For short living room lengths of speaker wire, transmission line effects are negligible because the wavelength of the audio electrical signal going through it is long compared to the cable's physical length. All the wire electrically moves in the same direction at the same time, voltage-wise. R,L & C are the only things that will affect the signal, and they aren't that big in a decently designed living room length speaker wire. Keep those reasonably low and you're in. There's no magic.
Folks don’t forget the connectors at each end crimped or soldered and how good the contact is with jack all that makes up the « cable ».
I once listened to a system that had no connectors at all. wires were soldered directly both between units and to the speakers and was floored by the difference with the same system same cables just with all the connectors including the ones on the gear in place. Of course the story doesn’t say if the connectors on the gear were old and oxidized so removing then is an upgrade in connection quality. I also have wondered if with same R,L, C but diffrent materials and construction and geometry if I would hear any difference.
I once listened to a system that had no connectors at all. wires were soldered directly both between units and to the speakers and was floored by the difference with the same system same cables just with all the connectors including the ones on the gear in place. Of course the story doesn’t say if the connectors on the gear were old and oxidized so removing then is an upgrade in connection quality. I also have wondered if with same R,L, C but diffrent materials and construction and geometry if I would hear any difference.
There is a caveat to what you are saying. It is largely true that there are no transmission line effects AT AUDIO FREQUENCIES. However, there is always the matter of interactions between the power amplifier and cables and speakers. These interactions can influence things like stability to very high frequencies. While it is well understood that cable capacitance can make some amplifiers unhappy, it is also the case that the impedance of a speaker cable that is essentially unterminated at high frequencies can look nasty to an amplifier.
Things can start getting very funny when the frequency gets up into the range where the cable length is 1/4 wavelength. The loudspeaker usually does not even come close to terminating the loudspeaker cable properly. The cable's characteristic impedance is often in the range of 100 ohms for non-exotic cables. It will be a bit lower for cables with high capacitance. At RF, most speakers look inductive at their terminals (I'm not just referring to voice coil inductance). I show some speaker cable impedance curves in my book for cases where the cable is terminated shorted, open and in its characteristic impedance. It is not pretty when the cable is badly misterminated.
Some have heard improvement when a Zobel network is connected across the speaker terminals that reasonably terminates the cable at high frequencies. I seem to recall some company selling them. Maybe something like 0.1 uF and 100 ohms in series.
Making matters worse, some "high-end" amplifiers don't have the load stability that they should. Bear in mind that there are those who believe their amplifier has adequate stability if it does not oscillate. Amplifiers that have inadequate stability often oscillate in the form of parasitic oscillation bursts at non-quiescent operating conditions on the audio waveform, and these are very easy to overlook.
The point here is that what is going on in the cable at high frequencies above the audio band can matter in some situations with respect to cable-amplifier interactions.
Just as subjective listening tests are often flawed, the objective measurements can also be flawed in that what is being measured is not what needs to be measured, or is not being measured under the right conditions or at the right place in the system. At minimum, when a power amplifier or loudspeaker is being reviewed, it would at least be nice if frequency response and maybe low-amplitude THD were measured right at the loudspeaker terminals.
Cheers,
Bob
Cyril Bateman (RIP) wrote about this radio frequency speaker cable ringing/oscillating problem a long time ago. Bob Cordell wrote about it in his book. Some DIY threads have touched on the subject.
But the problem is like nailing Jello to a tree. Change the length of the cable, change the cable type, change the speaker or the amp and the problem disappears.
http://www.waynekirkwood.com/images/pdf/Cyril_Bateman/Bateman_Speaker_Amp_Interaction.pdf
But the problem is like nailing Jello to a tree. Change the length of the cable, change the cable type, change the speaker or the amp and the problem disappears.
http://www.waynekirkwood.com/images/pdf/Cyril_Bateman/Bateman_Speaker_Amp_Interaction.pdf
I have too much difficulty believing someone would design and build an amplifier that will not perform properly without using expensive connections between it and a pair of speakers.
Aside from everything else, it seems like a loser business model, purporting that the amplifier design is flawed, but will be fixed with some other company's wire.
Aside from everything else, it seems like a loser business model, purporting that the amplifier design is flawed, but will be fixed with some other company's wire.
Wow! Snake oil is build right into the name. There is truth is marketing after all.
Pano, as I previously stated, I have no vested interest in wanting expensive wires to sound better and for many years I was on the "Wires cannot matter that much sonically" bandwagon myself! Yet when my friend brought over his high-quality XLO ICs for me to listen to, I clearly heard a major sonic improvement over my Kimber Cable PBJ ICs?
So Pano please explain why I could so readily hear the difference between the inexpensive PBJ ICs I was using and his high-quality XLO ICs? It certainly couldn't be expectation-bias, because I was 100% sure I wouldn't hear any sonic difference. IMHO anyone who cannot hear the difference between a cheap $100 pr of ICs and a high-quality (not high-priced) pair of ICs has to either be tone-deaf or listening on an audio system that's not very musically resolving! You know what, perhaps you're right Pano and there is snake oil involved. Most likely it on the brain or in the ears of those who cannot detect these very noticeable differences in wires!
Thetubeguy1954
So Pano please explain why I could so readily hear the difference between the inexpensive PBJ ICs I was using and his high-quality XLO ICs? It certainly couldn't be expectation-bias, because I was 100% sure I wouldn't hear any sonic difference. IMHO anyone who cannot hear the difference between a cheap $100 pr of ICs and a high-quality (not high-priced) pair of ICs has to either be tone-deaf or listening on an audio system that's not very musically resolving! You know what, perhaps you're right Pano and there is snake oil involved. Most likely it on the brain or in the ears of those who cannot detect these very noticeable differences in wires!
Thetubeguy1954
Last edited:
Yep, the Kimber PBJ unbalanced interconnects are just asking for trouble. As I suspect many of their other interconnect cables are.
This reminds me of a bike lock that was 1/3 of the price of others, but better withstood attacks from a reformed bike thief, but it didn't sell, they wacked up the price and they sold out. People expect a good bike lock to cost money ( I guess the didn't read the review ). I use a cheep pad lock and chain ( with an old inner tube as a sleave ) and cat5 ( one cable positive, one negative ) .
Audio DBTs Are A Pseudo-test
The ONLY way I would ever trust a DBT is:
1) It would have to be done using an audio system I am intimately familiar with sonically, hence my system in my room would work best.
2) No additional boxes or gadgets of any kind can be added to the system. All DBT testing of wires --say a pair of ICs for this example-- would be done only via the manual exchanging of only 1 pair of ICs with another pair of ICs or not and then using an SPL meter verifying the volume remains at the same level at all times.
3) The components the ICs are attached to would be concealed at all times making any visual clues unavailable.
4) I'd also insist someone I trust would witness all the manual exchanging or non-exchanging of ICs the person performing the DBT chooses to make.
5) Before I'd enter the room for each individual test, the person performing the test and the person I chose to witness the exchange or non-exchange of the ICs on my behalf would exit the room so as to not accidentally influence my decision.
6) Finally a CCTV would remain on me during all tests to verify to both the person performing the DBT and the person I chose to monitor him, that I never got up from the listening position in an attempt to visually determine which ICs were installed. Under these circumstances, I'm quite sure I could achieve a 90% or greater result.
The real trouble is DBTs were never meant for audio but rather as means for gauging the effectiveness of new medicine. When used for audio, a DBT is actually a Hodge-bodge created by objectivists in an attempt to duplicate what an actual medical DBT would do. But from step one audio DBTs are faulty for example:
A) where are the three groups of participants used in a medical DBT, i.e...
a) the treatment group.
b) the placebo, group.
c) the control group.
when operating the audio DBT?
B) It doesn’t reflect real-life circumstances. No one sits at home and listens to their audio system using DBTs.
C) The very fact that the person is being tested puts a strain on them while they're listening that they'd never experience when casually listening at home.
D) Randomization is a part of a true medical DBT but excluded in an audio DBT. For example; The most common example of using randomization when assigning people to a group in a double-blind study is to flip a coin. It is an action that’s random and cannot be predicted, which means it is likely to be a 50/50 scenario over time as it gets tossed frequently. Assigning people who come to a specific location based on a day of the week can influence the results of the study unintentionally because there are other dynamics that control the behavior. That bias would be in the data without anyone recognizing its presence since it was placed there in the initial design.
Objectivists simply pick and choose what parts of a true DBT ---determining if a new medicine works or not--- they want to use when conducting their "Audio DBT" and then claim it's a valid DBT, but the reality is it's not a valid DBT. It's a pseudo-test geared towards supposedly proving what they already believe is the truth, i.e., wires don't sound different. There's a name for doing this. It's called Confirmation bias and it's defined as the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values...
Thetubeguy1954
The ONLY way I would ever trust a DBT is:
1) It would have to be done using an audio system I am intimately familiar with sonically, hence my system in my room would work best.
2) No additional boxes or gadgets of any kind can be added to the system. All DBT testing of wires --say a pair of ICs for this example-- would be done only via the manual exchanging of only 1 pair of ICs with another pair of ICs or not and then using an SPL meter verifying the volume remains at the same level at all times.
3) The components the ICs are attached to would be concealed at all times making any visual clues unavailable.
4) I'd also insist someone I trust would witness all the manual exchanging or non-exchanging of ICs the person performing the DBT chooses to make.
5) Before I'd enter the room for each individual test, the person performing the test and the person I chose to witness the exchange or non-exchange of the ICs on my behalf would exit the room so as to not accidentally influence my decision.
6) Finally a CCTV would remain on me during all tests to verify to both the person performing the DBT and the person I chose to monitor him, that I never got up from the listening position in an attempt to visually determine which ICs were installed. Under these circumstances, I'm quite sure I could achieve a 90% or greater result.
The real trouble is DBTs were never meant for audio but rather as means for gauging the effectiveness of new medicine. When used for audio, a DBT is actually a Hodge-bodge created by objectivists in an attempt to duplicate what an actual medical DBT would do. But from step one audio DBTs are faulty for example:
A) where are the three groups of participants used in a medical DBT, i.e...
a) the treatment group.
b) the placebo, group.
c) the control group.
when operating the audio DBT?
B) It doesn’t reflect real-life circumstances. No one sits at home and listens to their audio system using DBTs.
C) The very fact that the person is being tested puts a strain on them while they're listening that they'd never experience when casually listening at home.
D) Randomization is a part of a true medical DBT but excluded in an audio DBT. For example; The most common example of using randomization when assigning people to a group in a double-blind study is to flip a coin. It is an action that’s random and cannot be predicted, which means it is likely to be a 50/50 scenario over time as it gets tossed frequently. Assigning people who come to a specific location based on a day of the week can influence the results of the study unintentionally because there are other dynamics that control the behavior. That bias would be in the data without anyone recognizing its presence since it was placed there in the initial design.
Objectivists simply pick and choose what parts of a true DBT ---determining if a new medicine works or not--- they want to use when conducting their "Audio DBT" and then claim it's a valid DBT, but the reality is it's not a valid DBT. It's a pseudo-test geared towards supposedly proving what they already believe is the truth, i.e., wires don't sound different. There's a name for doing this. It's called Confirmation bias and it's defined as the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values...
Thetubeguy1954
The differences you hear could be simple R/C/L differences that can be imitated by other means. I certainly have heard subtle differences in speaker cables, but they can easily be explained by impedance.
FWIW, I have an old thread somewhere in which I posted recordings made using wire, bananas, potatoes, steel wool or mud as interconnects. It was nearly impossible for anyone to tell them apart, or even tell them from the original recording.
BTW, did we meet at the Tampa audio get together a couple of years ago? In that fellows place where he had a lot of OB and horn systems.
FWIW, I have an old thread somewhere in which I posted recordings made using wire, bananas, potatoes, steel wool or mud as interconnects. It was nearly impossible for anyone to tell them apart, or even tell them from the original recording.
BTW, did we meet at the Tampa audio get together a couple of years ago? In that fellows place where he had a lot of OB and horn systems.
I still have some cable like that I bought from eBay and twisted into cable around somewhere in storage. Mine's monocrystal gold plated, I can't recall the maker. I'm thinking of robbing a pair of cables from the main system for my bedroom system. Do yours carry enough current all the time? Mine wouldn't be challenged much, just about two three foot runs from each amp to its speaker drivers, no real bass, and direct from amp bonding posts to driver inputs.
So you haven't done it. OK.
Ah, the classic smear job.
Late Peter Aczel pointed this out decades ago.
The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio - ecoustics.comThe Ten Biggest Lies in Audio said:
What is "SO wrong" with Kimber's PBJ?
It has been around for 30 years now. I remember having some in the early 90's and thought it just fine. I think I only sold it because the length, 1/2 meter, became too short when I changed something and needed a longer cable.
If it was "SO wrong" as you say, it likely would have disappeared quite quickly.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.