Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion on
the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker cables and IC's? Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give rise to actual audible differences?. Can some of these wires be magic and make the signal better than it actually is? does cheaper wire degrade the signal? All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion? I am a non-believer for the record. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Stewart said: This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion on the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker cables and IC's? I think everybody should buy the ones they want to have. Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give rise to actual audible differences?. Can some of these wires be magic and make the signal better than it actually is? does cheaper wire degrade the signal? You ask many questions but your language shouts "I am geek!" All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion? I don't believe hi-fi mags "boast" anything of the sort. Perhaps you're confusing advertising copy with reviews. You are focusing, to the best of your ability, on the basic function that cables perform -- carrying an electrical signal. This is a pointless way of looking at the cable & wire market. Try to find an analogy to help you understand. My favorite one is flatware. It comes in gold, silver, stainless steel, and even plastic. All of the designs enable you to get the food from your plate to your mouth. I think you can take it from there. I am a non-believer for the record. That is your right. As with all things you buy for your own enjoyment, suit yourself. Will you be returning to an educational institute in the near future to finish your education in using English? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
In article ,
"Stewart" wrote: This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion on the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker cables and IC's? Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give rise to actual audible differences?. Can some of these wires be magic and make the signal better than it actually is? does cheaper wire degrade the signal? All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion? I am a non-believer for the record. What would it take to change your mind? Stephen |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
All wires without failure do is transfer the signal from one place to
another. In doing so they will change the original signal from the source by the time it gets to the destination. The real difference is by how much that signal has been changed. As a slightly general rule of thumb the very cheap wire shipped with the box will usually change the signal to a greater degree than a better designed cable (it is a fact of life that a better designed cable will use better materials and will cost some what more than the cheap solution shipped with the box). What difference these cable make depends on a lot of factors, wire geometry ,dielectric properties, wire material, the terminations, impedance, inductance, capacitance, phase shift, the output impedance and the input impedance of the units etc. This is why one expensive cable can sound excellent on one system, and more crap on another. This is why some many people spend so much time talking about the different combinations. as a general rule you should try and get a cable that matches the two units best. sometime this is an expensive option sometimes not and it depends on what you can hear and the value you place on it. Most of us some personal theories on what should be best but this is based on whatever personal bias we have. I to was once a non believer in "cable make a difference" but they do !! and I had arrogantly thought that all wires were pretty much the same, Not that any of my lecturers ever said it was so. but in life we all are capable of learning if we keep our minds open. I would for a start read the toms of info on the web about cables including Jon Reich and Chris Van Haus along with others and learn. Quick Rules of thumb for interconnects thin wires seem to be better + low capacitance and low inductance. for speaker cable, low inductance, the capacitance does not really matter that much, mega thick wire are not always necessary. my personal view is to go for a low characteristic impedance, more of the signal gets though. but at the end of the day its what you like the sound of not the $$'s Good auditioning Chris "Stewart" wrote in message ... This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion on the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker cables and IC's? Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give rise to actual audible differences?. Can some of these wires be magic and make the signal better than it actually is? does cheaper wire degrade the signal? All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion? I am a non-believer for the record. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Stewart" wrote in message ... This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion on the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker cables and IC's? Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give rise to actual audible differences?. Can some of these wires be magic and make the signal better than it actually is? does cheaper wire degrade the signal? All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion? I am a non-believer for the record. It is very easy to make a speaker cable which will degrade signal. Excessive spacing of the conductor pair is a mistake that has been made in expensive cables, but never in cheap ones. As for the rest of it, I conducted the following personal experiment. I hooked up an old KLH Research 9 speaker via 35 feet of 16 gauge zipcord, and compared it to a 12 foot run of a fairly inexpensive speaker cable. The 35 foot run of zipcord sounded noticeably muddier than the 12 cable. This suggests to me that some differences arising from speaker cables may be within a factor of 10 of audibility. I suspect that if zipcord can degrade the signal that much, there may be more to this than total nonsense. I reacted by tripling the 23' runs in my main speaker setup with parallel zipcord. I have not investigated whether exotically constructed speaker cables can sound better. But I think some might be within that factor of 10 that may become audible under some circumstances, with some speakers. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Stewart" wrote in message ... This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion on the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker cables and IC's? **Usually, there is not much difference between them. Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give rise to actual audible differences?. **Under certain conditions, yes. Can some of these wires be magic and make the signal better than it actually is? **Not possible. ALL cables degrade the signal. Every single one. What is needed, is to find a cable which does as little damage as is possible, in a given system. does cheaper wire degrade the signal? **Not per se. Cables which do not audibly alter a signal do not necessarily need to be expensive. Again, it depends on the system. All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion? **Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I am a non-believer for the record. **Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different cables? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
**Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different cables? Good question to ask Morien. Morein tells us again and again that (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology, (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory. But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
It is very easy to make a speaker cable which will degrade signal. This is true, but the question in audio is never whether there is *any* degradation, but whether the degradation is audible. Audio measurement technology has progressed to the point where they are incredibly sensitive - 10 to 100 to perhaps even 1,000 times more sensitive than the human ear. I have a simple audio laboratory and I can measure all kinds of bizarre things, such as the microphonics of interconnects. So what? Science tells us that for a listening test to be a reliable indicator of audibility, it must have a minimum of three variables under control: (1) The listening test must be adequately level-matched (2) The listening test must be time-synchronized (3) The listening test much be bias-controlled. Morein tells us again and again that: (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology, (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal scientific laboratory. So, there is no logical, theoretical or practical reason why Morein's listening tests would not meet at minimum the three simple requirements stated above. If he doesn't do things right, its because he's got a lazy ass, pure and simple. Excessive spacing of the conductor pair is a mistake that has been made in expensive cables, but never in cheap ones. AFAIK, that's true. The benefit of putting the conductors close together is that it increases mutual inductance between the conductors, which ironically decreases series inductance that can lead to high frequency losses in the audio band. These losses are *always* measurable, but whether or not they are audible depends on the application. As for the rest of it, I conducted the following personal experiment. I hooked up an old KLH Research 9 speaker via 35 feet of 16 gauge zipcord, and compared it to a 12 foot run of a fairly inexpensive speaker cable. The 35 foot run of zipcord sounded noticeably muddier than the 12 cable. So what experimental controls did Morien apply to this listening test? None are stated. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that none were applied. How does this square with Morein's claims of technical competence and ability? This suggests to me that some differences arising from speaker cables may be within a factor of 10 of audibility. Any engineer will tell you that a factor of 8 or 10 is a reasonable safety factor. Therefore, this would be a moot issue if there were *any* reliable support for Morein's claims at all. I suspect that if zipcord can degrade the signal that much, there may be more to this than total nonsense. However, since the suspicions are based on unreliable listening tests, they are merely vain speculation. There are definitely some speakers that make special demands on speaker. For example some planar and ribbon speakers have really bizarre impedance curves at 10 KHz and above, significantly a range where its not unusual for a speaker cable to have appreciable series inductance. On balance, most more conventional speakers like my NHT 2.5i pair are themselves inductive loads at 10 KHz and above. This tends to balance out the speaker cable's inductance in this range. I reacted by tripling the 23' runs in my main speaker setup with parallel zipcord. Note that Morein's main speaker setup seems to involve a pair of legacy Acoustat speakers, a line of planar speakers that are well-known for their bizarre and wildly atypical impedance curves. I have not investigated whether exotically constructed speaker cables can sound better. One well-known and readily-available kind of cable that minimizes series inductance is coaxial cable. Belden has some coax that is designed for use with medium-wave radio transmitters that has 10 or 11 gauge center conductors, very heavy pure copper braid shielding, and a good combination of low capacitance and inductance. I think it runs around $1 a foot from Belden distributors. I've posted the Belden part number here a number of times in the past. But I think some might be within that factor of 10 that may become audible under some circumstances, with some speakers. Morein arguably has all of the resources to make a credible claim of speaker cable reliability. For some reason he has failed to get his act together to do this for years and years. However, if he develops these claims with the wildly-atypical Acoustat speakers that he uses, they will still be largely irrelevant to the rest of us who have more typical kinds of speakers. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message **Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different cables? Good question to ask Morien. Morein tells us again and again that (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology, (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory. But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*. Just wondering about one thing, Arny: when you use the permutations "Morien" and "Morein", is this indicative of your methadology when attempting to do scientific trials? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"trotsky" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message **Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different cables? Good question to ask Morien. Morein tells us again and again that (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology, (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory. But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*. Just wondering about one thing, Arny: when you use the permutations "Morien" and "Morein", is this indicative of your methadology when attempting to do scientific trials? Returning the "complement" Singh, what's a "methadology"? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Arny Krueger wrote: "trotsky" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message **Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different cables? Good question to ask Morien. Morein tells us again and again that (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology, (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory. But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*. Just wondering about one thing, Arny: when you use the permutations "Morien" and "Morein", is this indicative of your methadology when attempting to do scientific trials? Returning the "complement" Singh, what's a "methadology"? Oh, I'm sorry, I made a misspelling at six o'clock in the morning. Does this mean you're weaselling out of the question as usual? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"trotsky" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "trotsky" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message **Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different cables? Good question to ask Morien. Morein tells us again and again that (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology, (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory. But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*. Just wondering about one thing, Arny: when you use the permutations "Morien" and "Morein", is this indicative of your methadology when attempting to do scientific trials? Returning the "complement" Singh, what's a "methadology"? Oh, I'm sorry, I made a misspelling at six o'clock in the morning. OK, and I made a misspelling at 5:38 in the morning. Does this mean you're weaselling out of the question as usual? Returning the "complement" Singh, what is "weaselling"? Singh, your inability to grasp the obvious remains near-perfect. Go forth and continue to screw up! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Well thanks for all the opinions guys!
I've demoed different wire and IC's in the past and have never really noticed much difference, maybe it's me? anyway now I'm putting this issue to rest for good! my £5/m cable will remain. And yes George I am probably slightly tinged with geekyness especially as I've made a post to an audio newsgroup ;-) nothing wrong with that though. I built and designed me own speakers and sub, that probably says it all! I still have the old social skills though. And sorry for my English, I do apologise profusely. I speak a mix of English and old Norse so my dialect get's in the way of grammar/wording etc, if I decide to take English lessons I'll let you know ;-) I'm sorry I've deeply offended you in this way. I hope you make a full recovery. Onyweye tanchts ageen fur aww ih yoor apeeneyuns, it's aww bun brawlie interesteen. I'm awa noo tae geen ta gref a bank tae dell twartrie muckile styumpies. ;-) Stew. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Arny Krueger wrote: "trotsky" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "trotsky" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message **Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different cables? Good question to ask Morien. Morein tells us again and again that (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology, (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory. But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched, time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*. Just wondering about one thing, Arny: when you use the permutations "Morien" and "Morein", is this indicative of your methadology when attempting to do scientific trials? Returning the "complement" Singh, what's a "methadology"? Oh, I'm sorry, I made a misspelling at six o'clock in the morning. OK, and I made a misspelling at 5:38 in the morning. Actually, moron, you misspelled the name thrice while spelling it correctly only once. And that's not taking into account the dozens of other times. It just makes me think your attention to detail is awfully suspect. Does this mean you're weaselling out of the question as usual? Returning the "complement" Singh, what is "weaselling"? Singh, your inability to grasp the obvious remains near-perfect. Go forth and continue to screw up! I gave you two chances to come clean, and you stayed filthy both times. Let's just assume attention to detail in your "science" isn't all that important. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger is a BAD SCIENTIST
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message It is very easy to make a speaker cable which will degrade signal. This is true, but the question in audio is never whether there is *any* degradation, but whether the degradation is audible. Audio measurement technology has progressed to the point where they are incredibly sensitive - 10 to 100 to perhaps even 1,000 times more sensitive than the human ear. I have a simple audio laboratory and I can measure all kinds of bizarre things, such as the microphonics of interconnects. So what? Science tells us that for a listening test to be a reliable indicator of audibility, it must have a minimum of three variables under control: (1) The listening test must be adequately level-matched (2) The listening test must be time-synchronized (3) The listening test much be bias-controlled. The above is correct. Arny, once again, you fail to distinguish between informal discourse between people trading experiences, and publishable work. I make no claim that my statement constitutes publishable work. Morein tells us again and again that: (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology, (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal scientific laboratory. So, there is no logical, theoretical or practical reason why Morein's listening tests would not meet at minimum the three simple requirements stated above. If he doesn't do things right, its because he's got a lazy ass, pure and simple. Logically, then, your rules of discourse would prevent anybody who can't do the tests from informal discourse such as I engaged in. Arny, you're just out of sync with the values of our society. Free speech isn't simply the right to make politically charged statements; it also allows and encourages people to trade personal observations, as I have done. Excessive spacing of the conductor pair is a mistake that has been made in expensive cables, but never in cheap ones. AFAIK, that's true. The benefit of putting the conductors close together is that it increases mutual inductance between the conductors, which ironically decreases series inductance that can lead to high frequency losses in the audio band. These losses are *always* measurable, but whether or not they are audible depends on the application. As for the rest of it, I conducted the following personal experiment. I hooked up an old KLH Research 9 speaker via 35 feet of 16 gauge zipcord, and compared it to a 12 foot run of a fairly inexpensive speaker cable. The 35 foot run of zipcord sounded noticeably muddier than the 12 cable. So what experimental controls did Morien apply to this listening test? None are stated. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that none were applied. How does this square with Morein's claims of technical competence and ability? Since I made no claim that my observation constituted publishable work, you cannot infer that my standards for publishable work would be deficient. But yours are, because, *****ARNY KRUEGER IS A BAD SCIENTIST***** This suggests to me that some differences arising from speaker cables may be within a factor of 10 of audibility. Any engineer will tell you that a factor of 8 or 10 is a reasonable safety factor. Therefore, this would be a moot issue if there were *any* reliable support for Morein's claims at all. I suspect that if zipcord can degrade the signal that much, there may be more to this than total nonsense. However, since the suspicions are based on unreliable listening tests, they are merely vain speculation. I used the word "suspect", which in this case is synonymous with speculation. Arny, no need to degrade my informal observation with the stink of your ****ed up mind. However, if he develops these claims with the wildly-atypical Acoustat speakers that he uses, they will still be largely irrelevant to the rest of us who have more typical kinds of speakers. Arny, the post clearly states the comparison was made with KLH Research 10's, which are similar to AR3's. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Robert Morein wrote:
As for the rest of it, I conducted the following personal experiment. I hooked up an old KLH Research 9 speaker via 35 feet of 16 gauge zipcord, and compared it to a 12 foot run of a fairly inexpensive speaker cable. The 35 foot run of zipcord sounded noticeably muddier than the 12 cable. If the signal was too strong and required a larger gauge, yes, you would notice a difference between 12 and 35 feet. 16 gauge is really small wire when you get down do it. All that poofy insulation does is look good. Try the same test with 12 gauge electrical wire. Watch as the "improvements" of the expensive wire are rendered moot by larger gauge 5-10 cents a foot electrical wire. This suggests to me that some differences arising from speaker cables may be within a factor of 10 of audibility. I suspect that if zipcord can degrade the signal that much, there may be more to this than total nonsense. 35 ft at 16 gauge is very likely to cause problems with bass. Actually, it's not bass, but low impedance. Most speakers have a sharp impedance dip at the bottom end(opposite for electrostatics) that is roughly half of their nominal rating. Really old wire may also have corroded or loosened connectors. This may or may not be easily visible. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message nk.net... Robert Morein wrote: As for the rest of it, I conducted the following personal experiment. I hooked up an old KLH Research 9 speaker via 35 feet of 16 gauge zipcord, and compared it to a 12 foot run of a fairly inexpensive speaker cable. The 35 foot run of zipcord sounded noticeably muddier than the 12 cable. If the signal was too strong and required a larger gauge, yes, you would notice a difference between 12 and 35 feet. 16 gauge is really small wire when you get down do it. All that poofy insulation does is look good. Try the same test with 12 gauge electrical wire. Watch as the "improvements" of the expensive wire are rendered moot by larger gauge 5-10 cents a foot electrical wire. Possibly, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that 12 gauge wire is efficient. I'm just not willing to take a position on it, because the treble was also affected. Look at it this way: If, in fact, I detected a difference typical of that between 12 gauge and 16 gauge wire, it's not reasonable to assume that all the degradation was wrung out by going to 12 gauge. 12 gauge has twice as much copper in it as 16 gauge. So I cut the degradation by a factor of two. That doesn't mean it went away, or became irrelevant. It suggests that whatever the mechanism is that degraded the treble requires additional attention. Biwire the treble with Litz, perhaps? Or CAT-5 twisted? Or maybe just surplus multiple conductor telephone cable? Just because many or most of the high end offerings are incorrectly engineered does not PROVE that there is no avoidable loss in 12 gauge wire. This suggests to me that some differences arising from speaker cables may be within a factor of 10 of audibility. I suspect that if zipcord can degrade the signal that much, there may be more to this than total nonsense. 35 ft at 16 gauge is very likely to cause problems with bass. Actually, it's not bass, but low impedance. I noticed bass, but I also noticed treble. Bass degradation is an accepted phenomena, which as you say, is solved by piling on more copper. The treble degradation is the more interesting phenomena. Most speakers have a sharp impedance dip at the bottom end(opposite for electrostatics) that is roughly half of their nominal rating. Really old wire may also have corroded or loosened connectors. This may or may not be easily visible. The 35 foot zip I used was tinned by me and terminated with high quality bananas. As a matter of course, I check the tightness every time I insert them. The speaker used for the test was a single KLH Research 10. Despite the fancy name, it was a dynamic speaker that closely resembled the AR3a. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Robert Morein wrote:
Possibly, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that 12 gauge wire is efficient. I'm just not willing to take a position on it, because the treble was also affected. Look at it this way: If, in fact, I detected a difference typical of that between 12 gauge and 16 gauge wire, it's not reasonable to assume that all the degradation was wrung out by going to 12 gauge. 12 gauge has twice as much copper in it as 16 gauge. So I cut the degradation by a factor of two. That doesn't mean it went away, or became irrelevant. True. There are a few online resources and calculators for loss. Most consider 5% to be acceptable loss. I can hear down to about 2-3% myself(Arny's site is very good for determining this threshold, btw) - then plug that value in. For my speakers, 20ft and 10 gauge resulted in 2% loss - or below a side-by-side comparison's ability to be heard. At least to my ears. That also was at the speaker's worst impedance/heaviest load, so normal operation is closer to ..5%-1% loss. It suggests that whatever the mechanism is that degraded the treble requires additional attention. Biwire the treble with Litz, perhaps? Or CAT-5 twisted? Or maybe just surplus multiple conductor telephone cable? It's mostly mass. OTOH, all of those individual cat-5 strands are too far apart to count as one wire. They also - well, you need well over 50 to get the same gauge as larger electrical wire. If losses and shielding are paramount, that Coax Anry recommended does work. It's a PITA to work with, since it has a 10-gauge core, but it is worlds better than 99% of the "speaker wire" that you find advertized. At $1 a foot, it's cheap as well. I personally think the big coax cable looks simmilar to a typical high-end speaker cable. Just because many or most of the high end offerings are incorrectly engineered does not PROVE that there is no avoidable loss in 12 gauge wire. We never said it did. OTOH, the levels at which human and personal hearing fails to tell the difference not only are well known, but can be tested on a person-by-person basis. I noticed bass, but I also noticed treble. Bass degradation is an accepted phenomena, which as you say, is solved by piling on more copper. The treble degradation is the more interesting phenomena. This is a bit odd. There may be a big impedance dip at the crossover, though. I would suspect that the tweeter is sucking a lot more power at the low end due to a second-rate crossover design. I've seen $2000 speakers(not Gregs! lol) that have $15 cheap crossovers in them. The 35 foot zip I used was tinned by me and terminated with high quality bananas. As a matter of course, I check the tightness every time I insert them. The speaker used for the test was a single KLH Research 10. Despite the fancy name, it was a dynamic speaker that closely resembled the AR3a. I like to cover all bases since this is a public forum and most people lurk instead of post. Oh - if it was "lamp cord" - it may(doubtful) have been the 95% pure copper variety that they sometimes sell. The other 5% is other metal to make the wire stronger. Copper for wires normally comes from the foundry in 99.99% pure ingots/slabs. All wire manufacturers use the same stuff as re-smelting it would be prohibitive. Marketing claims aside, it's all the same wire from the same dozen or so sources. Now, other metals like Silver, that's a whole other story. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ink.net... Robert Morein wrote: Possibly, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that 12 gauge wire is efficient. I'm just not willing to take a position on it, because the treble was also affected. Look at it this way: If, in fact, I detected a difference typical of that between 12 gauge and 16 gauge wire, it's not reasonable to assume that all the degradation was wrung out by going to 12 gauge. 12 gauge has twice as much copper in it as 16 gauge. So I cut the degradation by a factor of two. That doesn't mean it went away, or became irrelevant. True. There are a few online resources and calculators for loss. Most consider 5% to be acceptable loss. I can hear down to about 2-3% myself(Arny's site is very good for determining this threshold, btw) - then plug that value in. [snip] My compliments on a very rational post. I agree that mass of copper is the single most important parameter. I do feel that the questions of skin effect, dielectric memory, and microphonics are left open. I don't know whether they count or not, but I don't want to rule them out. There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to compute skin effect. It is quite significant at audio frequencies. If the coax Arny recommends has a polyethylene dielectric, dielectric effects would be reduced as compared to vinyl, which has slow electret properties. There is a strong physical argument that the best speaker cable would be made out of very large diameter material with low conductivity, such as a conductive plastic, since skin effect would then be minimized. Of course, it would never sell . I upgraded my main system in a very utilitarian way. In my main system, where I have 23' runs to the mains, I replaced single runs of Radio Shack zipcord with triple runs. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Robert Morein wrote:
There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to compute skin effect. It is quite significant at audio frequencies. Most people can't actually hear this. Solid wire is a bit better, which is one of the advantages of that COAX cable. It's also heavily shielded. But, it is a real bear to work with. There's no way you are going to pull it in anything but its own seperate conduit. Me? I like solid wire myself and find it actually a bit easier to work with as far as connectors go, as well as easier to hide along walls and baseboards. Best of all would be fiber-optic and transmitters plus a small amplifier for each speaker I guess, but that's a lot of money. OTOH, it's not THAT bad compared to some of the boutique cables, which should tell you how full of it they are. You want zero loss? It exists if you have a few thousand lying around. I hear Mercedes is using something simmilar lately. Go figure. If the coax Arny recommends has a polyethylene dielectric, dielectric effects would be reduced as compared to vinyl, which has slow electret properties. I don't know, but I suspect it does, as the smaller versions I have seen are like this. It's serious stuff intended for professional RF and video use, which is way beyond what audio requires. There is a strong physical argument that the best speaker cable would be made out of very large diameter material with low conductivity, such as a conductive plastic, since skin effect would then be minimized. Of course, it would never sell . I don't know Have you seen how large some of the high-end boutique cables are? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ink.net... Robert Morein wrote: There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to compute skin effect. It is quite significant at audio frequencies. Most people can't actually hear this. Solid wire is a bit better, which is one of the advantages of that COAX cable. It's also heavily shielded. But, it is a real bear to work with. There's no way you are going to pull it in anything but its own seperate conduit. Me? I like solid wire myself and find it actually a bit easier to work with as far as connectors go, as well as easier to hide along walls and baseboards. Best of all would be fiber-optic and transmitters plus a small amplifier for each speaker I guess, but that's a lot of money. OTOH, it's not THAT bad compared to some of the boutique cables, which should tell you how full of it they are. You want zero loss? It exists if you have a few thousand lying around. I hear Mercedes is using something simmilar lately. Go figure. If the coax Arny recommends has a polyethylene dielectric, dielectric effects would be reduced as compared to vinyl, which has slow electret properties. I don't know, but I suspect it does, as the smaller versions I have seen are like this. It's serious stuff intended for professional RF and video use, which is way beyond what audio requires. There is a strong physical argument that the best speaker cable would be made out of very large diameter material with low conductivity, such as a conductive plastic, since skin effect would then be minimized. Of course, it would never sell . I don't know Have you seen how large some of the high-end boutique cables are? Very good discussion chaps, How much do the hundreds of feet of wire used in windings of voice coils and inductors affect sound quality, in comparison with the few feet of speaker cable used?, the drive unit windings in my own speakers are made from aluminium. (morel) I've never seen any aluminium core speaker cables 8-) I built the crossovers using striped solid core copper 2.5mm T&E, (used to wire homes etc for say a ring main of wall sockets). then epoxy coated. a pic or two for anyone whose interested http://gallery11185.fotopic.net/show...n.php?id=28726 Stew. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
It suggests that whatever the mechanism is that degraded the treble requires additional attention. Biwire the treble with Litz, perhaps? Or CAT-5 twisted? Or maybe just surplus multiple conductor telephone cable? ... I noticed bass, but I also noticed treble. Bass degradation is an accepted phenomena, which as you say, is solved by piling on more copper. The treble degradation is the more interesting phenomena. If the difference between cables was clearly audible, the difference between cables should be easily measurable. Do you have any measurements that show why these cables sounded different? Bob Stanton |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net Robert Morein wrote: There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to compute skin effect. It is quite significant at audio frequencies. Skin effect is merely a minor distraction from the more significant source of high frequency losses, which is series inductance. Anybody who makes a big issue out of skin effect without paying attention to series inductance which is always more significant, is missing the point. Most people can't actually hear this. Whether all sources of high frequency losses taken together cause an audible difference depends on the speaker. High frequency losses in speaker cable are low for most speakers because most speakers are about as inductive as the cable. Put two inductors in series and the voltage division remains constant as frequency increases. It's not so much a matter of most people not hearing it, so much as its a matter of most people not having an audible effect to hear. Solid wire is a bit better, which is one of the advantages of that COAX cable. Solid versus stranded wire has only mechanical effects. Both inductance and skin effect are based on magnetism affecting the operation of the conductor. Magnetism doesn't care about stranding and it doesn't care about insulation around strands. Magnetic lines of force pass through copper and insulation with the greatest of ease. Various kinds of thin insulation applied to strands in wire; whether enamel, epoxy, cotton, or silk change the inductive and skin effect story only a tiny amount, insofar as they slightly increase the diameter of the conductor. It's also heavily shielded. But, it is a real bear to work with. Nahh. You get some coax with a nice stranded center conductor and pliable insulation, and its not that hard to deal with. After all interconnect wiring is all based on coaxial construction. There's no way you are going to pull it in anything but its own separate conduit. Anybody who goes out of their way to put coax speaker wiring in its own conduit seriously misses the point. A piece of coax is, electrically speaking, its own little conduit. Me? I like solid wire myself and find it actually a bit easier to work with as far as connectors go, as well as easier to hide along walls and baseboards. If you want an easy-to-hide speaker cable, something flat seems to be in order. There are two common ways to make a flat cable, one being to use stranded wire and go sideways, the other to stack thin conductors made out of foil. It turns out that 100-conductor computer ribbon cable is roughly equivalent to 12 gauge wire. It goes under most rugs with nary a bulge. Costs under $2 a foot at any big electronic parts distributor. Best of all would be fiber-optic and transmitters plus a small amplifier for each speaker I guess, but that's a lot of money. OTOH, it's not THAT bad compared to some of the boutique cables, which should tell you how full of it they are. You want zero loss? It exists if you have a few thousand lying around. I hear Mercedes is using something similar lately. Go figure. Bus-oriented car wiring is a whole 'nuther thing. Most new cars already rely on digital a digital bus to control things like locks and windows. Extending that to audio is mostly a matter of building on what is already there. OEM car audio equipment already does things like customize itself to the actual car it is in by receiving binary keys from the car or other parts of the audio system. It's not uncommon to put the amplifiers on the speakers in OEM audio, in order to save on heavy wire. Switchmode power supplies are a no-no in automotive applications, so any really high powered applications depend on low-impedance speakers. For a number of years I've suggested that home audio companies develop a powered digital bus for speakers, sort of like a USB or Firewire on steroids. Speakers would be physically wired arbitrarily in daisy-chain or star configurations. A switch on the speaker would customize it for its role in the system - left, right, surround, center, sub etc. Now that wireless networking is becoming common, speakers could use wiring only for power. A 55 megabit net is more than enough to transmit many channels of high-quality audio. Perhaps we could put a fuel cell in each speaker and power them by converting isobutane or hydrogen to electricity in each speaker. A small lithium-ion battery would power the logic during stand-by operation. If the coax Arny recommends has a polyethylene dielectric, dielectric effects would be reduced as compared to vinyl, which has slow electret properties. Electrets are only significant for audio if they are charged. Until the electret properties of some plastic insulation materials were understood, wire makers would inadvertently make well-charged electrets. Now that the process is understood, no savvy wire maker would be caught doing that. I don't know, but I suspect it does, as the smaller versions I have seen are like this. It's serious stuff intended for professional RF and video use, which is way beyond what audio requires. It's all about speaker cable series inductance and the very few speakers where cable series inductance actually matters. If a speaker cable vendor talks about the high frequency performance of his product and doesn't talk about inductance, he might was well hang an "I'm stupid" or a "I think you are stupid" sign on himself. However, if he doesn't also admit that speaker cable series inductance is a non-issue with most speakers because they themselves are inductive, he's also hanging up one of those two signs or both. Ditto for the "eggspherts" that write for the ragazines and audio sites. Coax isn't the only way to manage series inductance, but it is a readily-available off-the-shelf way to manage it. There is a strong physical argument that the best speaker cable would be made out of very large diameter material with low conductivity, such as a conductive plastic, since skin effect would then be minimized. Of course, it would never sell . Again, someone hasn't done their home work. Large diameter taken too far, and its easy to take it too far, gets you back into series inductance issues. Series inductance is always a bigger issue than skin effect with speaker cable. Anybody who tries to rattle your chain with scare stories about skin effect is either exposing their ignorance, or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I don't know Have you seen how large some of the high-end boutique cables are? Some are big enough that they sacrifice getting the lowest possible series inductance. A clear case of throwing the baby out with the wash water, along with you throwing away with your money. Frankly, if people want to change high prices for a product with zero practical benefits, that's one thing. But charging high prices for a product with clearly substandard performance is something else. Needless to say, lots of "audio eggspherts" in the high end ragazines and audio sites want to do both! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Smeghead" wrote in message ... "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ink.net... Robert Morein wrote: There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to [snip] Very good discussion chaps, How much do the hundreds of feet of wire used in windings of voice coils and inductors affect sound quality, in comparison with the few feet of speaker cable used?, the drive unit windings in my own speakers are made from aluminium. (morel) I've never seen any aluminium core speaker cables 8-) I built the crossovers using striped solid core copper 2.5mm T&E, (used to wire homes etc for say a ring main of wall sockets). then epoxy coated. a pic or two for anyone whose interested http://gallery11185.fotopic.net/show...n.php?id=28726 Stew. This is an imporant question. There is a major distinction to be made. Inductance in a speaker coil is a major parameter of the driver. Inductance is another name for the energy stored in the magnetic field that moves the coil. When a driver is designed for flat response, the inductance is integral to the design. There is no "loss" attributable to the inductance of a speaker coil, because it is all accounted for during the design of the driver. Inductance in a speaker cable does cause loss of high frequencies, but it can be compensated for. The distributed inductance and capacitance of the cable form a simple filter. By using a tone control or an equalizer, the user constructs an approximate inverse filter. In theory, a dedicated filter could completely null out inductance in a speaker cable. Now, without taking a position on whether skin effect and dielectric memory are audible, these phenomena are not in the same class. They are nonlinear, which means that no inverse filter can be made. Whatever happens to the signal after it's passed through the cable cannot be reversed. The common argument is that these effects are small. Maybe, but they are qualitatively different. No study of speaker cables would be complete unless they were studied as separate phenomena. Joseph Oberlander mentions a threshold of several percent "loss" for audibility. This should be a clue that something other than distributed LC is going on here. In terms of sheer signal level, a difference of a few percent is completely inaudible. On the other hand, DISTORTION of a few percent can be very audible. But LC is incapable of producing "distortion", as audio people use the term. All it can do is tilt the frequency response. This suggests that there may be a phenomena in the cable that produces audible distortion. Three candidates are known: 1. Skin effect 2. Dielectric memory 3. Microphonics |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Smeghead" wrote in message ... "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ink.net... Robert Morein wrote: There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to [snip] Very good discussion chaps, How much do the hundreds of feet of wire used in windings of voice coils and inductors affect sound quality, in comparison with the few feet of speaker cable used?, the drive unit windings in my own speakers are made from aluminum. (morel) I've never seen any aluminum core speaker cables 8-) You need to wind or unwind speaker inductors and voice coils more. There typically aren't 100's of feet of wire in either one (subwoofer and very low midrange crossover coils a possible exception). But there are up to several dozen feet of wire in many of them. I built the crossovers using striped solid core copper 2.5mm T&E, (used to wire homes etc for say a ring main of wall sockets). then epoxy coated. a pic or two for anyone whose interested http://gallery11185.fotopic.net/show...n.php?id=28726 These pictures shed very little light on the construction of the crossovers. But tell the truth, were there 100's of feet or were there several dozen feet of wire in those crossovers? Or was this a subwoofer or low midrange application. You must know the exact number, right? Most speakers are simple 2-ways with a crossover at some frequency in the midrange. A few dozen feet of wire in a crossover like that, if there's an inductor at all. This is an important question. There is a major distinction to be made. Inductance in a speaker coil is a major parameter of the driver. Inductance is another name for the energy stored in the magnetic field that moves the coil. Inductance is orthogonal to energy, not a measure of it. Inductance is a measure of the ability of something to store energy, but no way is it another name for energy stored in the magnetic field that moves the coil. When a driver is designed for flat response, the inductance is integral to the design. There is no "loss" attributable to the inductance of a speaker coil, because it is all accounted for during the design of the driver. Some naive person might wish that inductance is "accounted for" or that drivers are all designed for flat response, but these are over-simplifications. Speakers don't as a rule have flat response, and frankly inductance of the voice coils may be one reason why. Inductance in a speaker cable does cause loss of high frequencies, but it can be compensated for. The distributed inductance and capacitance of the cable form a simple filter. By using a tone control or an equalizer, the user constructs an approximate inverse filter. In theory, a dedicated filter could completely null out inductance in a speaker cable. Again the writer ignores a simple fact - a simple voltage divider made up of two ideal inductors has a constant voltage output without regard to frequency. Also true for capacitors, at least down to the lowest frequencies. If you hook an inductive load called a speaker to an inductive source called an amplifier driving a speaker cable, the two inductances tend to compensate for each other to a surprising degree. Of course there's no absolute guarantee that the speaker is inductive, specific cases being planar and ribbon speakers, whether electrostatic or electromagnetic. Now, without taking a position on whether skin effect and dielectric memory are audible, these phenomena are not in the same class. They are nonlinear, which means that no inverse filter can be made. Actually, skin effect is linear. If an audio signal flows through a cable with significant skin effect, the losses due to skin effect create no new signals at other frequencies. It fails the basic definition of a nonlinear circuit. Dielectric memory is also generally linear. If an audio signal flows through a cable or capacitor with significant dielectric memory effect, the dielectric memory effect creates no new signals at other frequencies. If fails the basic definition of a nonlinear circuit. Furthermore, nonlinear effects can be compensated for. Just like my previous example with inductors, a voltage divider made up of two similar nonlinear elements will have a constant voltage output over a wide range of voltages. The two nonlinearities can compensate for each other. Whatever happens to the signal after it's passed through the cable cannot be reversed. Falsified on the grounds upon which it was claimed. The common argument is that these effects are small. Maybe, but they are qualitatively different. No study of speaker cables would be complete unless they were studied as separate phenomena. Not only are they small, they are linear and they can be compensated for, even if they are nonlinear. Joseph Oberlander mentions a threshold of several percent "loss" for audibility. This should be a clue that something other than distributed LC is going on here. In terms of sheer signal level, a difference of a few percent is completely inaudible. On the other hand, DISTORTION of a few percent can be very audible. Nonlinear distortion as little as 0.1% can be heard under ideal conditions for easy detection. Nonlinear distortion as high as 5 or 10% can be undetectable under ideal conditions for masking. Thing is, nonlinear distortion due to speaker cables and interconnects is generally much less than 0.1%. Often, its below 0.001%. Often, its unmeasurable even with the finest commercially-available equipment. But LC is incapable of producing "distortion", as audio people use the term. All it can do is tilt the frequency response. Or produce shelves. Or, the L's and C's can be nonlinear themselves. But, the L's and C's in speaker cable have a high degree of inherent linearity. This suggests that there may be a phenomena in the cable that produces audible distortion. Three candidates are known: 1. Skin effect Nope, it's a linear effect. 2. Dielectric memory Nope, its also almost always linear. 3. Microphonics It's not a distortion at all, but an interfering signal. If its a microphonic effect that is due to the same signal that is passing through it, then it can act like an acoustical effect causing feedback. And that's because it starts out with sound and vibrations being caused by the speaker. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:02:23 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote: Inductance in a speaker coil is a major parameter of the driver. Inductance is another name for the energy stored in the magnetic field that moves the coil. Yuck! If Inductance was another name for energy it would have the units of energy. Don't let Dick see this whatever you do. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Goofy said: Yuck! If Inductance was another name for energy it would have the units of energy. Don't let Dick see this whatever you do. Somebody had his spinach this morning...... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:47:57 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote: Goofy said: Yuck! If Inductance was another name for energy it would have the units of energy. Don't let Dick see this whatever you do. Somebody had his spinach this morning...... At least I did not have Olive Oil. . . |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
You need to wind or unwind speaker inductors and voice coils more. There typically aren't 100's of feet of wire in either one (subwoofer and very low midrange crossover coils a possible exception). But there are up to several dozen feet of wire in many of them. These pictures shed very little light on the construction of the crossovers. But tell the truth, were there 100's of feet or were there several dozen feet of wire in those crossovers? Or was this a subwoofer or low midrange application. You must know the exact number, right? First i'm no expert on this subject so i apolagise for any stupid questions etc. I must admit I have no experience in winding voice coils or inductors. I'm just a diyist looking to learn more. we all have to start somewhere. The bass driver has a second order filter with a 2.0 mh inductor, combined with the drivers voice coil, this must be past the hundred feet mark http://www.colomar.com/cgi-bin/inductor_proc I'm not sure of the exact gauge that was used in the inductor but I would think it would be around one hundred feet + of wire used in this part of the circuit alone. It's distortions and any phase issues caused by the metal and insulation of wire that I am most interested in, frequency response can be tailored within reason in the design and testing stage of the speaker so that's not too much of an issue as far as I can see. if speaker cable is of adequate gauge and just a few feet in length then the frequency response of the speaker should stay more or less the same. For instance this 6mm2 conventional cable http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1416 apparently ruins the sound stage, gives a lack of "insight" and lack of detail. This is the kind of claims that makes me wonder what else must be going on, if these differences are real. If I used the afore mentioned cable (2ft per driver at least) between the binding post ,crossover, drive units then this would according to the review give the same undesirable quality's to the speaker which cant be easily accounted for in the design. I cant see how a cable could affect the width of soundstage. Stew. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Goofy said: Somebody had his spinach this morning...... At least I did not have Olive Oil. . . Now yer cookin'. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:02:23 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote: This suggests that there may be a phenomena in the cable that produces audible distortion. Three candidates are known: 1. Skin effect 2. Dielectric memory 3. Microphonics Don'r worry about dielectric properties for speaker cables. Take a speaker of R=10 Ohms, an amplifier giving V=10 Volts (RMS) you get I=1 amp and Power = 10 Watts. Now take the same 10 Volts out of the amp at 20,000Hz (worst case) and see what current is needed to charge and discharge the capacitance of the cable. Say the capacitance is 50pF/metre and we have 20 metres (LoT's) of cable =1000pF Call 2*PI = 5. The reactance of the capacitor is X=1/(2 pi f C j)= 1/(5*2e4*1e-9) = 1/1e5*1e-9) = 1/(1e-4 ) The current charging this capacitance is I = V/X = 10 * 1e-4 = 1e-3 = 1 milliamp. This is all you have to play with. You are going to have to be very creative to distort this 1 milliamp in some way, enough for it to create a distorted voltage across the output impedance of the amp,sufficient to be audible against your 10 Watts signal, even if you used the worst dielectric on Earth. Say you manage to distort this 1 milliamp by 10% (very generous indeed) and the output impedance of the amplifier is 0.1 Ohm (generous) The amplitude of the distortion is then 10 microvolts and the distortion power at the speaker W=V^2/R =10e-9 Watts. A signal/Distortion of 1000,000,000 Yep, the idea is total ********. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Robert Morein wrote:
Joseph Oberlander mentions a threshold of several percent "loss" for audibility. This should be a clue that something other than distributed LC is going on here. In terms of sheer signal level, a difference of a few percent is completely inaudible. On the other hand, DISTORTION of a few percent can be very audible. I meant "loss" as in exactly that - as all signals degrade in strength as the wires get longer. For most people, 1-2% is below their tolerance. 5%, otoh, most people can actually hear. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Smeghead wrote:
I must admit I have no experience in winding voice coils or inductors. I'm just a diyist looking to learn more. we all have to start somewhere. The bass driver has a second order filter with a 2.0 mh inductor, combined with the drivers voice coil, this must be past the hundred feet mark http://www.colomar.com/cgi-bin/inductor_proc I'm not sure of the exact gauge that was used in the inductor but I would think it would be around one hundred feet + of wire used in this part of the circuit alone. It's distortions and any phase issues caused by the metal and insulation of wire that I am most interested in, frequency response can be tailored within reason in the design and testing stage of the speaker so that's not too much of an issue as far as I can see. The metal is a moot point as it's all the same basic copper wire. As for the insulation and possible shielding, the simple fact is that if you are really worried, just get some good heavy gauge coax. They use it for low signal loss on microphones and video signals, so audio is a non-issue. It works very well. if speaker cable is of adequate gauge and just a few feet in length then the frequency response of the speaker should stay more or less the same. For instance this 6mm2 conventional cable http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1416 apparently ruins the sound stage, gives a lack of "insight" and lack of detail. It's a typical review - they don't know what they are really hearing, as you can measure the differences between the cables and the effects are well below human hearing. They do the same thing with 24/96 vs the older technology - the reality is that 99.9% of people who are of an age where they can afford to buy a CD player and listen critically(ie - at least a teenager) have already suffered enough hearing loss that they can't hear any difference between CD and 24/96. Our ears are very poor compared to most other animals. Ther's no getting around it. Thankfully, this also is a blessing, as some very common materials produce good sound. If humans heard to 30-40Khz like dogs, 90% of what is out there in audio reproduction would sound like junk to us. The rest would cost a fortune. This is the kind of claims that makes me wonder what else must be going on, if these differences are real. They really aren't unless they are either using too little metal(gauge) or have very ugly speakers. Most good speakers have a couple of impedance dips or rises, but these are never more than half their rated value. Usually, a typical 8 ohm speaker will have a 5 ohm bottom end. Maybe 4. Oddly enough, some of the more "high-end" speakers have some terrible characteristics due to odd materials and techniques. If your speaker or crossover is made wrong and you are needing to pull 2 ohms, say, from 60 to 80hz, 18 gauge wire isn't going to cut it. For the other 95%+ of the time, it's meaningless. The reviewers are making stuff up in their own minds. ie: reviews are crap. Good wire or coax can be had for less than $1 a foot. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Smeghead" wrote in message
You need to wind or unwind speaker inductors and voice coils more. There typically aren't 100's of feet of wire in either one (subwoofer and very low midrange crossover coils a possible exception). But there are up to several dozen feet of wire in many of them. These pictures shed very little light on the construction of the crossovers. But tell the truth, were there 100's of feet or were there several dozen feet of wire in those crossovers? Or was this a subwoofer or low midrange application. You must know the exact number, right? First i'm no expert on this subject so i apolagise for any stupid questions etc. I must admit I have no experience in winding voice coils or inductors. I'm just a diyist looking to learn more. we all have to start somewhere. The bass driver has a second order filter with a 2.0 mh inductor, combined with the drivers voice coil, this must be past the hundred feet mark http://www.colomar.com/cgi-bin/inductor_proc I'm not sure of the exact gauge that was used in the inductor but I would think it would be around one hundred feet + of wire used in this part of the circuit alone. Agreed. It's distortions and any phase issues caused by the metal and insulation of wire that I am most interested in, frequency response can be tailored within reason in the design and testing stage of the speaker so that's not too much of an issue as far as I can see. Air core inductors are well known for their absence of nonlinear distortion and general ideal performance as an inductor. The inductor is going to cause some phase shift if used in a crossover, but that's what its supposed to do! if speaker cable is of adequate gauge and just a few feet in length then the frequency response of the speaker should stay more or less the same. Agreed. For instance this 6mm2 conventional cable http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1416 apparently ruins the sound stage, gives a lack of "insight" and lack of detail. Somebody is letting their imagination get the best of them. This is the kind of claims that makes me wonder what else must be going on, if these differences are real. The perceptions of audible differences are no doubt real enough to the person perceiving them. Hence the concept of "reliable audible differences". IOW, differences that are audible in level-matched, time-synchronized, bias-controlled listening tests. If I used the afore mentioned cable (2ft per driver at least) between the binding post ,crossover, drive units then this would according to the review give the same undesirable quality's to the speaker which cant be easily accounted for in the design. These are generally the kind of "audible differences" that "go away" when reliable listening test procedures are used. I cant see how a cable could affect the width of soundstage. Not two feet of a reasonable gauge, agreed. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net They do the same thing with 24/96 vs. the older technology - the reality is that 99.9% of people who are of an age where they can afford to buy a CD player and listen critically(i.e. - at least a teenager) have already suffered enough hearing loss that they can't hear any difference between CD and 24/96. *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss has nothing to do with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go out of their way to ensure that the recordings released at 24/96, SACD and 24/192 differ markedly from those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings released on SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because that information wasn't captured by the original recording. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss has nothing to do with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go out of their way to ensure that the recordings released at 24/96, SACD and 24/192 differ markedly from those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings released on SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because that information wasn't captured by the original recording. You have no realisitc conception of what *everybody* is able , or not able, to hear. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message nk.net They do the same thing with 24/96 vs. the older technology - the reality is that 99.9% of people who are of an age where they can afford to buy a CD player and listen critically(i.e. - at least a teenager) have already suffered enough hearing loss that they can't hear any difference between CD and 24/96. *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. There are a few people with exceptional hearing that goes a bit above 20Khz. Of course, that's not myself of anyone here, so it's really a moot point. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net Arny Krueger wrote: "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message nk.net They do the same thing with 24/96 vs. the older technology - the reality is that 99.9% of people who are of an age where they can afford to buy a CD player and listen critically(i.e. - at least a teenager) have already suffered enough hearing loss that they can't hear any difference between CD and 24/96. *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. There are a few people with exceptional hearing that goes a bit above 20Khz. Of course, that's not myself of anyone here, so it's really a moot point. Surprisingly ability to hear above 20 KHz doesn't relate to this issue. People who can hear isolated sounds 20 KHz, can't hear sounds 16 Khz when concurrrently presented with other sounds 16 Khz. It's called "concurrent masking", and it's a well-known psychoacoustic effect. Since music *always* contains a broad spectrum of sounds, concurrent masking it always in effect this way. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss has nothing to do with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go out of their way to ensure that the recordings released at 24/96, SACD and 24/192 differ markedly from those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings released on SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because that information wasn't captured by the original recording. You have no realistic conception of what *everybody* is able , or not able, to hear. And I suppose that your preference for added noise and distortion makes you some kind of an expert in this field? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss has nothing to do with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go out of their way to ensure that the recordings released at 24/96, SACD and 24/192 differ markedly from those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings released on SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because that information wasn't captured by the original recording. You have no realistic conception of what *everybody* is able , or not able, to hear. And I suppose that your preference for added noise and distortion makes you some kind of an expert in this field? What field? Oh, yes, the field of knowing exactly what each and every other person can and cannot perceive. Neither you nor I would have knowledge of that. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Twisted pair" RCA Interconnects? | Car Audio | |||
hum in the speaker | Audio Opinions | |||
RCA cables | Car Audio |