[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long time,
and often contributes very helpful information.

What is his last name? Where does he live? What does he do for a living?

Right now, he's just arguing about things he has little experience with.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message

Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience
channels. Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in
sound quality.

No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

Wrong again. See preceding response.

I sauggest the degradation may be entirely subjective, and is to do with
the
overall experience rather than fidelity.

Subjectivity is reality in this context -- qv, psychoacoustics.

Regardless, "something else" is going on here. One's perception of
instrumental timbre varies with the presence or absence of ambience, whether
it's real or synthesized.


Your 45 beats my 30. Presumably your ears have not degraded in those 45
years as much as mine have in 30.

Depend on our ages. My ears still get to about 12kHz.


I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real
name, and we know who he is.

Hit a raw nerve somewhere have I ?

Oh, yes. I have little respect for people who won't reveal who they are.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that
it lacked audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions
whose management many had built their careers on.

Some months back I pulled out a pile of audiophile direct-disk LPs and
decided that, though most were at least euphonic, in terms of accuracy
(to
my perception of what comprises "live" sound) they simply weren't as
good
as the best digital recordings -- especially SACDs.

At the risk of being predictable, I'm going to reference my usual
reservations about audiophile perceptions of live sound, and also suggest
that since the SACD format has no known audible benefits all by itself,
it
was the nth remastering or merely your prejudices that made the
differences
you perceived.

All too predictable, Arny.

You really enjoy attacking someone who agrees
with you, don't you?

No, I'm wary of people who reach the right conclusions for false reasons.

What do you mean by "reservations about audiophile perceptions of live
sound"?

I mean that few if any audiophiles have a lot of relevant experience with
live musical sound. Many times one sees people pontificating volumnously,
hot and cold, based on a concert they listened to weeks, months and
sometimes even years ago.

If anything, audiophiles should have a more-perceptive appreciation
of the superiority of live sound to recorded.

Depends whether they spend more time listening to live music or recorded
music, among other things.

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is debatable.
*

Only among the poorly-informed. If you know the relevant facts, and
particularly if you have experienced them, then the debate is mercifully
short.

But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have significantly better --
more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is another matter.

I'll attack that claim at the source. Practially speaking almost no
audiophiles extant have ever heard the very live performance that is
packaged up on the media that they listen to. The only people who routinely
hear the live performances that are recorded on media that they have before
them are recordists. Often, there are still strong asymmetries between what
is on that media and what even recordists have ever heard.

The proper way to judge a media format as being degrading is to make
before-and-after comparisons under the most ideal circumstances possible.
For those who have actually done so, (again a tiny almost vanishing minority
of individuals) virtually every mainstream digital format since the red book
CD is more than good enough for practical purposes, both production and
delivery.

Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality. It
isn't just the loss of hall sound -- the front channels sound less
natural.
(This effect also occurs when using a hall synthesizer with stereo
recordings.)

Now you are talking way past your experience as you have recounted it.

* One could set up a bypass test with live mic feeds. But as they don't
permit an exactly repeatable stimulus, it would be difficult to get
meaningful results. Along the same lines... remember when Julian Hirsch
visited Shure, and duly reported that the output of a V15 III pickup
playing
an LP was indistinguishable from the master tape that produced the LP?

Julian Hirsch's involvement would be required to defend Julian Hirsch's
words. I understan that this is impossible. Next!

I've ays believed that the LP format had enough audible flaws that it was
a major detriment to the enjoyment of recorded music, and nothing that
has
come out of the scientific research of the past 30 years has changed that
one iota.

The real marvel about it was that we were able to enjoy it as much
as we did, all things considered. The enjoyment was mostly due to the
lack
of a superior alternative, which we have now had for about 30 years.

You'll note that I referred to audiophile recordings, which weren't
anywhere
nearly as bad as most commercial recordings. I don't know why you seem to
be
so upset about my describing them as "euphonic" -- because they are.

Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue" of
being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is that a good
chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any type are due to
the
choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and the amount of electronic
equipment between the mics and the recorder. Make bad choices, and they'll
wipe out the superiority of digital recording.

Of course. There is no limit to the human ability to screw up.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"geoff" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
another matter.

Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason)
which
causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?

Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a good
system? No?

This sort of talk just degenerates into name-dropping contests.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long time,
and often contributes very helpful information.

What is his last name? Where does he live? What does he do for a living?

Right now, he's just arguing about things he has little experience with.

I've been following his posts for years. He is well informed about
plenty of tech stuff having to do with audio gear and practices. he
lives in Australia. What difference does it make?

That he disagrees with you does not automatically make him ill-informed.
He sometimes disagrees with me, too. Hell, anybody worth their salt
would sometimes disagree with me.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Frank Stearns]

gjsmo writes:

(snips)

I know about the various other effects (though not their exact
meanings), but it seems like those would be negligible, ESPECIALLY on
wires like speaker interconnects - big, thick wires carrying a good

You're going in the right general direction. My suggestion is to be
alert to oversimplification.

In audio, not only are the subtle aspects prone to complexity (devil
in the details, as it were), the perceptive aspects are complex with
humans, and with any one of us in our particular listening
environments.

There are all sorts of wild and wonderful perceptive issues that make
humans exquisitely sensitive in some regards, but near stone deaf in
others. The nature of music itself can mask or expose different
problems in uneven ways.

So, are the effects of tiny parasitics audible or not?

Depends on what they are and what they affect. But I want mine way
down, at least 90 dB down, preferably 100+ down, at or below the
noise floor.

If you're talking volts into a reasonably efficient speaker, 100 dB
down will put you in the microvolt range and *hopefully* be
inaudible. Hopefully.

But if the problem is merely 50-60 dB down, we're talking millivolts
against volts and that's likely audible.

Just because from a *linear* frame of reference we'd be inclined to
say that a 1/2 millivolt signal should be lost against the swamping
tide of a 10 volt signal, that's not necessarily true.

There are perceptive tests you can cobble together for your own
edification, and as a challenge to the "common sense" notion of huge
signals swamping little ones.

Here's something fun to try:

I assume your DAW has an oscillator plugin and it can generate
various waveforms, and hopefully even white noise.

Take a white noise source. Hi and low pass it with steep cut-offs to
give you a band of noise from 100 Hz to 500 Hz. Take a sine
oscillator set to 2Khz, with the output 50 dB lower than your white
noise. Mix them together. While moderately faint, you should hear
that 2K signal, no problem.

Crank down that little signal still mo -60, -70. I bet you can
still hear it.

This is something of a rigged test, in that the ear is most sensitive
in the 2k region. And, with the band pass on the noise signal, we've
left things wide open for that tiny signal.

This is still a useful test because circuit aberrations in that
frequency range with real music might be that much more evident,
along with how real music itself does not occupy all frequencies at
any given instant. Something small that doesn't belong *can* be exposed.
This is especially true with acoustic music.

The theme of this test is that you can hear the small among the large.

==

I would never spend kilobucks for speaker wire, but I am going to be
careful about what I use and how it's maintained.

Part of the issue in my room is that the monitor chain and room
itself is good enough so that many things ambiguously perceived on a
typical system are not fleeting on this system. If there's something
there, you will hear it.

Likewise, if something is NOT there (yet you thought otherwise due to
suggestion or self-deception inspired by non-linearities in a lesser
system/room) you'll be disappointed -- because you won't hear it.

And along those same lines, you won't hear a faux brightness due to
distortion, or a fake creaminess due to slight dips in HF response,
etc.

Sigh. There's so much more to all this, but this post would get way
too long.

The general point is that if an improbable observation comes your
way, eliminate what you can as the cause. If it persists, you might
indeed have found something that initially seemed unlikely.

AC circuits can be odd at first glance, but it sounds like you
understand the broad fundamentals, and that's a good portion of what
you need unless you plan on designing gear from scratch.


But back (finally!) to your statement:

I'm still not buying any cable that costs much more than the
copper and rubber that's in it.

Theoretically, yes, absolutely. I'm right there with you.

But in the real world, things might not be quite so simple. We need
to specify:

- how much impurity we'll allow in the copper, and the affiliated
parasitic dioding, if a particular impurity leads to that (mere
resistance or reactance we can likely tolerate -- up to a point). Our
answer depends on the application. And it's more granular than
"audio". A tracking studio might tolerate "little" failings in their
monitoring more than a mastering studio.

- what price for the chosen level of purity?

- what level of diminishing returns for that price?

- what return on investment?

(There's yet another discussion about the geometry of the wire,
starting with solid or stranded, and branching out from there. Again,
not as simple as we might like.)


Anyway, way more than $0.02 worth; sorry for the length. Hope it helps.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[geoff]

hank alrich wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long
time, and often contributes very helpful information.

What is his last name? Where does he live? What does he do for a
living?

Right now, he's just arguing about things he has little experience
with.

I've been following his posts for years. He is well informed about
plenty of tech stuff having to do with audio gear and practices. he
lives in Australia. What difference does it make?

That he disagrees with you does not automatically make him
ill-informed. He sometimes disagrees with me, too. Hell, anybody
worth their salt would sometimes disagree with me.

New Zealand actually, and Wood.

Willy seems so irrationally outraged that it appears that he seems confused
in that what I actually suggested was his claim that DSD inherently gives a
better real-world fideltity than SACD or LPCM, and that adding ambiance
channels (now apparently even if synthesised !) somehow increases fidelity.
All in an environment with so many variables (incldung the variable
physiological effects of the listener merely breathing or moving) that by
far outway any type of distortions from those media.

I guess that almost validates those cheesy 'hi-fi' amps of the 80s(?) with
'Reverb' ;-) (that is known as a smiley - some of us can still smile you
know .... )

I say the *format*, not the encoding technology, may give a subjectively
more satisfying experience to him, and maybe others, but that is not
fidelity.

geoff (as always)

[gjsmo]

On Oct 24, 1:56*pm, Frank Stearns
wrote:
gjsmo writes:

(snips)

I know about the various other effects (though not their exact
meanings), but it seems like those would be negligible, ESPECIALLY on
wires like speaker interconnects - big, thick wires carrying a good

You're going in the right general direction. My suggestion is to be
alert to oversimplification.

In audio, not only are the subtle aspects prone to complexity (devil
in the details, as it were), the perceptive aspects are complex with
humans, and with any one of us in our particular listening
environments.

There are all sorts of wild and wonderful perceptive issues that make
humans exquisitely sensitive in some regards, but near stone deaf in
others. The nature of music itself can mask or expose different
problems in uneven ways.

So, are the effects of tiny parasitics audible or not?

Depends on what they are and what they affect. But I want mine way
down, at least 90 dB down, preferably 100+ down, at or below the
noise floor.

If you're talking volts into a reasonably efficient speaker, 100 dB
down will put you in the microvolt range and *hopefully* be
inaudible. Hopefully.

But if the problem is merely 50-60 dB down, we're talking millivolts
against volts and that's likely audible.

Just because from a *linear* frame of reference we'd be inclined to
say that a 1/2 millivolt signal should be lost against the swamping
tide of a 10 volt signal, that's not necessarily true.

But wouldn't all of this be influenced FAR more by the amp, monitors,
ambient noise and room than by the actual WIRES? If you're that
concerned about a millivolt or two of interference or crosstalk,
double-shield the send and return separately, and then triple shield
the whole thing, then connect them all to a 10 foot copper pipe in the
ground (on one side only, of course - no ground loops here), using
solder with silver in it (mine has 2% silver). Still isn't going to
get you anywhere near the price of the ridiculously expensive stuff
sold to blind believers. And I would sooner spend money on a multi-
thousand dollar amp with unmeasurable THD than those wires.

Maybe you're not implying what I'm challenging, in which case I never
said the above.

There are perceptive tests you can cobble together for your own
edification, and as a challenge to the "common sense" notion of huge
signals swamping little ones.

Here's something fun to try:

I assume your DAW has an oscillator plugin and it can generate
various waveforms, and hopefully even white noise.

Take a white noise source. Hi and low pass it with steep cut-offs to
give you a band of noise from 100 Hz to 500 Hz. Take a sine
oscillator set to 2Khz, with the output 50 dB lower than your white
noise. Mix them together. While moderately faint, you should hear
that 2K signal, no problem.

Crank down that little signal still mo -60, -70. I bet you can
still hear it.

This is something of a rigged test, in that the ear is most sensitive
in the 2k region. And, with the band pass on the noise signal, we've
left things wide open for that tiny signal.

This is still a useful test because circuit aberrations in that
frequency range with real music might be that much more evident,
along with how real music itself does not occupy all frequencies at
any given instant. Something small that doesn't belong *can* be exposed.
This is especially true with acoustic music.

The theme of this test is that you can hear the small among the large.

You point out how a 2kHz signal is very easy to hear, especially above
white noise not in that region. A more likely scenario with "bad"
wiring would be full spectrum white noise, no?

==

I would never spend kilobucks for speaker wire, but I am going to be
careful about what I use and how it's maintained.

Part of the issue in my room is that the monitor chain and room
itself is good enough so that many things ambiguously perceived on a
typical system are not fleeting on this system. If there's something
there, you will hear it.

Likewise, if something is NOT there (yet you thought otherwise due to
suggestion or self-deception inspired by non-linearities in a lesser
system/room) you'll be disappointed -- because you won't hear it.

And along those same lines, you won't hear a faux brightness due to
distortion, or a fake creaminess due to slight dips in HF response,
etc.

Sigh. There's so much more to all this, but this post would get way
too long.

The general point is that if an improbable observation comes your
way, eliminate what you can as the cause. If it persists, you might
indeed have found something that initially seemed unlikely.

AC circuits can be odd at first glance, but it sounds like you
understand the broad fundamentals, and that's a good portion of what
you need unless you plan on designing gear from scratch.

Well, I want to make my own guitar amp, and then a hifi - or maybe the
other way around. I'm probably not going to, though.

But back (finally!) to your statement:

I'm still not buying any cable that costs much more than the
copper and rubber that's in it.

Theoretically, yes, absolutely. I'm right there with you.

But in the real world, things might not be quite so simple. We need
to specify:

- how much impurity we'll allow in the copper, and the affiliated
parasitic dioding, if a particular impurity leads to that (mere
resistance or reactance we can likely tolerate -- up to a point). Our
answer depends on the application. And it's more granular than
"audio". A tracking studio might tolerate "little" failings in their
monitoring more than a mastering studio.

I've never even seen purity marked on a roll of copper wire. Silver
maybe, but then you're crazy.

- what price for the chosen level of purity?

- what level of diminishing returns for that price?

- what return on investment?

(There's yet another discussion about the geometry of the wire,
starting with solid or stranded, and branching out from there. Again,
not as simple as we might like.)

Well, theoretically stranded should carry more current due to
increased surface area. Except that's irrelevant except possibly in
truly ENORMOUS speaker setups - that is, concerts. No studio or home
sound system would require any more current than can be carried over
average 14-2 house wiring, which will take a full 15 amps (and more -
it's underspec'ed, like many things) before doing anything weird, like
melting. And that's solid-core.

Incidentally, if you want an instance of a wire which COULDN'T handle
the current... I once shorted a lawnmower battery with some 20 gauge
wire. Or at least I thought I did - there wasn't anything left after
the current vaporized the copper and insulation. The wrench I
subsequently dropped across the terminals, however, was welded to the
soft lead terminals - note to self, cover terminals or be more careful
next time. That took a hammer to remove.

Anyway, way more than $0.02 worth; sorry for the length. Hope it helps.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
*.

[Frank Stearns]

gjsmo writes:

snips

But if the problem is merely 50-60 dB down, we're talking millivolts
against volts and that's likely audible.

Just because from a *linear* frame of reference we'd be inclined to
say that a 1/2 millivolt signal should be lost against the swamping
tide of a 10 volt signal, that's not necessarily true.

But wouldn't all of this be influenced FAR more by the amp, monitors,
ambient noise and room than by the actual WIRES? If you're that

Yes, all those items play a role; some larger than others. The original point
was that some small effects (some, but not all) can be heard alongside much louder
components, particularly in the ever-changing tapestry of a music signal.


concerned about a millivolt or two of interference or crosstalk,

No, not crosstalk. Dioding and LCR affects within the wire that alter the way the
*entire* circuit performs, not just the wire as an isolated thing on a test bench.


double-shield the send and return separately, and then triple shield
the whole thing, then connect them all to a 10 foot copper pipe in the
ground (on one side only, of course - no ground loops here), using
solder with silver in it (mine has 2% silver). Still isn't going to
get you anywhere near the price of the ridiculously expensive stuff
sold to blind believers. And I would sooner spend money on a multi-
thousand dollar amp with unmeasurable THD than those wires.

I'm one water mile away from a 50KW AM radio station; I know all about dealing with
RF. Clean wiring practices from the get-go will preclude most problems. Special
shielding was not required.

Maybe you're not implying what I'm challenging, in which case I never
said the above.

Not sure what you're challenging; it's possible you're looking past the abstract
point I've tried to make.

There are perceptive tests you can cobble together for your own
edification, and as a challenge to the "common sense" notion of huge
signals swamping little ones.

Here's something fun to try:

I assume your DAW has an oscillator plugin and it can generate
various waveforms, and hopefully even white noise.

Take a white noise source. Hi and low pass it with steep cut-offs to
give you a band of noise from 100 Hz to 500 Hz. Take a sine
oscillator set to 2Khz, with the output 50 dB lower than your white
noise. Mix them together. While moderately faint, you should hear
that 2K signal, no problem.

Crank down that little signal still mo -60, -70. I bet you can
still hear it.

This is something of a rigged test, in that the ear is most sensitive
in the 2k region. And, with the band pass on the noise signal, we've
left things wide open for that tiny signal.

This is still a useful test because circuit aberrations in that
frequency range with real music might be that much more evident,
along with how real music itself does not occupy all frequencies at
any given instant. Something small that doesn't belong *can* be exposed.
This is especially true with acoustic music.

The theme of this test is that you can hear the small among the large.

You point out how a 2kHz signal is very easy to hear, especially above
white noise not in that region. A more likely scenario with "bad"
wiring would be full spectrum white noise, no?

Right, but music isn't white noise. (Well, there might be some exceptions,
particularly if mishandled by a mastering engineer who wants to "make it reallly
loud," but I don't want to start a personal-taste-in-music holy war. g)

The concept of the test was to have two things of vastly different "sizes", and
show how the tiny one was still readily perceptable, even at a 1000x, 2000x or more
times smaller than the big one.

Now, if you have diode effects taking place, smears or overshoots from unwanted RCL
circuits that can form within the wire -- again, small in magnitude but damaging to
the small components we routinely hear (such as harmonics) -- you have potential
issues to address.


snips

The general point is that if an improbable observation comes your
way, eliminate what you can as the cause. If it persists, you might
indeed have found something that initially seemed unlikely.

snips

But back (finally!) to your statement:

I'm still not buying any cable that costs much more than the
copper and rubber that's in it.

Theoretically, yes, absolutely. I'm right there with you.

But in the real world, things might not be quite so simple. We need
to specify:

- how much impurity we'll allow in the copper, and the affiliated
parasitic dioding, if a particular impurity leads to that (mere
resistance or reactance we can likely tolerate -- up to a point). Our
answer depends on the application. And it's more granular than
"audio". A tracking studio might tolerate "little" failings in their
monitoring more than a mastering studio.

I've never even seen purity marked on a roll of copper wire. Silver
maybe, but then you're crazy.

Generally, you won't, but certain applications require a specified purity. A
reputable manufacturer can provide such information or guarantee a certain wire to
be made a certain way.

Poorly made copper wire might be called "copper" but have excessive iron or carbon
(or other elements) in its structure, which could be acceptable for many
applications, but might be iffy for audio. (I've seen what happens to high-iron
content copper wire after it's been out in the world for a number of years. It can
corrode, and then you have the potential for diode problems. It might power your
light bulb just fine, but play havoc with audio.)

- what price for the chosen level of purity?

- what level of diminishing returns for that price?

- what return on investment?

(There's yet another discussion about the geometry of the wire,
starting with solid or stranded, and branching out from there. Again,
not as simple as we might like.)

Well, theoretically stranded should carry more current due to
increased surface area. Except that's irrelevant except possibly in

Again, depends on how the stranding is done and the purity level.

Doug Sax of the Mastering Lab, the crew at A&M Mastering, Bob Katz, et al, are all
rather picky about EVERY component in their mastering facility, wiring included.

As just one example, A&M rewired with solid core wire throughout their multi-room
plant. Line level was done with a solid core 22 gauge Alpha wire product; speakers
were done with a 12-2 solid-conductor twisted pair product from Belden. Their
contention was that over time and with any impurities or corrosion, RCL networks
would form throughout the stranding. So, preclude the problem out of the gate by
using solid core. (There were other advantages as well that slip my mind at the
moment. But, solid core makes a lousy stage mic cable! No such thing as a free
lunch.)

The Belden 12-2 is an interesting product: it's essentially house wiring (solid
copper), but in a twisted pair format with special insulation -- not for audio, but
to meet fire alarm system specs in extreme environmental conditions.

Turns out to be a coup for audio. The copper is high-purity for low corrosion issues
over a long number of years. The twisting helps here in preventing RF getting back
into the system at the amp output (yes, RF can do this). The insulation dialectic
is quite good and very stable.


truly ENORMOUS speaker setups - that is, concerts. No studio or home
sound system would require any more current than can be carried over
average 14-2 house wiring, which will take a full 15 amps (and more -
it's underspec'ed, like many things) before doing anything weird, like
melting. And that's solid-core.

We're not talking running 15A into the speakers; the objective is to push any small
parasitics (some of which might be dynamic in nature) so far down that they're never
an issue. Oversized wire capacity is one way to help in this -- but again, rational
price/performance comes into play.

With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gauge wire would
be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But there would be
other potential problems, particularly with R. 4-0 wire (1/2" thick feeder cable)
would be ridiculous overkill, as would pure silver, though it might be a nice choice
if the price were similar to copper.

Instead, the idea with the Belden product (and the thinking of the A&M folks) was to
get an copper product optimized for one situation, one where life and property --
and lawsuits -- were at stake. But this meant that production runs meeting specs
were assured; and, that same product just happened to be ideal for another
application, in this case audio. (And believe me, the A&M folks did a lot of trials
on a lot of wire before settling on this one. And, when you're a six room facility
with top-flight engineers getting top money for their service, facility improve
prices were no object. They could have spent huge bucks for interconnects, but
didn't do so.)

Incidentally, if you want an instance of a wire which COULDN'T handle
the current... I once shorted a lawnmower battery with some 20 gauge
wire. Or at least I thought I did - there wasn't anything left after
the current vaporized the copper and insulation. The wrench I
subsequently dropped across the terminals, however, was welded to the
soft lead terminals - note to self, cover terminals or be more careful
next time. That took a hammer to remove.

Yep. You've got the perfect welding configuration: high current, low voltage.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[PStamler]

On Oct 25, 2:40*am, Frank Stearns
wrote:
With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gauge wire would
be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But there would be
other potential problems, particularly with R.

No kidding there would, if the 22ga wire was longer than a foot or so.
Its comparatively high resistance forms a voltage divider with the
speaker's load impedance. Since the latter is usually far from flat,
you get a built-in EQ curve following the shape of the speaker's
impedance. Not desirable.

Peace,
Paul

[Frank Stearns]

PStamler writes:

On Oct 25, 2:40=A0am, Frank Stearns
wrote:
With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gauge w=
ire would
be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But ther=
e would be
other potential problems, particularly with R.

No kidding there would, if the 22ga wire was longer than a foot or so.
Its comparatively high resistance forms a voltage divider with the
speaker's load impedance. Since the latter is usually far from flat,
you get a built-in EQ curve following the shape of the speaker's
impedance. Not desirable.

Thanks, Paul!

This makes a great point about oversimplification of these circuits, and only
looking at essentially one factor (current capacity).

Fine for powering tiny hobby motors and small light bulbs (assuming their draw was
low enough for that slim wire to handle), but with audio the overall effects of wire
as a circuit element cannot be ignored.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"PStamler" wrote in message
...
On Oct 25, 2:40 am, Frank Stearns
wrote:
With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gauge
wire would
be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But there
would be
other potential problems, particularly with R.

No kidding there would, if the 22ga wire was longer than a foot or so.
Its comparatively high resistance forms a voltage divider with the
speaker's load impedance. Since the latter is usually far from flat,
you get a built-in EQ curve following the shape of the speaker's
impedance. Not desirable.

22 gauge wire has a resistance of 16 ohms per thousand feet or 0.016 ohms
per foot. Rule of thumb is that a 1:50 voltage divider can be counted on to
produce no audible attenuation. If the speaker involved has reasonable
worst case impedance curve variations and a rated impedance (i.e.,
approximate minimum impedance at any normal audio frequency) of 4 ohms, the
wire could be about 5 feet long with no audible effects. Or, if you will a
30 inch speaker cable.

[PStamler]

On Oct 26, 8:24*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"PStamler" wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:40 am, Frank Stearns
wrote:

With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gauge
wire would
be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But there
would be
other potential problems, particularly with R.
No kidding there would, if the 22ga wire was longer than a foot or so.
Its comparatively high resistance forms a voltage divider with the
speaker's load impedance. Since the latter is usually far from flat,
you get a built-in EQ curve following the shape of the speaker's
impedance. Not desirable.

22 gauge wire has a resistance of *16 ohms per thousand feet or 0.016 ohms
per foot. Rule of thumb is that a 1:50 voltage divider can be counted on to
produce no audible attenuation. *If the speaker involved has reasonable
worst case impedance curve variations and a rated impedance (i.e.,
approximate minimum impedance at any normal audio frequency) of 4 ohms, the
wire could be about 5 feet long with no audible effects. Or, if you will a
30 inch speaker cable.

Not too far off from my guesstimate of a foot. In any case, running 10
feet of 22ga speaker cable, or 20 feet, is definitely not recommended,
which was the point I was making.

Peace,
Paul

[gjsmo]

On Oct 26, 3:58*pm, PStamler wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:24*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:









"PStamler" wrote in message

....
On Oct 25, 2:40 am, Frank Stearns
wrote:

With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gauge
wire would
be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But there
would be
other potential problems, particularly with R.
No kidding there would, if the 22ga wire was longer than a foot or so.
Its comparatively high resistance forms a voltage divider with the
speaker's load impedance. Since the latter is usually far from flat,
you get a built-in EQ curve following the shape of the speaker's
impedance. Not desirable.

22 gauge wire has a resistance of *16 ohms per thousand feet or 0.016 ohms
per foot. Rule of thumb is that a 1:50 voltage divider can be counted on to
produce no audible attenuation. *If the speaker involved has reasonable
worst case impedance curve variations and a rated impedance (i.e.,
approximate minimum impedance at any normal audio frequency) of 4 ohms, the
wire could be about 5 feet long with no audible effects. Or, if you will a
30 inch speaker cable.

Not too far off from my guesstimate of a foot. In any case, running 10
feet of 22ga speaker cable, or 20 feet, is definitely not recommended,
which was the point I was making.

Peace,
Paul

Honestly... does "speaker wire" come in 22ga? or even 20ga?
Usually it's at least 16ga, often 14ga or 12ga.

[Frank Stearns]

gjsmo writes:

On Oct 26, 3:58=A0pm, PStamler wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:24=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"PStamler" wrote in message

..=
.
On Oct 25, 2:40 am, Frank Stearns
wrote:

With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gau=
ge
wire would
be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But =
there
would be
other potential problems, particularly with R.
No kidding there would, if the 22ga wire was longer than a foot or so.
Its comparatively high resistance forms a voltage divider with the
speaker's load impedance. Since the latter is usually far from flat,
you get a built-in EQ curve following the shape of the speaker's
impedance. Not desirable.

22 gauge wire has a resistance of =A016 ohms per thousand feet or 0.016=
ohms
per foot. Rule of thumb is that a 1:50 voltage divider can be counted o=
n to
produce no audible attenuation. =A0If the speaker involved has reasonab=
le
worst case impedance curve variations and a rated impedance (i.e.,
approximate minimum impedance at any normal audio frequency) of 4 ohms,=
the
wire could be about 5 feet long with no audible effects. Or, if you wil=
l a
30 inch speaker cable.

Not too far off from my guesstimate of a foot. In any case, running 10
feet of 22ga speaker cable, or 20 feet, is definitely not recommended,
which was the point I was making.

Peace,
Paul

Honestly... does "speaker wire" come in 22ga? or even 20ga?
Usually it's at least 16ga, often 14ga or 12ga.

Yes, it does, unfortunatly. Look at the crap provided with many drugstore-variety
component "audio" systems. The "good" ones give you 18, but some are 20 and
even smaller. But hey, it's stranded, so it can "handle" the 3-5 watt peak load,
right?

The mains in my system (Tannoy SGM10Bs/Mastering Lab crossovers), given their
efficiency, soffit mounting, smaller room, and rational listening level, typically
draw much less than a watt each. (From 60 Hz on down LF is sent off via electronic
crossover to the sub amp. The mains power demand is indeed quite small. That's
why they're easily powered by a modest 30 watt/channel Pass Labs amp. The subs are
on a 160 watt/channel Bryston. If one is so foolishly inclined, the system will
play rather loud)

But to underscore the original point: from a simplistic numerical point of view, a
light gauge could easily handle that amount of mains power (1 watt). But as Paul
pointed out, in this application R comes back to bite you. That's why I'm using
well-made 12 gauge copper, but at a rational price of around 40 cents a foot, if
memory serves. (Spendy for house wire, but a steal for audio.)

The electronic crossover has several modifications, but that's another story.

14 or even 16 would probably work for the mains, but this particular wire
configuration was only available in 12. All factors considered it was a bargain,
with the added benefit of pushing R well into the fractional ohm range.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...
On Oct 26, 3:58 pm, PStamler wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:24 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:









"PStamler" wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:40 am, Frank Stearns
wrote:

With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22
gauge
wire would
be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But
there
would be
other potential problems, particularly with R.
No kidding there would, if the 22ga wire was longer than a foot or so.
Its comparatively high resistance forms a voltage divider with the
speaker's load impedance. Since the latter is usually far from flat,
you get a built-in EQ curve following the shape of the speaker's
impedance. Not desirable.

22 gauge wire has a resistance of 16 ohms per thousand feet or 0.016
ohms
per foot. Rule of thumb is that a 1:50 voltage divider can be counted on
to
produce no audible attenuation. If the speaker involved has reasonable
worst case impedance curve variations and a rated impedance (i.e.,
approximate minimum impedance at any normal audio frequency) of 4 ohms,
the
wire could be about 5 feet long with no audible effects. Or, if you will
a
30 inch speaker cable.

Not too far off from my guesstimate of a foot. In any case, running 10
feet of 22ga speaker cable, or 20 feet, is definitely not recommended,
which was the point I was making.


Honestly... does "speaker wire" come in 22ga? or even 20ga?
Usually it's at least 16ga, often 14ga or 12ga.

24 gauge "speaker wire" has been routinely sold by retailers for many years.