio. Experiments conducted now several years ago on Loudspeaker Cables revealed some interesting results which I will share with others.
One experiment involved using separate wires spaced apart, using very heavy low resistance "Welding Cable". It actually sounded terrible.
Next experiment involved twisting the same two wires together, sounded much better. This could suggest that the currents from the amplifier, and reflected currents from the loudspeaker moving coils caused relative movements between the wires due to magnetic effects. Next experiment was using heavy Coaxial Cable, this actually sounded excellent, but not to be recommended because some amplifiers cannot tolerate the capacitive effect, and also the screen could be connected as the active wire, also not desirable. Coaxial Cable is mechanically balanced where current induced magnetic effects is not likely to move one wire in respect to the other. Next logical step, was to use ordinary low cost 10 Pair Indoor Telephone Cable. Each Pair is twisted. it consists of 10 white and 10 coloured wires. White wires are connected together and used as one wire, the coloured wires connected together and used as the other wire. I have found this to work particularly well and sound much better than any Loudspeaker Cable tested. I noticed mention in this forum of using Cat5 cable, same principle but involving only 4 wire pairs.
I strongly suspect that relative movement between the two vires caused by magnetic effects is having an effect on sound quality.
Separate wires does sound bad
Separate wires twisted together sound much better
Coaxial Cable, sounds excellent, but can cause problems
10 Pair Indoor Telephone Cable, the best I have ever used
A couple of thoughts
Normal Copper Wire does have an Iron Content which could increase any the magnetic effects. Oxygen Free Copper is substantially free from Iron and other impurities. Amplifiers having a very Low Output Impedance (High Damping Factor) and a high degree of negative feedback is likely to be more sensitive to the type of Loudspeaker Cable used. Valve Amplifiers are likely to be more tolerant

Just some thoughts

Poul Kirk from Western Australia

 

[KBK]

I could just link to the post, but I have no idea how to do that. So I'll re-post.

~~~~~~~~

Take a piece of paper.

Draw a triangle on it.

The three points represent the listener with respect to the two speakers.

Make the speakers 10 ft apart, with the listener 10 ft back.

Now.....audiophiles have been shown to be easily able to differentiate between signals..in that 'stereoscopic sound stage' , which is strung between the speakers..where the 'image point' seems to be over, from left to right, by approximately 1 inch, and less. Now, take that 'timing' information, and then apply it to extremely rich signals, in terms of the entire note structure. Harmonics count.

Take that information,and you add it to the fact that the ear hears, for the larger part, via the leading edge of the given transient, and it's timing differentials from harmonic transients, and the level of each.


If you go through the rather simple math..you end up with a minimal requirement to satisfy the better trained audiophiles (and I POWERFULLY stress that is is BELOW the capacity of the human ear!!! ..it is merely as well as audiophiles have managed to train themselves-nothing more)..of..get this:

500Khz sampling rate with a 20 bit word length. This as a MINIMUM. This specification is only taking into account one single aspect of the human human hearing function. One we ALL express, every single day.

As for cables, this means they must be capable of not altering a signal in any way, whatsoever..from actual DC...out to approx. 1mhz, with a +10db to -70db range of loading ..this..with ZERO phase distortion or alteration of the signal..in any way, shape or form. PERIOD. I'm not talking about a clean -3db down at 500khz, but 0db down. NO phase or complex LCR issues, at ANY point in that range. Harmonics and complex note structuring take these minimums up into the low mhz range!! This, with any level or consideration of signal loading.

This is not due to the single ear's function but as a stereoscopic pair, concerning timing issues.

Which is why tube amps and turntables work. Both have extremely low inter-channel phasing issues. Totally analog. Taken to another point of analysis, it shows why digital amps are generally considered...to the more learned ear...to 'suck'.

Digital falls flat on it's face.

But the ear-brain combo can pull 'intelligence' out of a 3.5 bit deep digital signal. This does not mean that it equals hearing function, but the exact opposite. We are incredibly good at figuring out complex and dirty aural issues, but we can also 'relax' into a perfectly represented signal, as well.

This is why we can hear differences in audio equipment and wires.

I've known this simple point since 1992. I've tried to educate the industry many times. But to no avail. I began trying on the old alt.rec.audio.high-end groups before the internet even existed. When 44.1/16 digital was the 'hot' thing and I told them what I'm telling you now.

The logic and the math sit there in plain sight...like a 9000lb gorilla in the middle of the room...and are ignored.

If you go through the effort of understanding this simple point, the whole entire audiophile argument makes 110% perfect sense.

Don't forget to consider the shape of the ear..and how that affects loading and signal recognition. This slams the final nails down into the argument coffins of the hardcore objectivists in a rather strong manner. Sorry guys. Nothing personal, but the truth is the truth.

The trick is, as usual, understanding that the more complex and difficult a situation is to resolve, then the more fundamental the mistake in the formulation of the question. In this case, it is an incomplete or ill thought out understanding of the human hearing function.

I've just outlined the very basic mathematical points and data required to get there and I've taken your metaphorical hand and marched you right to the point you've been needing to 'get'.

Hopefully .... some of you will 'get it'. If you want to argue the point after this....I might have to walk away and mentally label you as 'hopeless'.

 

[FrankWW]

I just read this whole thread.

Fascinating.

Has jneutron continued his ITD IID discussion in some other place?

I'd surely like to read it.

 

[soongsc]

I just read this whole thread.

Fascinating.

Has jneutron continued his ITD IID discussion in some other place?

I'd surely like to read it.

Just search the forum for his name. This is what he mostly talks about.

 

[fizzard]

Which is why tube amps and turntables work. Both have extremely low inter-channel phasing issues. Totally analog. Taken to another point of analysis, it shows why digital amps are generally considered...to the more learned ear...to 'suck'.

Digital falls flat on it's face. [/..B]

Because encoding two channels into the same groove on a piece of vinyl preserves phasing better than time domain multiplexing them digitally onto a CD? Give me a break.

Of course digital amps won’t surpass analog, (at least solid state analog), but they’ll get very close, and in fact they are pretty darn good.

The logic and the math sit there in plain sight...like a 9000lb gorilla in the middle of the room...and are ignored.[/..B]

I've just outlined the very basic mathematical points and data required to get there and I've taken your metaphorical hand and marched you right to the point you've been needing to 'get'.[/..B]

I didn’t get a single part of your “mathematical argument.” Could you please define your variables, and clearly state your propositions.

 

[fizzard]

To form a virtual image in space, both the time and intensity of the aural cues must be maintained true to source..given the complex waveform being presented to the speaker, how would a wire affect these? And, to what degree?. I can measure wires easily enough, but how does the measurement of the wires correlate to creation of a virtual soundstage?

Your analysis is very interesting and informative. I have never actually crunched the numbers for propagation velocity and settling time for reflections.

My own stategy has been to reduce cable impedance and resistance. I also refuse to use anything but 8R speakers, so that helps reduce the reflection coefficient.