Naive question on directional cables
Fred B.
the magic of audio cables (making a sound improvement).
I put the speaker cables in right, but did not notice, until I was
experimenting, that the interconnects were also directional. Both are
Straightwire.
My question is. Doe it REALLY maker a difference? If it does, will
installing them wrong, then reversing them to "right" affect
anything????
Can't see how these cables could be directional. Unless they take a
"set" and you have to install them that way after that. Or perhaps
the twist of the wires? Magic I am sure.
But perhaps someone know the answers to these questions?
Will the differences be audible? They don't seem to be.
Fred B.
jchogg
directional? Maybe. Some owners and manufacturers of such cables swear
to the high heavens that it makes all the difference in the world. On
the other hand, the only survey of directionality in cables that I've
ever read was one done a few year ago by Robert Harley (one of the few
audio writers I truly respect; now in cahoots with the abso!ute sound)
in Stereophile in which he discovered that digital cables displayed
varying jitter levels depending on the signal direction. Mr. Harley
then stated that the direction which displayed the lowest jitter level
sounded better. I have never seen anyone demonstrate a measurable
difference in directionality in either interconnects or speaker
cables. I do have a vague memory of a cable designer stating that
cables become directional only after the initial break-in period.
Having said all that, the bottom line is always performance in your
system. The best way to find out for yourself is to experiment. An
A/B/A comparison is usually the best way. Listen to the cable one way,
then the other and back again. Be sure to give each way a fair
listening. In my experience, 3 days of "settling down" is needed
before a device will sound its best after it's been moved. Your own
ears should be your guide - not me or other members of this newsgroup
or, especially, the many self-proclaimed experts on audio out there
(and I do mean "out there"!). What you hear may surprise
you. Remember, this is supposed to be fun.
Happy Listening,
Charles Hogg
Alameda, California
jch...@msn.com
Fred B. <phot...@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:7mad14$p...@news01.aud.alcatel.com...
Gary O.
shield connected only at the source end. Nothing is etched in stone,
of course.... The reasoning behind this is that the all of the
garbage that the shield protects the signal from is routed back to the
source component's ground rather than to the next component in the
chain, thereby allowing the signal to advance another step. I vaguely
recall reading how an advanced implementation had dealt with this
problem by grounding the shield at the destination component and
DEALING WITH IT THERE, as opposed to dumping it back to the source and
hoping that it cannot find its way into the source's signal....
Connect the cables in the direction that the mfr suggests. YMMV, but
they know their product best. I'd suggest giving the mfr's suggested
orientation a good trial. Your ears may be attuned to some improper
setup which may reveal itself to you after you have given yourself the
chance to become attuned to a better reference point.
phot...@ibm.net (Fred B.) wrote:
>Both my interconnects and speaker cables are directional. I am new to
>the magic of audio cables (making a sound improvement).
>
>I put the speaker cables in right, but did not notice, until I was
>experimenting, that the interconnects were also directional. Both are
>Straightwire.
>
>My question is. Doe it REALLY maker a difference? If it does, will
>installing them wrong, then reversing them to "right" affect
>anything????
>
>Can't see how these cables could be directional. Unless they take a
>"set" and you have to install them that way after that. Or perhaps
>the twist of the wires? Magic I am sure.
>
>But perhaps someone know the answers to these questions?
>Will the differences be audible? They don't seem to be.
>
>Fred B.
Gary O.
trac...@pacbell.net
ROD...@webtv.net
on how the manufacturer constructed it. Some audio interconnects have
the sheild attached to ground at one end of the cable. If you are
using this type of cable all the "grounded ends should be at the
pre-amp. This should reduce or eliminate any noise picked up by the
cables.
If there is no sheild grounding or if both ends are grounded it
shouldn't make a difference. Check with the manufacturer to see if
one end is "grounded" or unscrew the RCA ends and compare them. The
sheild is usually a metal film or braid just under the jacket.
Again on speaker wires it shouldn't make a difference, but try it.
Remember your ears are your best judge!
Rod
Visit my webpage at
http://community.webtv.net/RODBUI/HIFIGUYSHOMEAUDIO for a look at my
system, links, and DIY projects, mods, and tweaks!
Stewart Pinkerton
>Both my interconnects and speaker cables are directional. I am new to
>the magic of audio cables (making a sound improvement).
>
>I put the speaker cables in right, but did not notice, until I was
>experimenting, that the interconnects were also directional. Both are
>Straightwire.
>
>My question is. Doe it REALLY maker a difference? If it does, will
>installing them wrong, then reversing them to "right" affect
>anything????
>
>Can't see how these cables could be directional. Unless they take a
>"set" and you have to install them that way after that. Or perhaps
>the twist of the wires? Magic I am sure.
>
>But perhaps someone know the answers to these questions?
>Will the differences be audible? They don't seem to be.
Some interconnects are made with twisted pair and a shield, and the
shield is connected only at one end. Such a cable may sound different
depending on which end has the shield connection.
*ALL* other tales of cable directionality are sheer bunkum.
Consider simple logic - audio signals are pure AC, so the electricity
flows in both directions. How *can* a cable be directional? It's just
marketing snake-oil like Cardas 'Golden Mean' stranding, and silver
conductors.
p.s. If it makes you feel better, connect all your cables with the
little arrows pointing the way the manufacturer suggests - at least it
won't do any harm!
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Greg Stewart
I have heard that the conductors used in making cables can be
directional, based on the drawing direction. I say can be, because if
the conductors are use multiple strands of wire and the strands are
not kept in the same orientation direction when the conductors are
constructed, the directionality is confused.
People will say this is crazy, but I visited Robert Grodinsky's
off-site system demo at a mid-'80's Chicago CES while he was setting
up the system. He was in the process of sexing the speaker cable,
listening to it with one end towards the speaker, then flipping it end
for end. The difference was very audible, with a greater sense of
liveness and clarity in one direction. I was skeptical before hearing
that, but not after. Since then, I always sex wire I am using in my
construction projects by inserting it in the speaker line one
direction, then the other, and listening.
Greg Stewart
Fred B. wrote in message <7mad14$p...@news01.aud.alcatel.com>...
>Both my interconnects and speaker cables are directional. I am new to
>the magic of audio cables (making a sound improvement).
>
>I put the speaker cables in right, but did not notice, until I was
>experimenting, that the interconnects were also directional. Both are
>Straightwire.
>
>My question is. Doe it REALLY maker a difference? If it does, will
>installing them wrong, then reversing them to "right" affect
>anything????
>
>Can't see how these cables could be directional. Unless they take a
>"set" and you have to install them that way after that. Or perhaps
>the twist of the wires? Magic I am sure.
>
>But perhaps someone know the answers to these questions?
>Will the differences be audible? They don't seem to be.
>
>Fred B.
ShLampen
writes:
>I have heard that the conductors used in making cables can be
>directional, based on the drawing direction. I say can be, because if
>the conductors are use multiple strands of wire and the strands are
>not kept in the same orientation direction when the conductors are
>constructed, the directionality is confused.
Some of you may be aware of the directionality experiment Belden, and
Speaker Builder magazine did a couple of years ago. In that case, we
drew the conductors all in one direction (as above). And, while many
participants said they could hear a dramatic difference turning the
wire one way or the other, they could not predict how the wire came
off the roll (i.e. all in one direction or all in the reverse
direction) any better than statistical chance. This is NOT to say
that you're not hearing something, just that it seems to have nothing
to do with how the wire is manufactured.
Steve Lampen
Multimedia Technology Specialist
Belden Wire & Cable Co.
San Francisco
www.belden.com
Cameron H. Walker
discovered this phenomenon with a guitar cable. It seemed to have more
presence one way than the other. The difference was small, and therefore
could be excused as imaginary, but nevertheless, I did mark the cable with
an arrow to indicate which way to use it. Interestingly enough, I only
found this to be the case with one of my cables - the best quality one. I
can offer no explanation other than the 'left hand rule of thumb,' which
I learned in a physics class. It states that if a current is applied in a
spiral orientation around a magnetic material, the material will move in a
predetermined direction only. This may be a clue to this mystery, but one
that I cannot completely explain. Anyone else care to try?
Cameron Walker
> I have heard that the conductors used in making cables can be
> directional, based on the drawing direction. I say can be, because if
> the conductors are use multiple strands of wire and the strands are
> not kept in the same orientation direction when the conductors are
> constructed, the directionality is confused.
ShLampen
<cwa...@stu.athabascau.ca> writes:
> I
>can offer no explanation other than the 'left hand rule of thumb,' which
>I learned in a physics class. It states that if a current is applied in a
>spiral orientation around a magnetic material, the material will move in a
>predetermined direction only
Since the signals in the cable are alternating in direction, your
"left hand rule" would indicate that the signal also moves in both
directions and fields are generated in both directions (clockwise and
counterclockwise) around the cable.
You need two arrows!!!
DALJHD
how so many audiophiles came to believe that electrically conducting
wire and cables exhibit an audibile directional property.
I would suggest that it probably began in the fertile imagination of
someone within the Adv or Mkt Dept. of an audiophile cable company
looking for a "unique claim" to boost sales of cables.
As a competent engineer/physicist, I join Steve and others like
myself, in stating unequivocally that the electrical wire used in
manufacturing loudspeaker cables does not and can not exhibit any
audible or measurable directional properties.
This lack of directionality has been demonstrated on many occassions
during properly conducted, non-intimading, "blind A/B comparisons" of
numerous loudspeeaker cables. It can also be demonstrated to not
exist by a complete set of highly-accurate, "lab-quality" measurements
of a cable's electrical properties, e.g., series resistence, series
inductance, parallel capacitance, loss vs. frequency, frequency
dispersive properties, V.P. factor, etc., PERFORMED IN BOTH CABLE
DIRECTIONS. AMEN!
So! Why do so many honest audiophiles, who have participated in "blind
A/B comparisons performed by cable manufactureres (or their agents)",
become firm believers in the "directionality of loudspeaker cables"?
Well, ask any medical doctor about what has become known as the
"Placebo Effect", a well documented human trait? It is frequently used
to treat patients with "imagined illneses" by prescribing pills that
contain nothing but sugar. (It "cures" their illness almost every
time.)
Any comments?
Best regards, John Dunlavy
Pamela Hughes
>
> Steve Lampen is a competent engineer and a friend. We have discussed
> how so many audiophiles came to believe that electrically conducting
> wire and cables exhibit an audibile directional property.
>
> I would suggest that it probably began in the fertile imagination of
> someone within the Adv or Mkt Dept. of an audiophile cable company
> looking for a "unique claim" to boost sales of cables.
I don't know. I read something similar to this in a book on
radio engineering/electronics. Might have carried over from
there. Don't remember for sure but I think it had something to
do with either moisture creeping into the open end of the cable
or the cable being progressively flattened toward the center of
those big wooden spools or something like that. Might be partly
radio lore carried over into audio while the original reason for
the idea has been forgotten. In any case, the reference I read
doubted the validity of directionality in modern coax used
between the 2M and 180M frequency bands and was talking 100 to
1,000 foot runs, so it certainly doesn't make sense in 6 foot
audio cables (except for those with telescoping grounds). Mr
Lampen would be in a better position to have heard something
about directionality in rf coax (and if there was once, cable
companies have probably attempted to eliminate the possible
causes with changes in construction over the last 50 years).
I'll try and see if I can find the original paragraph that
mentioned this so I can report the proper context it was
mentioned in.
--
phu...@omnilinx.net
http://omnilinx.net/~phughes
Kazushi Endoh
>Well, ask any medical doctor about what has become known as the
>"Placebo Effect", a well documented human trait? It is frequently used
>to treat patients with "imagined illneses" by prescribing pills that
>contain nothing but sugar. (It "cures" their illness almost every
>time.)
It is too early to conclude epidemiology of increasing paranoids
among audiophiles.
>the electrical wire used in
>manufacturing loudspeaker cables does not and can not exhibit any
>audible or measurable directional properties.
>
>It can also be demonstrated to not
>exist by a complete set of highly-accurate, "lab-quality" measurements
>of a cable's electrical properties, e.g., series resistence, series
>inductance, parallel capacitance, loss vs. frequency, frequency
>dispersive properties, V.P. factor,
My first experience was physical-stress related distortion in
ACROTECK 6N solid core. They claim their 6N copper has self
annealing nature (stress free), but their 6N copper is more
susceptible to stress related distortion.
ACROTECK 6N hookup wire (18 awg stranded) also showed
directionality, and some strange nature in imaging. These
phenomena can not be explained by factors you listed (may
predict very slight attenuation or very slight rolloff in
highs).
I found the directionality was...
hot
-------------->
source destination/load
-------------->
ground
This is also applicable in DC, energy source to load.
Sometimes it is confusing since it is different from
DC current flow.
I've never tried ...
hot
-------------->
<--------------
source destination/load
-------------->
<--------------
ground
People pointed out directionality effect, sometimes it was
in blind situation (I flipped only a few inch wires inside
the amp).
Some people could know directionality by touching the
surface of wire (scaly surface). I needed time consuming
listening test, since I couldn't do that.
In some wire, directionality can be eliminated or weaken
by some treatment. I'm using treated wire for convenience.
--
Kazushi Endoh Med.Univ.Yamanashi
ken...@res.yamanashi-med.ac.jp
Jonas
[snip]
> I found the directionality was...
> hot
> -------------->
> source destination/load
> -------------->
> ground
> This is also applicable in DC, energy source to load.
> Sometimes it is confusing since it is different from
> DC current flow.
This is more than confusing, it must even be wrong !
Electron flow in a cable can not more easily flow in one direction.
If this was the case you can just connect the cable ends to each
other and a circulate current will appear.
That would be perpetual machine, which of course does not work.
If there is directionality in these cables the reasons must be
something else.
Kind regards
Jonas
DALJHD
"snake-oil" to me.
Best of listening,
John D.
DALJHD
20 ft. long loudspeaker cable is extremely short with respect to a
wavelength, both theory and practice clearly teach that any
reasonable physical anomaly at some point along the cable cannot
affect the measurable or audible properties of the cable any
differently than if the anomaly was located at either the amplifier
output terminals or the input terminals of the loudspeaker.
The reason for this is simple: no measurably or audibly significant
"impedance transformation" can take place along a cable whose length
is very short with respect to a wavelength over the range of
frequencies concerned.
Best regards,
John D.
Bob Trosper
>
...
> no measurably or audibly significant
> "impedance transformation" can take place along a cable whose length
> is very short with respect to a wavelength over the range of
> frequencies concerned.
So, John, what cables do YOU use with your speakers? Heavy duty zip
cord, or something else and why? Lest the moderators moderate this out
of existence, I seek knowledge from an expert in the field which I
think would be of interest to many readers. I tend to favor ribbon
cables with the individual ribs connected alternately +/- on the
advice of counsel concerning capacitance and inductance.
-- Bob T.
robert_...@my-deja.com
> radio lore carried over into audio while the original reason for
> the idea has been forgotten. In any case, the reference I read
> doubted the validity of directionality in modern coax used
> between the 2M and 180M frequency bands and was talking 100 to
> 1,000 foot runs, so it certainly doesn't make sense in 6 foot
> audio cables (except for those with telescoping grounds). Mr
> Lampen would be in a better position to have heard something
> about directionality in rf coax (and if there was once, cable
> companies have probably attempted to eliminate the possible
> causes with changes in construction over the last 50 years).
Hello:
There is no directionality in RF coax cable. Not even the old cables
of 50 years ago. You thought perhaps modern cables had solved such a
problem? Nope, never happened. There never was such a problem.
Mr Lampen may have heard that directional couplers can be made out of
coupled transmission lines. If two transmission lines are very close
to each other and 1/4 W.L. long, they can be made to have directional
characteristics.
One transmission line (coax), (speaker cable). will *never* have a
diretional characteristic.
Bob Stanton
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
DALJHD
In our main audiophile listening room we have several different
cables, approximately 16 ft long, laying between the back of the
power-amp and the loudspeakers (sufficiently out-of-sight to prevent
visitors from seeing which cable is being heard).
Among these cables are Belden 12-AWG Zip Cord; our own Z-6 cable;
Monster M-1.5; home-made Dual 4-AWG copper ( insulated and twisted);
some home-made ribbon cables; some home-made 1 in. wide "strip
cables", and a few others.
When visitors ask for an opportunity to audibly compare these cables
in our well-equipped listening room, they claim to hear audible
differences between them. However, when the order of comparison is
altered, without their knowledge, they continue to "hear and identify
the same differences", even though they are listening to the "wrong"
cable.
So as to not make any "enemies", they are never told what took place,
leaving them believing that they were able to discern differences
between the cables. (End of true story.)
But what do accurate measurements reveal about differences between
cable properties and attributes? Well, there are certainly measurable
differences, typically as much as 1 dB at 20 kHz into a 4 Ohm load.
But it is doubtful if such a difference is audible when listening to
music.
Most of our measurements discovered that nearly all cable designers
use "tons of copper" to reduce the series resistance component of the
cable impedance, but ignore the need to reduce the "series
inductance" to obtain flat response out to 20 kHz (when feeding
typical loudspeaker loads).
Ribbon cables, with alternating plus/minus connection of conductors,
accomplishes a number fo good things. It lowers the series inductance
and resistance without significantly increasing the parallel
capacitance. If the right size conductors, and enough of them are
used, a ribbon cable can exhibit excellent properties.
The "trick", of course, is to optimize the values of R, L and C, so
as to obtain lowest loss over the widest bandwidth into a wide range
of loudspeaker impedances.
Fred B.
**Steve Lampen is a competent engineer and a friend. We have discussed
**how so many audiophiles came to believe that electrically conducting
**wire and cables exhibit an audibile directional property.
**I would suggest that it probably began in the fertile imagination of
**someone within the Adv or Mkt Dept. of an audiophile cable company
**looking for a "unique claim" to boost sales of cables.
**As a competent engineer/physicist, I join Steve and others like
**myself, in stating unequivocally that the electrical wire used in
**manufacturing loudspeaker cables does not and can not exhibit any
**audible or measurable directional properties.
**This lack of directionality has been demonstrated on many occassions
**during properly conducted, non-intimading, "blind A/B comparisons" of
**numerous loudspeeaker cables. It can also be demonstrated to not
**exist by a complete set of highly-accurate, "lab-quality" measurements
**of a cable's electrical properties, e.g., series resistence, series
**inductance, parallel capacitance, loss vs. frequency, frequency
**dispersive properties, V.P. factor, etc., PERFORMED IN BOTH CABLE
**DIRECTIONS. AMEN!
**So! Why do so many honest audiophiles, who have participated in "blind
**A/B comparisons performed by cable manufactureres (or their agents)",
**become firm believers in the "directionality of loudspeaker cables"?
==================================================
Comments? Well, yes. I personally, agree with you as far as
directionallity or lack of it with unmodified speaker cables (those
without RLC networks/hardware attached). I really can't see
directionality.
But I do have a comment on your below statement. I have seen and
heard your speakers. And I would like to be able to afford a pair.
They are very NICE! But, your attitude towards others with a
different viewpoint, borders on contempt. Your not the only one in
this group like that. The smooth, polished, insulting innuendos get
past RAHE censorship. A shame. Contempt of others, well polished,
from those in "high esteem" because of position, is apparently
sanctioned. Perhaps I AM being touchy, but I still have my opinion,
which is just as valid as any one elses opinion.
Fred Barnes
=========================================================
**Well, ask any medical doctor about what has become known as the
**"Placebo Effect", a well documented human trait? It is frequently used
**to treat patients with "imagined illneses" by prescribing pills that
**contain nothing but sugar. (It "cures" their illness almost every
**time.)
**Any comments?
**Best regards, John Dunlavy
Bob Trapp
to try to avoid ground loops. No one implies the electrons flow better in
one direction to another. As you no doubt know, ground loops will induce
noise into the center conductor.
Bob
Pamela Hughes
> of 50 years ago. You thought perhaps modern cables had solved such a
> problem? Nope, never happened. There never was such a problem.
No. I never thought directionality was inherent in a cable, just
mentioned that there was some old RF folklore to this effect and
it was attributed to things like moisture creeping into the end
of the cable and to the cable being compressed toward the center
of those big wooden spools while sitting in storage. If this
ever was a problem, I presume they solved it by capping the ends
of the cable and reducing the tension or packing depth on the
spools.
Rob Thomas
>Ribbon cables, with alternating plus/minus connection of conductors,
>accomplishes a number fo good things. It lowers the series inductance
>and resistance without significantly increasing the parallel
>capacitance. If the right size conductors, and enough of them are
>used, a ribbon cable can exhibit excellent properties.
Sounds like you're describing the Nordost ribbon cables...
They're one of the few, (like DAL) who publishes all the pertinent
specs on their products and challenge competitors to do the same.
Of course Nordost produces the oh-so-costly SPM and Quattro Fils
cables that several TAS reviewers are so enamored with. With all this
cable controversy I'd love to see TAS (or anyone) do a true blind
comparison with these multi-thousand dollar wires and some other
inexpensive, but well chosen wires... Why, I dare them to.
(I've been conniving lately how to talk the wife into swapping some
speaker cables around for me when I'm not looking. She's gonna love
this...)
Stewart Ono
But, if a 'placebo' works then so be it. If the user hears it
repeatedly, then perhaps there is something more going on which a
scientist should be willing to investigate.
One example: I can only theorize it is induction but I have no
current means to measure it, but take a piece of Kimber speaker
cable, the braided one. Push the wire together so that it puffs up
and forms two counterwound intertwined spiral bundles (enough so that
a 1/2" rod can be inserted). There is a noticeable increase in upper
frequency energy even if only a foot of cable is done this way. You
need not even break the connection in doing so and you can simply
pull the cable to cancel the effect. The inductance change is
probably in the hundredths of a percent at best. Everyone I've shown
this to has been able to hear a difference, although the only dissent
I ever got was from an engineer who complained that he heard it only
after I pointed out the effect. He still could hear it going back and
forth though, so I can't understand his complaint.....
Stu
Stewart Pinkerton
>Well, ask any medical doctor about what has become known as the
>"Placebo Effect", a well documented human trait? It is frequently used
>to treat patients with "imagined illneses" by prescribing pills that
>contain nothing but sugar. (It "cures" their illness almost every
>time.)
>
>Any comments?
>
>Best regards, John Dunlavy
Yes John, the placebo effect has nothing to do with 'imagined'
illnesses. In it's original medical usage, it describes the *real*
remission of *real* physical illnesses which can occur when a patient
is in the control group which is prescribed a placebo (i.e. a 'sugar
pill') during a double-blind clinical trial. It is a graphical
demonstration of the power of the mind to heal the body.
The use of placebos in the treatment of known psychosomatic illnesses
is a slightly different matter, and the usage of the term 'placebo
effect' in audio is a different principle again.
Arny Krüger
news:7onf52$n...@news01.aud.alcatel.com...
> Most of our measurements discovered that nearly all cable designers
> use "tons of copper" to reduce the series resistance component of the
> cable impedance, but ignore the need to reduce the "series
> inductance" to obtain flat response out to 20 kHz (when feeding
> typical loudspeaker loads).
Would you characterize your speakers as being resistive, inductive or
capacitive loads at 20 kHz?
> Ribbon cables, with alternating plus/minus connection of conductors,
> accomplishes a number fo good things. It lowers the series inductance
> and resistance without significantly increasing the parallel
> capacitance. If the right size conductors, and enough of them are
> used, a ribbon cable can exhibit excellent properties.
Seems to me that coax would deliver a better combination of low L &
C. Ever try it?
DALJHD
had misued the term "Placebo Effect" according to its strict medical
usage.
I used the term in the context mentioned by Stewart: " (i.e. a sugar
pill) It is a graphical demonstration of the power of the mind to
heal the body."
Outside the medical profession, the term "placebo effect" has become
a popular explanation for describing perceptions that cannot be
explained by measurement or blind A-B comparisons.
DALJHD
not quite sure what his "bottom line" is with respect to cable
differences?
However, it appears to me that the cable comparisons he conducted
with his friend were hardly "blind". It sounds as though, when his
friend could initially hear no differences, Stu pointed out that "...
he heard it (a difference) only after I pointed out the effect".
Gosh, sounds a lot like an application of the old "placebo effect" to
me!
Anyway, Fred Davis and several other competent engineers and
investigators have conducted numerous cable comparisons under
carefully controlled conditions and have concluded that no audible
differences exist - that cannot be explained as being due to
equipment interface problems, etc. These results have appeared within
"peer-reviewed" papers in respected audio and technical journals.
Here at DAL, we have involved numerous visitors, who stated that they
could clearly hear differences between loudspeaker cables, in
non-intimidating, blind A-B cable comparisons (within a truly
accurate system. Although almost all of them initially claimed to
hear audible differences between cables, they continued to hear them
even after the cables were no longer actually switched. Hmmm!
I fail to see how this "covert mode of comparison" could have
psychologically interferred with their perception sensitivity since
they had no reason to believe that the cables were not being
"switched" or truthfully identified?
Anyway, none of the differences in measurable properties between
most cables, from 12 AWG Zip to cables costing several thousands of
dollars, can explain the audible differences and improvements being
claimed by most manufacturers of audiophile cables.
Caveat emptor!
John D.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>Outside the medical profession, the term "placebo effect" has become
>a popular explanation for describing perceptions that cannot be
>explained by measurement or blind A-B comparisons.
While this is true, strictly speaking, a placebo is something that
exists, something that is there, regardless of what it does (or does
not).
In an audio setting, there is often no placebo, only the tendency of
a subject to inadvertant self-influence, often through attention
shifting or expectation.
In some null "sighted" tests that have been done, in fact, there was
expressly no placebo at all, but there were still positive results,
so using the word "placebo" is inaccurate, at least in general.
None the less, at least some of the effects are quite similar.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
DALJHD
All of DAL's loudspeaker models are designed to exhibit very "flat
curves" of impedance Vs. frequency.
Indeed, none of our loudspeaker models exhibit a resistive component
that drops below 3 Ohms or rises above about 8 Ohms. And, the
reactive component is never permitted to exceed about 25 degrees.
This property makes our loudspeakers "amplifier friendly" and their
frequency response essentially free of the output impedance of almost
any well-designed power amp.
Thanks for posing a good and relevant question. It is an issue that
more loudspeaker designers should address - especially when the input
impedance of many loudspeakers drops as low as 1.5 - 2 Ohms and rises
as high as 30 Ohms (or more). Such impedance fluctuations can audibly
alter the frequency response of some amps, especially those using
tubes in their output stage.
Great question! How about some more questions of true relevance and
merit?
robert_...@my-deja.com
> mentioned that there was some old RF folklore to this effect and
> it was attributed to things like moisture creeping into the end
> of the cable and to the cable being compressed toward the center
> of those big wooden spools while sitting in storage.
There is an effect which could have created the old RF folklore. If a
cable was plastic such as RG-11, than the winds at the bottom of the
spool could have been compressed. Lets say the cable was originally 75
Ohms, but the layers on the bottom were compressed to something lower,
lets say 50 Ohms. That cable would than become a 'tapered line' (75 to
50 Ohm) impedance transformer. In one direction it would step up, and
in the other direction it would step down!
In a way, it could be considered to have 'directional' propertys.
greg...@my-deja.com
dal...@cs.com (DALJHD) wrote:
> Ribbon cables, with alternating plus/minus connection of conductors,
> accomplishes a number fo good things. It lowers the series inductance
> and resistance without significantly increasing the parallel
> capacitance. If the right size conductors, and enough of them are
> used, a ribbon cable can exhibit excellent properties.
>
I have a power amp, bi-wireable speakers and some half-decent 4 way
speaker cable. Richer Sounds had a "Biwiring Tips sheet" which
suggested I should bi-wire from the amp, removing the bridge
connectors on the speaker. Occurs to me that alternatively, perhaps I
should leave the bridges in place, and use the 4-way cable as a
ribbon cable. In short I will use alternate conductors in the 4-way
cable, but should I connect common conductors just at the amp, or at
both ends?
Greg.
DALJHD
I suspect that bi-wiring may have been an" invention" traceable to
cable companies wanting to sell more cables. It has even led most
loudspeaker manufacturers to add an extra pair of input terminals to
accommodate "bi-wiring" - gulp!
Basically, from an engineering point of view, bi-wiring actually has
the potential to degrade the accuracy of a high-quality system. It is
far better to use one really good, low-loss loudspeaker cable than
two of lesser quality in a bi-wired configuration..
This should be obvious from the fact that competently-controlled
blind A-B comparisons consistently fail to reveal any audible
difference between high-quality No. 12 AWG Zip Cord (with good,
gold-plated conectors) and all of the expensive, exotic appearing
cables (invariably designed by non-electrical engineers who don't
understand cable design theory).
And, within some "high-performance" systems, bi-wiring can cause a
high slew-rate amp to oscillate at frequencies above the audio range
(often leading to tweeter damage or burn-out).
Hope this brief post helps you to make an informed decision!
Rob Thomas
>This should be obvious from the fact that competently-controlled
>blind A-B comparisons consistently fail to reveal any audible
>difference between high-quality No. 12 AWG Zip Cord (with good,
>gold-plated conectors)
Are the good, gold-plated connectors really necessary? It would seem
you get a heckuva good mechanical connection crushing a raw stranded
cable down in the binding post.
Aren't the crimes in the connections?
Wirenut or solder the speaker wire to the crossover leads...?
Mike Kim
blind A-B comparisons consistently fail to reveal any audible
difference between high-quality No. 12 AWG Zip Cord (with good,
cables (invariably designed by non-electrical engineers who don't
understand cable design theory).>>
why would the connectors need to be gold-plated? i don't
understand. a pretty damn good connection can be had just by
soldering the wire onto the paperboard disconnect terminals...
gold-plating is cool-looking, but necessary?
take care,
Mike Kim
DALJHD
"A gold male connector mated to a gold female connector" is excellent because
gold does not easily oxidize, like copper, zinc, etc. And, if it does, the gold
oxide is still a good conductor (so I have read).
John D.
Stewart Pinkerton
>A properly soldered connection is, of course, usually preferable to
>all others.
Hmmmm. I'd support the cold weld of a crimped joint above all others,
that's why they're preferred for MIL-spec installations.
>"A gold male connector mated to a gold female connector" is excellent
>because gold does not easily oxidize, like copper, zinc, etc. And, if
>it does, the gold oxide is still a good conductor (so I have read).
I believe you are thinking of silver here, which does indeed have a
conductive oxide, although the more common tarnish is silver sulphide.
For best results, use rhodium plating (like Kimber and Cardas do)
which does not suffer the organic contaminants which can plague gold
contacts.
AUPLATER
make gold oxidize, it has to be polarized anodically at (relatively)
high anodic potentials in strong non complexing acids. Also, gold
oxide(s) are less stable under normal conditions than the pure metal,
and tend to decompose to oxygen and gold spontaneously (free energy
favors the elements).
High quality connectors should have adequate gold over nickel (> 2
microns minimum)
to prevent corrosion of the base metal through pores in the coating.
I've never measured thickness on the standard trashshack connectors
directly, but unless used in a corrosive or humid environment, they
should work fine.
Gold/Gold contacts are the most stable long term solution providing
the lowest contact resistance. That's why all the computer board
peripherals you plug into the mb of your computer have GOLD fingers.
That's also why the parts I make for NASA/JPL/etc. millimeter wave
(and higher) mixers/feedhorns are heavily gold plated
(to at least 3 skin depths), not to mention much of the MilSpec
plating on gov't hardware...
auplater
DALJHD wrote:
>A properly soldered connection is, of course, usually preferable to
>all others.
>
>"A gold male connector mated to a gold female connector" is excellent
>because gold does not easily oxidize, like copper, zinc, etc. And, if
>it does, the gold oxide is still a good conductor (so I have read).
>
>John D.
AUPLATER
make gold oxidize, it has to be polarized anodically at (relatively)
high anodic potentials in strong non complexing acids. Also, gold
oxide(s) are less stable under normal conditions than the pure metal,
and tend to decompose to oxygen and gold spontaneously (free energy
favors the elements).
High quality connectors should have adequate gold over nickel (> 2
microns minimum) to prevent corrosion of the base metal through pores
in the coating. I've never measured thickness on the standard
trashshack connectors directly, but unless used in a corrosive or
humid environment, they should work fine.
Gold/Gold contacts are the most stable long term solution providing
the lowest contact resistance. That's why all the computer board
peripherals you plug into the mb of your computer have GOLD
fingers. That's also why the parts I make for NASA/JPL/etc. millimeter
wave (and higher) mixers/feedhorns are heavily gold plated (to at
least 3 skin depths)
auplater
AUPLATER
>
> Hmmmm. I'd support the cold weld of a crimped joint above all others,
> that's why they're preferred for MIL-spec installations.
>
> >"A gold male connector mated to a gold female connector" is excellent
> >because gold does not easily oxidize, like copper, zinc, etc. And, if
> >it does, the gold oxide is still a good conductor (so I have read).
>
> I believe you are thinking of silver here, which does indeed have a
> conductive oxide, although the more common tarnish is silver sulphide.
> For best results, use rhodium plating (like Kimber and Cardas do)
> which does not suffer the organic contaminants which can plague gold
> contacts.
Organic contaminants "plaguing" gold plating is an untruth... as long
as the gold is applied from a properly maintained process (or rhodium,
for that matter) the level of contamination in the metal is
negligible. Most commercial "acid" golds of 23+ carat are
wire-bondable, and approach the theoretical square resistance of pure
gold. Deposits from rhodium baths suffer from notorious instability,
and often contain oxides and other inorganic impurities as well
(phosphorous, sulfur, etc.) so blanket statements about plating purity
are oxymoronic. The only advantage of rhodium is its substantially
increased hardness... disadvantages include higher cost, inability to
achieve greater thickness, higher contact resistance.
auplater
Mike Kim
>>all others.
>
>that's why they're preferred for MIL-spec installations.
cold weld? i don't think so. in typical crimped connections, how much
of the contact area of the joint actually IS a cold weld? and how
expensive is it to get the proper terminals and equipment to make
a good, reliable cold-weld?
>>"A gold male connector mated to a gold female connector" is excellent
>>because gold does not easily oxidize, like copper, zinc, etc. And, if
>>it does, the gold oxide is still a good conductor (so I have read).
use brass. a brass binding post with bare tinned copper inserted will
be fine. no need to use gold.
take care,
Mike Kim
john
>
> dal...@cs.com (DALJHD) writes:
>
> >A properly soldered connection is, of course, usually preferable to
> >all others.
>
> Hmmmm. I'd support the cold weld of a crimped joint above all others,
> that's why they're preferred for MIL-spec installations.
what about resistance welding?
a long time ago, i heard somebody say that it was the best connection
method (over soldering, crimping, and terminal binding). any validity
to this?
if so, how would i go about performing a resistance weld?
thanks,
john
Stewart Pinkerton
>>>A properly soldered connection is, of course, usually preferable to
>>>all others.
>>
>>Hmmmm. I'd support the cold weld of a crimped joint above all others,
>>that's why they're preferred for MIL-spec installations.
>
>cold weld? i don't think so. in typical crimped connections, how much
>of the contact area of the joint actually IS a cold weld?
Should be at least 30% with a properly made joint. The point is that
it gives a very low resistance joint with no dissimilar metal
interface (if you use copper connectors), and does not suffer the edge
fatigue which can occur with an unsupported soldered joint.
> and how
>expensive is it to get the proper terminals and equipment to make
>a good, reliable cold-weld?
That is the catch for the home hobbyist! Although the connectors
themselves are inexpensive, a proper crimp tool will run you a couple
of hundred dollars. OTOH, it's no more expensive than a good
industrial-quality soldering station.
>>>"A gold male connector mated to a gold female connector" is excellent
>>>because gold does not easily oxidize, like copper, zinc, etc. And, if
>>>it does, the gold oxide is still a good conductor (so I have read).
>
>use brass. a brass binding post with bare tinned copper inserted will
>be fine. no need to use gold.
So long as you remake the joint every month or two, since copper cold
flows and will slacken with time, allowing oxygen into the
'connection'.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Gold/Gold contacts are the most stable long term solution providing
>the lowest contact resistance.
A small nit, but that is not true, as silver provides the lowest
resistance, which is why a lot of UHF radio gear is siver-plated to 2
or 3 skin depths. It is of course a tad less stable than gold...
>That's also why the parts I make for NASA/JPL/etc. millimeter wave
>(and higher) mixers/feedhorns are heavily gold plated (to at least
>3 skin depths), not to mention much of the MilSpec
>plating on gov't hardware...
As you've been told before, that's to provide a stable *surface*
quality over time since microwave 'plumbing' does not work by surface
conduction, but by guiding e/m radiation (hence the term 'waveguide').
AUPLATER
> AUPLATER <aupl...@compuserve.com> writes:
>
> >Gold/Gold contacts are the most stable long term solution providing
> >the lowest contact resistance.
>
> A small nit, but that is not true, as silver provides the lowest
> resistance, which is why a lot of UHF radio gear is siver-plated to 2
> or 3 skin depths. It is of course a tad less stable than gold...
I believe I stated most stable long term solution providing lowest
resistance... silver make-break-make-break as would occur w/rca, etc.
cables cruds up faster than gold... sulfur from finger oils is the
main culprit...
but lets not beat this dead horse too much... after all gold plated
terminations look nice, perform well, and aren't all that expensive
anyway compared to straight nickel and/or tin/lead el-cheapos....
>
>
> As you've been told before, that's to provide a stable *surface*
> quality over time since microwave 'plumbing' does not work by surface
> conduction, but by guiding e/m radiation (hence the term 'waveguide').
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
I'm fully aware of the functional characteristics of microwave
hardware... and in fact split high frequency mixer blocks (the only
way to make them) impose multiple constraints on the coatings,
including low long term square resistance for detector connections,
wire-bodability, etc... waveguide behavior isn't the only function of
alot of these devices.
k
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >"A gold male connector mated to a gold female connector" is excellent
>> >because gold does not easily oxidize, like copper, zinc, etc. And, if
>> >it does, the gold oxide is still a good conductor (so I have read).
>> I believe you are thinking of silver here, which does indeed have a
>> conductive oxide, although the more common tarnish is silver sulphide.
>> For best results, use rhodium plating (like Kimber and Cardas do)
>> which does not suffer the organic contaminants which can plague gold
>> contacts.
>Organic contaminants "plaguing" gold plating is an untruth... as long
>as the gold is applied from a properly maintained process (or rhodium,
>for that matter) the level of contamination in the metal is
>negligible. Most commercial "acid" golds of 23+ carat are
>wire-bondable, and approach the theoretical square resistance of pure
>gold. Deposits from rhodium baths suffer from notorious instability,
>and often contain oxides and other inorganic impurities as well
>(phosphorous, sulfur, etc.) so blanket statements about plating purity
>are oxymoronic. The only advantage of rhodium is its substantially
>increased hardness... disadvantages include higher cost, inability to
>achieve greater thickness, higher contact resistance.
I'm talking about *surface* contaminants, which is why the very best
dry-contact relays use rhodium, palladium or ruthenium tips on the
relay contacts.
With regard to your comments on rhodium, it is course possinble for
sloppy workmanship to screw up any known process........
--
DALJHD
Guess I'll stick with good ole Gold Plated connections (gold-to-gold) within my
system (as I have always done).
Jack D. Wills
Stewart Pinkerton <a...@borealis.com> wrote:
(much deleted)
>As you've been told before, that's to provide a stable *surface*
>quality over time since microwave 'plumbing' does not work by surface
>conduction, but by guiding e/m radiation (hence the term 'waveguide').
This is a little misleading. While a waveguide DOES work by guiding
e/m radiation, the guided waves cause current flow on the walls of the
waveguide. Losses causes by the finite conductivity of the waveguide
walls DO ATTENUATE the e/m waves.
Take a look at "Fields and Waves in Communication Electronics", by
Ramo, Whinnery and Van Duser (Wiley 1965) in section 8.03 titled "The
TE10 Wave in a Rectangular Guide". You will find a complete set of
expressions for the electric and magnetic fields as well as the
current flow in the walls. Equation (11) is an expression for
attenuation due to imperfect conductors.
The millimeter wave hardware I have worked with was gold plated to
provide the lowest LONG-TERM losses.
Dr. Jack Wills
ja...@isi.edu
P.S. There are some special modes that can exist in a prefectly
circular waveguide that have conductor losses that tend to zero at
very high frequencies, but these are very different from the kind of
things we care about in an audio newsgroup.
--
Dr. Jack Wills
Teknetics
430A South Venice Blvd.
Stewart Pinkerton
>In article <rrqt33...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Stewart Pinkerton <a...@borealis.com> wrote:
>>As you've been told before, that's to provide a stable *surface*
>>quality over time since microwave 'plumbing' does not work by surface
>>conduction, but by guiding e/m radiation (hence the term 'waveguide').
>This is a little misleading. While a waveguide DOES work by guiding
>e/m radiation, the guided waves cause current flow on the walls of the
>waveguide. Losses causes by the finite conductivity of the waveguide
>walls DO ATTENUATE the e/m waves.
>Take a look at "Fields and Waves in Communication Electronics", by
>Ramo, Whinnery and Van Duser (Wiley 1965) in section 8.03 titled "The
>TE10 Wave in a Rectangular Guide". You will find a complete set of
>expressions for the electric and magnetic fields as well as the
>current flow in the walls. Equation (11) is an expression for
>attenuation due to imperfect conductors.
>The millimeter wave hardware I have worked with was gold plated to
>provide the lowest LONG-TERM losses.
I've blown the dust off the old texts, and you're quite right, these
are significant (although not dominant) effects in millimetre-wave
systems. I am only a worm................. :-)
Mike Rowlands
wire and Radio Shaft gold lugs, the only questioned unanswered here is
what to use for solder and how big an iron would you need?
Mike R.
DALJHD wrote:
> A properly soldered connection is, of course, usually preferable to all others.
>
> "A gold male connector mated to a gold female connector" is excellent because
> gold does not easily oxidize, like copper, zinc, etc. And, if it does, the gold
> oxide is still a good conductor (so I have read).
>
> John D.
Fred Whitlock
wattage irons take more time. If you want to be cool you
can use silver solder. Otherwise any solder appropriate for
electronic applications will suffice. You can fine what you
need at Radio Shack as well, I would imagine. Good
listening.
Fred
AudioNow!
http://www.audionow.com
Mike Rowlands <mrow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:7plf9j$eqa$1...@agate-ether.berkeley.edu...
Mike Kim
wire and Radio Shaft gold lugs, the only questioned unanswered here is
what to use for solder and how big an iron would you need?>>
use whatever you like, make sure it's good purity rosin-core...
silver-solder really is a pain in the ass if you're using a normal
sized iron.
BTW, i wouldn't buy Home Depot 12 gauge wire. sometimes it's not
flexible.
i would buy the Sound King speaker wire from www.parts-express.com,
the 16 AWG specifically. good stuff, flexible, small, works very
well. very inexpensive, too.
if you're using large lugs, don't use a solder iron at all; get a
blowtorch, and MAKE SURE that the jacket you have is NOT wimpy (why i
suggest the Sound King stuff, or welding-type neoprene if you can find
it in that small of a jacket). if you're using large lugs, it'll take
forever to heat that thing up so the solder will flow... just get a
blowtorch, stick the wire in, torch the back of the lug, wait for the
lug to get that heated-up look (you can actually see the heat
spreading through the metal), then stick the solder through and melt,
melt, melt, until you see a whole crapload of solder go in. turn off
the torch, take away the solder, wait for it to flow (it'll go very
fast). then put the heatshrink on it, and you're done.
if it's a smaller lug that CAN be heated with an iron, any 30 watt or
40 watt Rat Shack iron will do.
take care,
Mike Kim
DonEPearce
>wattage irons take more time. If you want to be cool you
>can use silver solder. Otherwise any solder appropriate for
>electronic applications will suffice. You can fine what you
>need at Radio Shack as well, I would imagine. Good
>listening.
>
>Fred
>AudioNow!
>http://www.audionow.com
>
>Mike Rowlands <mrow...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:7plf9j$eqa$1...@agate-ether.berkeley.edu...
>> wire and Radio Shaft gold lugs, the only questioned unanswered here is
>> what to use for solder and how big an iron would you need?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Just one thing to add to this. If you are soldering onto gold plated
connectors, and you want to use ordinary solder, scrape away the gold
before you solder or you will have a contact that degrades with time
as the gold leeches into the solder and the whole thing becomes
detached from the base metal below.
Don
Rob Thomas
<7pj5vg$6ij$1...@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>...
<snip>
>So long as you remake the joint every month or two, since copper cold
>flows and will slacken with time, allowing oxygen into the
>'connection'.
This is good. So just buy your Home Depot 12 AWG copper spkr wire for
44 cents a foot. Cut the lengths a foot longer than need be, and just
clip and strip the ends every quarter...
Rob Thomas
>Gold/Gold contacts are the most stable long term solution providing
>the lowest contact resistance.
Assuming you need to regulary make and break the contact.
Isn't the likely culprit in applied audio situations the combined
effect of all these connections and the potential capacitance and
resistance (no idea what I'm talking about here) of the connectors
themselves. The spade to binding post is 3 connections (at least, if
you dont count the pieces that comprise the post), and the wires
soldered together, or better, point to point, is one connection.
Inaudible theoretical nonsense?
AUPLATER
> AUPLATER wrote in message <7pi384$i...@news01.aud.alcatel.com>...
> >Gold/Gold contacts are the most stable long term solution providing
> >the lowest contact resistance.
>
> Assuming you need to regulary make and break the contact.
>
No, even if you don't make/break the contact, gold is more stable for
ANY long term contact; the metal is happy being an element and not
combining with other "stuff" in the environment, and has the lowest
resistivity of any metal with similar chemical inertness. Other
precious metals (ruthenium/rhodium/platinum, etc. are used in relay
contacts, as is tungsten, due to their resistance to spalling/arc
transfer/evaporation, not their better conductivity.
> Isn't the likely culprit in applied audio situations the combined
> effect of all these connections and the potential capacitance and
> resistance (no idea what I'm talking about here) of the connectors
> themselves. The spade to binding post is 3 connections (at least, if
> you dont count the pieces that comprise the post), and the wires
> soldered together, or better, point to point, is one connection.
We need to defune what "capacitance" is... you're right, no idea what
you're talking about. The whole point of minimizing long term
resistance is to minimize any possibilty of adverse effects becoming
dominant; hence using gold interface where there is a connection.
Capacitance doesn't enter into this, since there is no insulator
between two conductors, there is no "capacitor" or energy storing
mechanism. As long as the spade is gold plated, the binding post is
gold plated, and the wire is gold plated, you only have the
gold/underlying metal interface which is a necessity of not using pure
solid gold for all signal transfer (or silver or copper, for that
matter).
The nature of engineering is defining the tradeoffs necessary to
achieve a practical and functional solution to a problem; in the case
of interconnecting electrical systems operating at low voltages, gold
coatings are (and probably will continue to be) the standard accepted
from high end military hardware to computers and consumer electronics,
because it actually solves the problem....
>Inaudible theoretical nonsense?
Inaudible nonsense.. yes... theoretical... nope
auplater
Nousaine
>"A gold male connector mated to a gold female connector" is excellent
>because gold does not easily oxidize, like copper, zinc, etc. And, if
>it does, the gold oxide is still a good conductor (so I have read).
Actually gold does not oxidize which is its main advantage. For long
distance phone calls in the 60s thru 80s where sometimes thousands of
metal to metal (make and break) connections were often needed to
connect calls gold was an important reliability improvement agent.
Gold plating the contact surfaces avoided oxidation of copper
surfaces and meant that equipment could be soldered without flux
(which caused long term problems with permanent connections.
However it has never really been an issue with line and speaker level
signals being shipped tens of feet across your living room.
However other techniques/alloys plus digital transmission media and
fiber optics make it a moot point.
Robert Erck
forces in multi-pin connectors (e.g., high-density circular
connectors and PC board headers) are individually tiny
(small fractions of an ounce), so you need a very
reliable connection. Binding posts can
be cranked to tens of pounds of force, it is not clear to me
that gold plating is *really* necessary in this application.
Bob
-----------------------
In article <7psfpi$h...@news01.aud.alcatel.com>, nous...@aol.com
DALJHD
All of our loudspeakers exhibit "nearly flat impedance properties
over the entire audio range, including at 20 kHz. This is
accomplished by using compensation networks in the crossover to a
chieve a reasonably flat modulus of impedance vs. frequency. This
network also keeps the resistive component high and the reactive
component low across the audio range.
Yes, we have investigated and listened to various coaxial loudspeaker
cable designs. The ratio of Inductance to Capacitance per uint
length, neglecting the series resistance, determines the
"characteristic impedance" of the cable.
As a result of both accurate lab measurements, combined with blind
A/B listening comparisons with a variety of other types of cables, we
were unable to identify any audible improvement of coax over the
other cables.
Best regards,
John D.
Brian
> news:7plf9j$eqa$1...@agate-ether.berkeley.edu...
> Now that you guys have convinced me to get the Home Depot 12 gauge
> wire and Radio Shaft gold lugs, the only questioned unanswered here is
> what to use for solder and how big an iron would you need?
If you have a decent system, I have found that there can be
undeniable differences in cable sounds. Straightwire and Transparent
(network) had totally and extremely different sound. I put off
trying "good" cables for years, thinking the differences were very
subtle and that I would have trouble hearing them. After I heard
huge differences w/ interconnects between my preamp and amp (NAD
314), I replaced my old Monster ones (along w/ CD player
interconnects) w/ DH Labs. I had B&W speakers then and since have
got the Magnepan MMGs.
Having used the big original Monster speaker cables for years
since I could not imagine speaker cables making much difference, I
replaced my speaker cables too w/ DH Labs stuff. Again the
difference between the cheap Monster and DH Labs was significant
(more clear for one), though the difference between DH Labs and
Nordost Flatline was much more subtle. Unless your system is somehow
immune to the differences (clarity for one), then I would say that
the Home Depot stuff is a waste of money. For me, my
electronics/speaker purchase was partly wasted since it did not sound
its best with the cheap stuff.
Some of the differences described in the reviews on
audioreview.com are probably subtle, but until you get decent cables,
your not even able to resolve such things I think.
Brian.