Do speaker cables "improve" the sound?
Peter corey
Norm Strong wrote:
>
> So many wonderful things are attributed to the choice of the right speaker
> cables that I'm wondering if anyone thinks that speaker cables actually improve
> the sound. i.e. Is the sound actually better than it would be with no cables
> at all--with the amplifier butt up against the speaker? Can 20 feet of
> speaker cable sound better than 10 feet of the exact same cable?
>
> Norm Strong (nh...@aol.com)
> 2528 31st South, Seattle WA 98l44
That's a very good question Norm, and we're glad you asked.
The answer is exceedingly simple;
"If the total length of the cable cannot span the distance between the
components, it will be very detrimental to the sound, although, if the
cable is too long, it will be very beneficial to The HighEnd Dealers."
With the exception, of course, of the "Perfect Speaker Cable".
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/coathangers.html
--
With Best regards;
| ^ ^ |
[ 0 = ] _ _____
(~~~~~~-oOOo-(_)-oOOo-~~~~~~)_ _ _ _ _(_\_____o /_/_ |
( P.Corey@The Hi-End Haven™ ) >-----._/_/__]>
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~) `0 |
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/hiendhaven.html
<><>
Distributors of the "Hi-End Haven Capsule™ "
The "CD Alternative™ " &
The powerful, self powered "Powerless Power Cord™ "
Steve Jorgensen
connect the components can greatly improve the sound. The signal/noise
ratio, of course, becomes an undefined value, but whether that's better than
zero is a matter of opinion.
Peter corey wrote in message <393C2E8F...@att.net>...
Dan Wilson
wire is most certainly not wire. that's like saying all metals have the
same exact properties.. this is why we don't use lead cables or titanium
ones.
there ARE varying degrees of 'wire' out there, and it would behoove a lot of
engineers to actually do a little experimentation. does your best 57 sound
'pretty much' like your vintage c12? hell- if you don't believe it makes a
difference- why don't you find somebody with a good set of cables, and a/b
them with zip cable- or for that matter- some 'decent' 16 awg cable and
LISTEN. certainly, that's what engineering is about, isn't it? if you
can't hear ANY difference between them, i'm thankful that i'm not recording
in your studio!
i'm currently using a cable made by kimber cable called 4vs-- nice stuff,
relatively expensive (100 bucks for the pair of 6 ft), and it's set up
biwired, and the difference in bass clarity and overall resolution really
made me wonder what i'd missed in previous mixes.. and listening to some of
the end products- unfortunately, i found out.. even throught the same
monitors.. and lot too late. worth $100 to you to not have poor recordings
with your name on them? it sure is to me for the cost of entry.
live and learn..
d
"The Unknowner" <fs...@sdlg.com> wrote in message
news:s0A8ORYalPVl+I...@4ax.com...
>On 05 Jun 2000 16:10:37 GMT
>Norm Strong wrote:
>>
>> So many wonderful things are attributed to the choice of the right
speaker
>> cables that I'm wondering if anyone thinks that speaker cables actually
improve
>> the sound. i.e. Is the sound actually better than it would be with no
cables
>> at all--with the amplifier butt up against the speaker? Can 20 feet of
>> speaker cable sound better than 10 feet of the exact same cable?
>>
It comes down to this. Wire is wire is wire.
The rest is just marketing hype.
Paul Gitlitz
my lovely antique mandolin. every week I'd have a question about
strings gauge and material or bridge saddle and nut material, pick
type and material. God I drove him nuts! Finally, he told me, " If you
spit on the peg head it will change the tone, but it won't make it
sound like a vintage gibson. Go buy a good mandolin."
I'd say the same is true for audiophile stuff like wire. It may
improve things .0001 percent, but it will not make your offal tone
speakers sound like top of the line ones.
c.smith
not to improve the sound. The point is to make sure you don't screw up
the good sound you already captured. I have spent a lot of time
auditioning various cables and I can hear differences in their sonic
signatures. Most of the differences are quite small, yet in certain
applications cable can have drastic effects on things. For instance,
in guitar cables different cables capacitance can increase the loading
on the pickups and make the sound murky and noisy. I have also found
that I get cleaner, more open sounds out of low output mics like my RCA
77DX and my Sony C37A with a custom mic cable from Jenna Labs. I have
a suspicion that the cumulative difference of using all high quality
cable on a recording would be much more drastic and convincing than a
single A/B test on a single source. If you want to experiment with
different cables, go ahead and make sure to have fun with it. Don't
let the nay-sayers or the audiophile cult members sway you one way or
the other. Your ears won't lie to you. Learn to trust them.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
The Unknowner
Peter corey
Dan Wilson wrote:
>
> good lord..
>
> wire is most certainly not wire. that's like saying all metals have the
> same exact properties.. this is why we don't use lead cables or titanium
> ones.
>
> there ARE varying degrees of 'wire' out there, and it would behoove a lot of
> engineers to actually do a little experimentation. does your best 57 sound
> 'pretty much' like your vintage c12? hell- if you don't believe it makes a
> difference- why don't you find somebody with a good set of cables, and a/b
> them with zip cable- or for that matter- some 'decent' 16 awg cable and
> LISTEN. certainly, that's what engineering is about, isn't it? if you
> can't hear ANY difference between them, i'm thankful that i'm not recording
> in your studio!
>
> i'm currently using a cable made by kimber cable called 4vs-- nice stuff,
> relatively expensive (100 bucks for the pair of 6 ft), and it's set up
> biwired, and the difference in bass clarity and overall resolution really
> made me wonder what i'd missed in previous mixes.. and listening to some of
> the end products- unfortunately, i found out.. even throught the same
> monitors.. and lot too late. worth $100 to you to not have poor recordings
> with your name on them? it sure is to me for the cost of entry.
>
> live and learn..
>
> d
>
It's a great hobby isn't it!
Have you tried our newest mix?
It's adjustable and will satisfy the most critical with but a minimum of
wishful thinking..
At only $19.95 "one size fit's all".
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/remote_cable.html
Robert Blank
that you are hearing better bass clarity, then you should do it.
my "rig": Cransong Hedd to Adcom amp to B&W 805s.
A/B with Monster Cable biamped and 16 gauge zip.
cable length is 6 feet.
No diff in sound.
Many folks ae suspicious when the cost of something, especially
technology, is too cheap for their perception of 'what it should really
cost'. This is especially true when the "magical world of the
audiophile" has such a high entry fee. However, in 1972 a DDL by
Lexicon, 12 bit, 30ms, mono, cost close to $5,000 (at a time when a
weekly salary was $200 a week), in 2000 the same DSP on a chip also
includes enough algorhythms to make entire consoles and multiprocess
DSPs retail for under $100 (or less) tells us that you don't necessarily
have to pay for high quality... the RNC compressor is a good example of
a high cost/efficiency ratio.
That .5% better mean something... putting it in line with NS10Ms and a
crown amp is slappin the monkey pretty hard, if you ask me.
The audiophile market has nothing else to sell at this point, and so you
get the "gold contact connector", "high end ac cable" (always good for a
laugh), and the famed "green magic marker CD laser focus device". My
favorite is the hifi cable with the little arrows telling you which way
the current is supposed to flow. Amazing stuff.
Peter corey <pc...@att.net> wrote:
--
Bob Blank
Blank Productions USA
www.blankproductions.com
203-938-7900
Stewart Pinkerton
> wire is most certainly not wire. that's like saying all metals have the
> same exact properties.. this is why we don't use lead cables or titanium
> ones.
Jeez, don't start another hare, some idiot company out there (Siltech)
*does* sell gold wire!
> there ARE varying degrees of 'wire' out there, and it would behoove a lot of
> engineers to actually do a little experimentation.
Funnily enough, a lot of engineers have.
> does your best 57 sound
> 'pretty much' like your vintage c12? hell- if you don't believe it makes a
> difference- why don't you find somebody with a good set of cables, and a/b
> them with zip cable- or for that matter- some 'decent' 16 awg cable and
> LISTEN. certainly, that's what engineering is about, isn't it?
No, but it's what sensible audio development is about.
> if you
> can't hear ANY difference between them, i'm thankful that i'm not recording
> in your studio!
Maybe you should try trusting your ears and not your eyes.
> i'm currently using a cable made by kimber cable called 4vs-- nice stuff,
> relatively expensive (100 bucks for the pair of 6 ft), and it's set up
> biwired, and the difference in bass clarity and overall resolution really
> made me wonder what i'd missed in previous mixes.. and listening to some of
> the end products- unfortunately, i found out.. even throught the same
> monitors.. and lot too late. worth $100 to you to not have poor recordings
> with your name on them? it sure is to me for the cost of entry.
Try a proper blind test with good ol' zipcord, and see if you can
still hear the difference.
> live and learn..
I do - do you?
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Paul Keinanen
On 05 Jun 2000 16:10:37 GMT Norm Strong wrote:
>
> So many wonderful things are attributed to the choice of the right speaker
> cables that I'm wondering if anyone thinks that speaker cables actually improve
> the sound. i.e. Is the sound actually better than it would be with no cables
> at all--with the amplifier butt up against the speaker? Can 20 feet of
> speaker cable sound better than 10 feet of the exact same cable?
There is one situation I can think of where this can happen.
Speaker systems have been designed for decades to be driven from a low
impedance constant voltage source to give a constant audio output
(above base resonance).
Assuming some exotic speaker system with a deep dip in the impedance
curve (e.g. two elements connected in parallel at crossover due to
badly overlapping element drive frequency ranges, thus dropping the
impedance to one half), is fed with a constant voltage source. At
crossover frequency, the total power delivered to the system is twice
the nominal power value for other frequencies, so there is a + 3dB
peak in the acoustic output at this frequency.
Now, assuming thin speaker cables with a resistance of 6 ohms and
individual speaker elements with 8 ohms impedance. At low and high
frequencies the voltage delivered to the speaker terminals drops by
-4.86 dB, however, at the impedance notch (4 ohms) the voltage at the
speaker terminal drops to -7.95 dB. But since the total speaker
impedance has also dropped to one half, this represent a +3 dB boost
and the net result is that the speaker acoustic output is -4.95 dB
(-7.95+3) down.
Remembering that the high and low frequency attenuation was -4.86 dB,
there is only a -0.1 dB drop at this frequency compared to other
frequencies, comparing to a +3 dB peak if the speaker system is
directly connected to the amplifier, so indeed, there is a great
improvement in frequency response !!
By carefully adjusting the length of the cable and hence the
resistance, one such response peak or dip can be completely
eliminated:-).
However, such a high cable resistance will dissipate nearly half the
power delivered by the amplifier and the bass response will be ruined
due to very low damping factor (1.33).
So indeed, faults in some equipment can indeed be compensated by other
faults in other equipment or cables.
However, this is very bad engineering design, since the faulty
equipment should be corrected in the first place and not rely on
compensating with external gadgets, which the high-end industry
sometimes unfortunately seems to rely on.
Paul
Stefan Markowitz
c.smith schrieb in Nachricht
<0e2be268...@usw-ex0106-044.remarq.com>...
>I have spent a lot of time
>auditioning various cables and I can hear differences in their sonic
>signatures. Most of the differences are quite small, yet in certain
>applications cable can have drastic effects on things. For instance,
>in guitar cables different cables capacitance can increase the loading
>on the pickups and make the sound murky and noisy.
Now this is a completely different thing. The discussion so far was about
speaker cables. You are talking about Hi-Z signal sources. A guitar cable
should have a specific capacitance for the best sound, this shifts the
resonance frequency of the pickup to the desired point.
Cheers,
Stefan
Tomi Holger Engdahl
> It comes down to this. Wire is wire is wire.=20
> The rest is just marketing hype.
There are some slight differences between different cables,thatä
true. The most marjor difference is the resistance and other
figures (inductance and capacitance) on normal wires are quite
meaningless compared to this (and a normal zipcord arrangement
is quite good optimum balance between inductance and capacitance
-> if you try to reduce one you easily increase the other one).
There tre hundsres of thousands times more string marketing
hype flowing on speaker cables floating on the market than
therr are real differences.
You can get a very good speaker cable by just selecting
a zipcord type cable which is which enough (lots of copper
-> less resistance). Or selecting a hifi cable with
same mount of copper in it with a look which matches
your other hifi system and makes it look fancy.
--
Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then/)
Take a look at my electronics web links and documents at
http://www.epanorama.net/
Tomi Holger Engdahl
> I think it is important to note that the point of getting good wire is
> not to improve the sound. The point is to make sure you don't screw up
> the good sound you already captured.
That's true. And this should be also be remebered on cable discussions.
> I have spent a lot of time
> auditioning various cables and I can hear differences in their sonic
> signatures. Most of the differences are quite small, yet in certain
> applications cable can have drastic effects on things. For instance,
> in guitar cables different cables capacitance can increase the loading
> on the pickups and make the sound murky and noisy.
That's true. On case of high impedance source (like that pickup coil)
the cable capacitance has the most role on sound quality and
can affect sound very much.
The cable capacitance can have also noticalbe effect on some
line level cables if those are connected to equipment with
high impedance outputs (2-5 kohm or so as in some consumer
equipments) but the same cable does not have any notcable
effect on sound quality with equipments with proper low
impedance line outputs (for example around 60 ohms on
many professional mixers, in order of around 100 difference
in the effect to sound with same cable but different
equipments).
In spaker cables the most important cable figure for sound
quality is the cable resistance which cna affect somewhat
to frequency response and bass response if is very high.
If the cable capacitance is very high this can affect some
poorly designed amplifiers to work baddly (the problem exist
only in cased of some esoteric or shielded kables uased
as spaker cables and poorly designed amplifiers).
> If you want to experiment with
> different cables, go ahead and make sure to have fun with it.
That's a good approach.
> Don't let the nay-sayers or the audiophile cult members sway you one way or
> the other. Your ears won't lie to you. Learn to trust them.
Ears might not lie themselves, but human brains processing the sound from
the ears are very subjective instruments on sound analyzing. What you
feel like you hear id very much affected by what you see and
that you have been told! You just just can't always trust everthing
you seem to hear because you can fell like you hear differences that
are not really there. Human brains are very easy to fool on this.
I know this from my personal experiences! Very educating experience
od the pbjectiveness of human senses.
Tomi Holger Engdahl
> wire is most certainly not wire. that's like saying all metals have the
> same exact properties.. this is why we don't use lead cables or titanium
> ones.
Both HIFI speaker cables and normal zipcord are made of same metal: copper.
Copper is pretty good material for making wires. And the cables
made for speaker cable use and used as zipcord are made of same
copper (nowdays those all could be considered "oxygen free").
The difference is different look and insulation material.
Speaker cables do not need so good insulation than mains
carrying zipcords, but the the speaker cables need to look good
so that HIFI people would like their look buy them at expensive
price aling with marketing hype.
> difference- why don't you find somebody with a good set of cables, and a/b
> them with zip cable- or for that matter- some 'decent' 16 awg cable and
Take a 16 AWG spaker cable and zipcord cable with 16 AWG thickness.
Make a double blind A/B/X testing on the cable. I would be very
surprized if you can hear any statitically meaningful difference
on the sound of those cables !
I have used speaker cables from HIFI shops and zipcords.
I have also heard differences sometimes. For example a zipcord
with thicker wires sounded better than a HIFI cable wil less
copper (zipcord had less resistance). Later I bought good
quality and cheap speaker wire (2.5 mm^2 area copper, less than $1 per meter)
for my stero system because it looked better than the thinner zipcord
I used eariler and was nicer to work with when installing the system
to new place.
Juhana Sadeharju
>>> speaker cable sound better than 10 feet of the exact same cable?
You can hear the difference better if you test effect of the cable length
between CD player and amplifier: the shorter, the better. The speaker
cables are not any different but as I hear it the effect is not that big.
Buy speakers having D/A at the speaker box if you care. Unless you're
listening LPs. ;-)
Juhana
obijohnshinobi
Is this REALLY RAO? A thread regardng speaker cable, with no name calling or
flaming? I thought this was RAHE for a moment! Way to go! This is much more
interesting than the usual back-and-forth insult hurling.
John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Cedric Lathan
differences in sound charactoristics. I think if you get good copper cable,
at least 12/2 (or 14/2 for smaller connectors) guage from a pro audio (not
hi-fi) store, you can be pretty sure that you wont loose anything in the
translation from electrical pulses to audio sound. Remember you're limited
in cable size by the size of the connector at the amp and the speaker. Also,
if you've ever looked inside most speakers, the cable size from the
connector to the internal componants is usually smaller and lower quality
than the cables we wire to them. So, the idea is to not loose anything from
amp to speaker.
Stefan Markowitz wrote:
> c.smith schrieb in Nachricht
> <0e2be268...@usw-ex0106-044.remarq.com>...
>
> >I have spent a lot of time
> >auditioning various cables and I can hear differences in their sonic
> >signatures. Most of the differences are quite small, yet in certain
> >applications cable can have drastic effects on things. For instance,
> >in guitar cables different cables capacitance can increase the loading
> >on the pickups and make the sound murky and noisy.
>
Richard D Pierce
Cedric Lathan <ced...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I've found that a lot of those audiofile speaker cables have very slight
>differences in sound charactoristics. I think if you get good copper cable,
>at least 12/2 (or 14/2 for smaller connectors) guage from a pro audio (not
>hi-fi) store, you can be pretty sure that you wont loose anything in the
>translation from electrical pulses to audio sound.
Problem here is that the soeaker wire has little to do withn
inaccuracies in the transduction from electrical to the
acoustical realm. That's specifically the task of the drivers in
the speaker itself.
>Remember you're limited
>in cable size by the size of the connector at the amp and the speaker.
Not so.
>Also,
>if you've ever looked inside most speakers, the cable size from the
>connector to the internal componants is usually smaller and lower quality
>than the cables we wire to them.
Well, that's an interesting conjecture, and one that a LOT of
people either are not aware of or would rather just not talk
about at all.
You would suggest, for example, that the wire leading from the
terminal cup on the back of the cabinet, through the corssover
and to the drivers would be lower in quality than the
high-priced speaker leads. One counter to that is that we could
replace that wire.
Infortunately, poeple almost always stop there, and completely
ignore the fact that in the voice coil of any typical woofer is
many DOZENS of feet of VERY SMALL GAUGE wire. For example, a
typical very high-quality woofer might well have 100 FEET of
VERY ORDINARY 28 GAUGE copper wire with extremely ordinary
insulation on it.
It's along the same lines of the absurd devotion to the "damping
factor," which neatly and quite incorrectly ignores the voice
coil's electrical properties in determining total damping.
>So, the idea is to not loose anything from
>amp to speaker.
Yeah, let the lousy wire in the voice coil loose it all!
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Robert Blank
also believe that the ac power that comes to their house arrives from a
2 gauge conduit on a direct line from the power company, not passing
through switches, transformers, etc.
--
Tony Loban
i can see it now: "this speaker is wired exclusively, including
voice-coils and inductors, with audioquest(feel free to sub the
brand of your choice)oxygen-free, functionally-perfect, long-
grain copper". also, the polarity markings on the speaker's
input will be replaced with 'in-and-out arrows' to make sure the
signal moves in the correct direction.
In article <Fvr2y...@world.std.com>, DPi...@world.std.com
>| Dick Pierce |
>| Professional Audio Development |
>| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
>| DPi...@world.std.com |
>
>
Robert Blank
Peter Corey <pc...@att.net> wrote:
> http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/powerless.html
Peter Corey
Robert Blank wrote:
>
> this is too true for the "audiophiles" to believe, unfortunately. They
> also believe that the ac power that comes to their house arrives from a
> 2 gauge conduit on a direct line from the power company, not passing
> through switches, transformers, etc.
>
Dear Bob;
The members of our staff;
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/TheHaven.html
are unanimous in the conclusion that your comments are rather
presumptuous.
It has been our experience, shared by countless dedicated enthusiasts,
that the use of our powerful self powered "Powerless Power Cord" has
made significant contribution to the achievement of Audio Nirvana.
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/powerless.html
We would be pleased to send you a sample for audition should you furnish
us your e-mail address along with your zip code for prompt delivery.
Our Girl Friday will be pleased to service you in her customary
expeditious manner (but NEVER on Sunday).
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/girlfriday.html
George M. Middius
> > http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/powerless.html
> excellent!!! check this web page out!!
It's such a relief when some pompous ass lays claim to being
an "audio expert," meanwhile going out of his pointless way to
insult normal humans who like to enjoy their stereos, and then
we discover that we're dealing with just another twitching,
myopic nerd.
George M. Middius
Howard Ferstler
George, nobody, and I mean nobody, who believes that decently
sized speaker wires can be improved upon by purchasing some kind
of megabuck replacements is a "normal human," unless you believe
it is normal for humans to be deluded.
Hmmm. Given the state of the world today, not to mention the
state of high-end audio, perhaps George is on to something.
Howard Ferstler
George M. Middius
> > It's such a relief when some pompous ass lays claim to being
> > an "audio expert," meanwhile going out of his pointless way to
> > insult normal humans who like to enjoy their stereos, and then
> > we discover that we're dealing with just another twitching,
> > myopic nerd.
> George, nobody, and I mean nobody, who believes that decently
> sized speaker wires can be improved upon by purchasing some kind
> of megabuck replacements is a "normal human," unless you believe
> it is normal for humans to be deluded.
You really enjoy your little "internal dialogue," don't you?
> Hmmm. Given the state of the world today, not to mention the
> state of high-end audio, perhaps George is on to something.
Do you forgive late fees at the library for anyone who says
"I was having such fun reading Peetey's web site that I
forgot to bring the books back on time"?
George M. Middius
Paul Wagner
>
> In article <393D32BD...@earthlink.net>,
> Cedric Lathan <ced...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Also,
> >if you've ever looked inside most speakers, the cable size from the
> >connector to the internal componants is usually smaller and lower quality
> >than the cables we wire to them.
>
> Well, that's an interesting conjecture, and one that a LOT of
> people either are not aware of or would rather just not talk
> about at all.
>
> You would suggest, for example, that the wire leading from the
> terminal cup on the back of the cabinet, through the corssover
> and to the drivers would be lower in quality than the
> high-priced speaker leads. One counter to that is that we could
> replace that wire.
I did that on a pair of Digital Designs speakers -- only did one
speaker, and took them to a friend's studio for a blind test --
a dozen trials or so (didn't know the correct number at the
time....) and heard which was which in every case, and easily.
>
> Infortunately, poeple almost always stop there, and completely
> ignore the fact that in the voice coil of any typical woofer is
> many DOZENS of feet of VERY SMALL GAUGE wire. For example, a
> typical very high-quality woofer might well have 100 FEET of
> VERY ORDINARY 28 GAUGE copper wire with extremely ordinary
> insulation on it.
True. But in the recording process in general, isn't it true that
the less loss earlier in each step of the process, the less loss
is LIKELY to occur (not always; there are absolute conditions of
loss...) later on? And given how much of identifiability is tied up in
the preservation of the shape of the upward-rising transients,
isn't preserving as much of that verticality as possible always a
good
practice regardless?
And no, I don't have an extensive formal audio education outside
of experience in the studio, so it's not necessary to point that
out to me at length, but thank you for the thought! :+)
Peter Corey
"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Robert Blank wrote:
>
> > > http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/powerless.html
> > excellent!!! check this web page out!!
>
> an "audio expert," meanwhile going out of his pointless way to
> insult normal humans who like to enjoy their stereos, and then
> we discover that we're dealing with just another twitching,
> myopic nerd.
>
Nice work, Geo
Time some one spoke up for us normal humans.
--
Peter Corey
"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Robert Blank wrote:
>
> > > http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/powerless.html
> > excellent!!! check this web page out!!
>
> It's such a relief when some pompous ass lays claim to being
> an "audio expert," meanwhile going out of his pointless way to
> insult normal humans who like to enjoy their stereos, and then
> we discover that we're dealing with just another twitching,
> myopic nerd.
>
> George M. Middius
Well said, Geo; We knew you could be depended on.
About time some one spoke up for 'we normal humans'.
Enjoy your stereo.....when you're not at the keyboard.
Peter Corey
"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Howard "Delusionalia" Ferstler wrote:
>
> > > It's such a relief when some pompous ass lays claim to being
> > > an "audio expert," meanwhile going out of his pointless way to
> > > insult normal humans who like to enjoy their stereos, and then
> > > we discover that we're dealing with just another twitching,
> > > myopic nerd.
>
> > sized speaker wires can be improved upon by purchasing some kind
> > of megabuck replacements is a "normal human," unless you believe
> > it is normal for humans to be deluded.
>
> You really enjoy your little "internal dialogue," don't you?
Reminds us of someone we know
>
>
> > Hmmm. Given the state of the world today, not to mention the
> > state of high-end audio, perhaps George is on to something.
>
> Do you forgive late fees at the library for anyone who says
> "I was having such fun reading Peetey's web site that I
> forgot to bring the books back on time"?
>
> George M. Middius
Bitterness is unbecoming and unlike you Geo
A thirty day trial packet of our Capsule on the way!
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/hiend_capsule.html
With Best regards;
c.smith
"Stefan Markowitz" <S.Mar...@dontspam.gmx.de> wrote:
> c.smith schrieb in Nachricht
> <0e2be268...@usw-ex0106-044.remarq.com>...
> >I have spent a lot of time
> >auditioning various cables and I can hear differences in their
> sonic
> >signatures. Most of the differences are quite small, yet in
> certain
> >applications cable can have drastic effects on things. For
> instance,
> >in guitar cables different cables capacitance can increase the
> loading
> >on the pickups and make the sound murky and noisy.
> Now this is a completely different thing. The discussion so far
> was about
> speaker cables. You are talking about Hi-Z signal sources. A
> guitar cable
> should have a specific capacitance for the best sound, this shifts
> the
> resonance frequency of the pickup to the desired point.
> Cheers,
> Stefan
You are right, it was just one example that came to mind. Speaker
cables pose an entirely different set of problems that effect the sound
in different ways. I was thinking of cable in more broad terms than
the original question.
Craig Smith
c.smith
> sound from
> the ears are very subjective instruments on sound analyzing. What
> you
> feel like you hear id very much affected by what you see and
> that you have been told! You just just can't always trust everthing
> you seem to hear because you can fell like you hear differences
> that
> are not really there. Human brains are very easy to fool on this.
> I know this from my personal experiences! Very educating experience
> od the pbjectiveness of human senses.
> Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then/)
> Take a look at my electronics web links and documents at
> http://www.epanorama.net/
Your point is well made and completely understood. The reason I wanted
to encourage the simplistic "learn to trust your ears" approach is that
it is the primary method we all use to judge sound quality. Mature
listening skills only come to us through time spent developing them
and by making a few mistakes. You admit to going through this process
yourself and have come out of it a better listener. I still belive
that it is better to try to shut out the rhetoric on both sides of the
issue and listen to the music through various cables. We all have
biases and are easily swayed by both external and internal forces.
Wise people learn to take these into account when making judgments.
With all that said, shouldn't audio professionals be able to at least
trust their ears? I know that you belive we should. If not, how do
you judge sounds at work every day?
Arny Krueger
"Paul Wagner" <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:393DE3BD...@earthlink.net...
> True. But in the recording process in general, isn't it true that
> the less loss earlier in each step of the process, the less loss
> is LIKELY to occur (not always; there are absolute conditions of
> loss...) later on? And given how much of identifiability is tied
up in
> the preservation of the shape of the upward-rising transients,
> isn't preserving as much of that verticality as possible always a
> good practice regardless?
Look at it this way. The goal of the wire-sizing advice at
http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wire_size/index.htm is to reduce
loudspeaker cable loss to 0.2 dB or less. Now, go over to
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/levels/index.htm and listen to the
samples whose amplitude difference is 0.2 dB. If you can score 99%
confidence in a DBT of those 0.2 dB samples (facilitated for Windows
[hint, hint] users by the free software at www.pcabx.com )... Just
let your ears be the judge! ;-)
Andrzej Popowski
wrote:
>> Infortunately, poeple almost always stop there, and completely
>> ignore the fact that in the voice coil of any typical woofer is
>> many DOZENS of feet of VERY SMALL GAUGE wire. For example, a
>> typical very high-quality woofer might well have 100 FEET of
>> VERY ORDINARY 28 GAUGE copper wire with extremely ordinary
>> insulation on it.
>
>True. But in the recording process in general, isn't it true that
>the less loss earlier in each step of the process, the less loss
>is LIKELY to occur (not always; there are absolute conditions of
>loss...) later on? And given how much of identifiability is tied up in
>the preservation of the shape of the upward-rising transients,
>isn't preserving as much of that verticality as possible always a
>good
>practice regardless?
If the resistance of voice coil is about 100 times greater than the
resistance of typical speaker wire, then I expect, that voice coil
influence on the signal (both devices are in the same circiut) is 100
times more important.
Would you agree, that if somebody find resonable to spend $100 for a
new speaker wire, then he should also accept spending $10,000 on
rewiring voice coils in his speaker?
Andrzej Popowski
Howard Ferstler
> Do you forgive late fees at the library for anyone who says
> "I was having such fun reading Peetey's web site that I
> forgot to bring the books back on time"?
One of the more remarkable things about RAO, even more
remarkable than the assorted lunacies that involve audio, is
that some people actually believe you to be articulate.
Howard Ferstler
Tony Loban
>Do you forgive late fees at the library for anyone who says
>"I was having such fun reading Peetey's web site that I
>forgot to bring the books back on time"?
howard ferstler notes:
>One of the more remarkable things about RAO, even more
>remarkable than the assorted lunacies that involve audio, is
>that some people actually believe you to be articulate.
sometimes 'he' is. depends on who has the keys.
William Sommerwerck
have a characteristic "sound." However...
It is a matter of objective fact that cables can interact with the amplifier to
alter the sound. Murray Zeligman of Baltimore demonstrated this to me around 20
years ago, using a Berning tube amp and Polk "Cobra cables." These particular
cables caused this particular amp to severely overshoot on transients. This was
visible on an oscilloscope (using square waves) and plainly audible with
program material. Changing to ordinary lamp cord removed the problem, both
measurably and audibly.
I have heard significant, gross, differences among low-level interconnects.
Whether they "really" exist, I don't know. I am not going to get into any
discussion on this (unless HF insists).
Stewart Pinkerton
>uh-oh, you may have opened the 'last frontier' for the wire guys!
>
>i can see it now: "this speaker is wired exclusively, including
>voice-coils and inductors, with audioquest(feel free to sub the
>brand of your choice)oxygen-free, functionally-perfect, long-
>grain copper". also, the polarity markings on the speaker's
>input will be replaced with 'in-and-out arrows' to make sure the
>signal moves in the correct direction.
It's already been done! B&W sent their engineers on vacation and the
marketing guys rushed out the Silver Signature, with *silver* voice
coils!! Anyone who knows anything about drive units is well aware that
silver is a *terrible* material for this purpose, with a much porer
conductivity/mass ratio than copper, or especially aluminium, which is
often used by *real* high quality drivers such as Dynaudio.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Tony Loban
>uh-oh, you may have opened the 'last frontier' for the wire
>guys!
>i can see it now: "this speaker is wired exclusively, including
>voice-coils and inductors, with audioquest(feel free to sub the
>brand of your choice)oxygen-free, functionally-perfect, long-
>grain copper". also, the polarity markings on the speaker's
>input will be replaced with 'in-and-out arrows' to make sure the
>signal moves in the correct direction.
stew pinkerton tells him to 'wake up':
>It's already been done! B&W sent their engineers on vacation
>and the
>marketing guys rushed out the Silver Signature, with *silver*
>voice
>coils!! Anyone who knows anything about drive units is well
>aware that
>silver is a *terrible* material for this purpose, with a much
>porer
>conductivity/mass ratio than copper, or especially aluminium,
>which is
>often used by *real* high quality drivers such as Dynaudio.
i completely forgot about the 'silver signature'. thanks for the
reminder.
DUNCLIF
><0e2be268...@usw-ex0106-044.remarq.com>...
>
>>I have spent a lot of time
>>auditioning various cables and I can hear differences in their sonic
>>signatures. Most of the differences are quite small, yet in certain
>>applications cable can have drastic effects on things. For instance,
>>in guitar cables different cables capacitance can increase the loading
>>on the pickups and make the sound murky and noisy.
>
>Now this is a completely different thing. The discussion so far was about
>speaker cables. You are talking about Hi-Z signal sources. A guitar cable
>should have a specific capacitance for the best sound, this shifts the
>resonance frequency of the pickup to the desired point.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Stefan
>
It should be noted (and probably is later in this thread) that with speaker
wire you are dealing with an output impedance that approaches (or should) zero.
The capacitance of the cable will have no effect at audio frequencies with
output impedance's this low driving loads typically under 10 ohms.
What is the output impedance of your guitar? What is the impedance of the
load? These things make a difference.
DUNCLIF
>>if you've ever looked inside most speakers, the cable size from the
>>connector to the internal componants is usually smaller and lower quality
>>than the cables we wire to them.
>
>Well, that's an interesting conjecture, and one that a LOT of
>people either are not aware of or would rather just not talk
>about at all.
>
>You would suggest, for example, that the wire leading from the
>terminal cup on the back of the cabinet, through the corssover
>and to the drivers would be lower in quality than the
>high-priced speaker leads. One counter to that is that we could
>replace that wire.
>
>ignore the fact that in the voice coil of any typical woofer is
>many DOZENS of feet of VERY SMALL GAUGE wire. For example, a
>typical very high-quality woofer might well have 100 FEET of
>VERY ORDINARY 28 GAUGE copper wire with extremely ordinary
>insulation on it.
>
>factor," which neatly and quite incorrectly ignores the voice
>coil's electrical properties in determining total damping.
>
>>So, the idea is to not loose anything from
>>amp to speaker.
>
>Yeah, let the lousy wire in the voice coil loose it all!
>
>--
>| Dick Pierce |
>| Professional Audio Development |
>| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
>| DPi...@world.std.com
Also along these lines, have you ever looked inside the case of a power
transistor? Very small wire. And be sure to check the gage of the wire used
to wind the emitter resistors.
DUNCLIF
(snip) > Murray Zeligman of Baltimore demonstrated this to me around 20
>years ago, using a Berning tube amp and Polk "Cobra cables." (more snip)
You should have tried this same experiment with an Ampzilla. After the smoke
cleared the sound seemed to have been altered.
joshi
Peter Corey wrote in message <393EE855...@att.net>...
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 12:00:08 -0700
>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>
>> I missed the beginning of this. I do not know as a fact whether speaker
cables
>> have a characteristic "sound." However...
>>
>> It is a matter of objective fact that cables can interact with the
amplifier to
around 20
>> years ago, using a Berning tube amp and Polk "Cobra cables." These
particular
>> cables caused this particular amp to severely overshoot on transients.
This was
>> visible on an oscilloscope (using square waves) and plainly audible with
>> program material. Changing to ordinary lamp cord removed the problem,
both
>> measurably and audibly.
>
>
>> I have heard significant, gross, differences among low-level
interconnects.
>> Whether they "really" exist, I don't know. I am not going to get into any
>> discussion on this (unless HF insists).
>
>It's that the differences you do or do not hear,
>are the differences that are or are not really there to be heard !
>
>Which raises a question worthy of consideration.
>Which component of the music reproducing chain has frequency response
>variations exceeding +/- 30 db and phase shifts up to 180 degrees and
>accompanied by distortion levels all of which are easily detectable in
>listening tests?
>Assuming the listener uses the sighted technique of course.
>A clue:
>It's neither a speaker cable or an interconnect.
Speaker placement.
joshi
Howard Ferstler
>
> I missed the beginning of this. I do not know as a fact whether speaker cables
> have a characteristic "sound." However...
>
> It is a matter of objective fact that cables can interact with the amplifier to
> alter the sound. Murray Zeligman of Baltimore demonstrated this to me around 20
> years ago, using a Berning tube amp and Polk "Cobra cables." These particular
> cables caused this particular amp to severely overshoot on transients. This was
> visible on an oscilloscope (using square waves) and plainly audible with
> program material. Changing to ordinary lamp cord removed the problem, both
> measurably and audibly.
>
> Whether they "really" exist, I don't know. I am not going to get into any
> discussion on this (unless HF insists).
Obviously, a wild and weird amp, when working along with wild and
weird speaker wires, might be able to do some wild and weird
things.
I think that if one sticks with good-old wire (stranded
lamp-cord-style stuff, in whatever gauge is necessary to keep the
resistance low with the required run length), good old regular,
mainstream amps (and those need not be costly), and good old
regular (but high-quality) speakers, they will get along just
fine.
Regarding shielded cables, I have compared enough interconnects
by means of quick-switch method to tell me that they would have
to be pretty bad indeed to have a strong negative impact on the
sound. In one series of comparisons, I employed a shunt inside of
a switch box and compared it to 24 feet of relatively cheap Radio
Shack wire (real cheap, meaning that it was not even the "gold"
stuff). There was no audible difference, either with musical
program material or with pink-noise test signals.
I suggest that enthusiasts do not take my word for this. They
should get some wires, put together or purchase a switching
device, and see for themselves. The ability to do quick switching
is mandatory, however. One may listen to any wire as long as they
want, but when it comes time to do the switchover, it has to be
done fast. The unplug/plug/listen technique is NOT fast.
Howard Ferstler
DUNCLIF
>listening LPs. ;-)
>
>Juhana
Can't we listen to both?
Peter Corey
>
> I missed the beginning of this. I do not know as a fact whether speaker cables
> have a characteristic "sound." However...
>
> It is a matter of objective fact that cables can interact with the amplifier to
> alter the sound. Murray Zeligman of Baltimore demonstrated this to me around 20
> years ago, using a Berning tube amp and Polk "Cobra cables." These particular
> cables caused this particular amp to severely overshoot on transients. This was
> visible on an oscilloscope (using square waves) and plainly audible with
> program material. Changing to ordinary lamp cord removed the problem, both
> measurably and audibly.
Forgive him Father, for he has sinned.
> I have heard significant, gross, differences among low-level interconnects.
> Whether they "really" exist, I don't know. I am not going to get into any
> discussion on this (unless HF insists).
It's not that you can or cannot hear the differences.
It's that the differences you do or do not hear,
are the differences that are or are not really there to be heard !
Which raises a question worthy of consideration.
Which component of the music reproducing chain has frequency response
variations exceeding +/- 30 db and phase shifts up to 180 degrees and
accompanied by distortion levels all of which are easily detectable in
listening tests?
Assuming the listener uses the sighted technique of course.
A clue:
It's neither a speaker cable or an interconnect.
--
Nousaine
>>
>> I missed the beginning of this. I do not know as a fact whether speaker
>cables
>> have a characteristic "sound." However...
>>
>> It is a matter of objective fact that cables can interact with the
>amplifier to
>> alter the sound. Murray Zeligman of Baltimore demonstrated this to me
>around 20
>> years ago, using a Berning tube amp and Polk "Cobra cables." These
>particular
>> cables caused this particular amp to severely overshoot on transients. This
>was
>> visible on an oscilloscope (using square waves) and plainly audible with
>> program material. Changing to ordinary lamp cord removed the problem, both
>> measurably and audibly.
>>
>> Whether they "really" exist, I don't know. I am not going to get into any
>> discussion on this (unless HF insists).
Sex Howard.
>Obviously, a wild and weird amp, when working along with wild and
>weird speaker wires, might be able to do some wild and weird
>things.
20+ years ago.
>I think that if one sticks with good-old wire (stranded
>lamp-cord-style stuff, in whatever gauge is necessary to keep the
>resistance low with the required run length), good old regular,
>mainstream amps (and those need not be costly), and good old
>regular (but high-quality) speakers, they will get along just
>fine.
>
>Regarding shielded cables, I have compared enough interconnects
>by means of quick-switch method to tell me that they would have
>to be pretty bad indeed to have a strong negative impact on the
>sound. In one series of comparisons, I employed a shunt inside of
>a switch box and compared it to 24 feet of relatively cheap Radio
>Shack wire (real cheap, meaning that it was not even the "gold"
>stuff). There was no audible difference, either with musical
>program material or with pink-noise test signals.
>
>I suggest that enthusiasts do not take my word for this. They
>should get some wires, put together or purchase a switching
>device, and see for themselves. The ability to do quick switching
>is mandatory, however. One may listen to any wire as long as they
>want, but when it comes time to do the switchover, it has to be
>done fast. The unplug/plug/listen technique is NOT fast.
>
>Howard Ferstler
Actually I had a lengthy discussion with Matt Polk about those cables. He told
me that because some amplifiers of that era were unstable with their high
capacitance cable (Threshold amplifers didn't sound different...they just blew
up) he decided that 'wire' wasn't the business that Polk wanted to be in.
I think he was right. If your cable changes the sound of your system you ought
to fix it. If it's not wire....transmits signal wihtout audible
alteration...than it's an uncontrolled equalizer and needs to be fixed.
Peter Corey
joshi wrote:
>
> Peter Corey wrote in message <393EE855...@att.net>...
> >>
> >> I missed the beginning of this. I do not know as a fact whether speaker
> cables
> >> have a characteristic "sound." However...
> >>
> >> It is a matter of objective fact that cables can interact with the
> amplifier to
> >> alter the sound. Murray Zeligman of Baltimore demonstrated this to me
> around 20
> >> years ago, using a Berning tube amp and Polk "Cobra cables." These
> particular
> >> cables caused this particular amp to severely overshoot on transients.
> This was
> >> visible on an oscilloscope (using square waves) and plainly audible with
> >> program material. Changing to ordinary lamp cord removed the problem,
> both
> >> measurably and audibly.
> >
> >
> interconnects.
> >> Whether they "really" exist, I don't know. I am not going to get into any
> >> discussion on this (unless HF insists).
> >
> >It's that the differences you do or do not hear,
> >are the differences that are or are not really there to be heard !
> >
> >Which raises a question worthy of consideration.
> >Which component of the music reproducing chain has frequency response
> >variations exceeding +/- 30 db and phase shifts up to 180 degrees and
> >accompanied by distortion levels all of which are easily detectable in
> >listening tests?
> >Assuming the listener uses the sighted technique of course.
> >A clue:
> >It's neither a speaker cable or an interconnect.
>
>
> joshi
Close Joshi, but no cigar.
Clue #2:
Speaker placement ain't no component.
Hang in there Joshi, and receive a pair of "Perfect" speaker cables for
effort.
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/coathangers.html
Stewart Pinkerton
>loban has a 'bad dream':
>
>>uh-oh, you may have opened the 'last frontier' for the wire
>>guys!
>
>>i can see it now: "this speaker is wired exclusively, including
>>voice-coils and inductors, with audioquest(feel free to sub the
>>brand of your choice)oxygen-free, functionally-perfect, long-
>>grain copper". also, the polarity markings on the speaker's
>>input will be replaced with 'in-and-out arrows' to make sure the
>>signal moves in the correct direction.
>
>
>stew pinkerton tells him to 'wake up':
>
>>It's already been done! B&W sent their engineers on vacation and the
>>marketing guys rushed out the Silver Signature, with *silver* voice
>>coils!! Anyone who knows anything about drive units is well aware that
>>silver is a *terrible* material for this purpose, with a much poorer
>>conductivity/mass ratio than copper, or especially aluminium, which is
>>often used by *real* high quality drivers such as Dynaudio.
>
>i completely forgot about the 'silver signature'. thanks for the
>reminder.
IIRC, the supplied silver cables were also marked for
'directionality'. Sheesh! Still, at least they redeemed themselves
with the 'Nautilus' 800 series.
Paul Wagner
>
> Wed, 07 Jun 2000 05:57:37 GMT, Paul Wagner <paulw...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> ignore the fact that in the voice coil of any typical woofer is
> >> many DOZENS of feet of VERY SMALL GAUGE wire. For example, a
> >> typical very high-quality woofer might well have 100 FEET of
> >> VERY ORDINARY 28 GAUGE copper wire with extremely ordinary
> >> insulation on it.
> >
> >the less loss earlier in each step of the process, the less loss
> >is LIKELY to occur (not always; there are absolute conditions of
> >loss...) later on? And given how much of identifiability is tied up in
> >the preservation of the shape of the upward-rising transients,
> >isn't preserving as much of that verticality as possible always a
> >good
> >practice regardless?
>
> If the resistance of voice coil is about 100 times greater than the
> resistance of typical speaker wire, then I expect, that voice coil
> influence on the signal (both devices are in the same circiut) is 100
> times more important.
>
> Would you agree, that if somebody find resonable to spend $100 for a
> new speaker wire, then he should also accept spending $10,000 on
> rewiring voice coils in his speaker?
Were resistance the only matter at hand, and if that rewiring cost 100
times as much, perhaps. But neither is true.
Paul Wagner
>
> "Paul Wagner" <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:393DE3BD...@earthlink.net...
>
> > the less loss earlier in each step of the process, the less loss
> > is LIKELY to occur (not always; there are absolute conditions of
> > loss...) later on? And given how much of identifiability is tied
> up in
> > the preservation of the shape of the upward-rising transients,
> > isn't preserving as much of that verticality as possible always a
> > good practice regardless?
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/wire_size/index.htm is to reduce
> loudspeaker cable loss to 0.2 dB or less. Now, go over to
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/levels/index.htm and listen to the
> samples whose amplitude difference is 0.2 dB. If you can score 99%
> confidence in a DBT of those 0.2 dB samples (facilitated for Windows
> [hint, hint] users by the free software at www.pcabx.com )... Just
> let your ears be the judge! ;-)
But there's much more to sound than momentary amplitude differences.
You can send me a music mix that's clear as a bell, and I can send you
a version back that measures the same, played in real time on VU
meters,
but is absolutely incomprehensible.
And the opposite is true, as well. I've done lots of remixes in
which there
is no discernible, visible difference in the moment-to-moment flow
of the meters
when done, but the instruments, vocals, and stereo placement are all
far clearer and easier to listen to -- at least, that's what my ears hear
and what the recipients say --
simply from making millisecond-level timing modifications and minimal-
angle changes in stereo placement.
In both cases, they'll read the same on meters, but are
significantly different
musical experiences.
Besides which, I was talking about studio environments, in which one doesn't
have one cable with a .2 dB difference (as adhered to in your very useful
sizing guide) but ten or twenty or thirty or more in a single signal chain.
And, as you've pointed out, small losses are cumulative...
duelund
Peter Corey skrev i meddelelsen <393EE855...@att.net>...
>Which component of the music reproducing chain has frequency response
>variations exceeding +/- 30 db and phase shifts up to 180 degrees and
>accompanied by distortion levels all of which are easily detectable in
>listening tests?
>Assuming the listener uses the sighted technique of course.
>A clue:
>It's neither a speaker cable or an interconnect.
>
You surely are a nice person, but looked upon in that way, it is far worse
with these boxes.
The ear e.g.. forms a delay line around 10 ms. from start to end.
Our hearing invents possibilities and uses them, sorts in the registered
data
and more.
You seem totally to have ruled out the mechanism of "adaptation" and the
rules for guiding the brain to invent the correct possibility.
It sure is alarming to read all this knowledge of speculation and opinions.
What has happened with science?
Is the factual problem, that you people do not know, how it works?
Plastics, plastics and plastics again is one major destroyer of the
understanding of sound, when we talk cables.
Steen Duelund
Magic Magpie
>
> >On 05 Jun 2000 16:10:37 GMT
> >Norm Strong wrote:
> >>
> >> So many wonderful things are attributed to the choice of the right speaker
> >> cables that I'm wondering if anyone thinks that speaker cables actually improve
> >> the sound. i.e. Is the sound actually better than it would be with no cables
> >> at all--with the amplifier butt up against the speaker? Can 20 feet of
> >> speaker cable sound better than 10 feet of the exact same cable?
> >>
>
> It comes down to this. Wire is wire is wire.
>
> The rest is just marketing hype.
Some wire is thicker than other wire and can carry more current before
it melts :-)
Magic Magpie
Arny Krueger
"Peter Corey" <pc...@att.net> wrote in message
news:393EE855...@att.net...
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 12:00:08 -0700
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >
> > I missed the beginning of this. I do not know as a fact whether
speaker cables
> > have a characteristic "sound." However...
> >
> > It is a matter of objective fact that cables can interact with
the amplifier to
> > alter the sound. Murray Zeligman of Baltimore demonstrated this
to me around 20
> > years ago, using a Berning tube amp and Polk "Cobra cables."
These particular
> > cables caused this particular amp to severely overshoot on
transients. This was
> > visible on an oscilloscope (using square waves) and plainly
audible with
> > program material. Changing to ordinary lamp cord removed the
problem, both
> > measurably and audibly.
> Forgive him Father, for he has sinned.
I presume you are talking about the return to cheap lamp cord.
However, the writer egregious logic, justifying obsessing over
speaker cables because once upon a time there was a short run of
marginally unstable power amplfiiers, needs to be pointed out as
well.
> > I have heard significant, gross, differences among low-level
interconnects.
> > Whether they "really" exist, I don't know. I am not going to get
into any
> > discussion on this (unless HF insists).
> It's not that you can or cannot hear the differences.
> It's that the differences you do or do not hear,
> are the differences that are or are not really there to be heard !
Whatever. I think the writer deserves credit for at least considering
the possibility that his own experience could be all about illusions,
not technology.
> Which raises a question worthy of consideration.
> Which component of the music reproducing chain has frequency
response
> variations exceeding +/- 30 db and phase shifts up to 180 degrees
and
> accompanied by distortion levels all of which are easily detectable
in
> listening tests?
> Assuming the listener uses the sighted technique of course.
Actually, the technical changes can vastly exceed the limits you've
set. They often can be heard in DBT's quite nicely, thank you!
> A clue:
> It's neither a speaker cable or an interconnect.
Good point to bring out. One is dusting the listening room. One
inadvertantly nudges a loudspeaker. One has just activated an audible
difference that vastly exceeds the audible differences between at
least half the contents of any high end audio magazine's recommended
components list.
Arny Krueger
If you would allow me to shrink the time scale of "momentary" a bit,
then "momentary amplitude differences" is all sound is! ;-)
> You can send me a music mix that's clear as a bell, and I can send
you
> a version back that measures the same, played in real time on VU
meters,
> but is absolutely incomprehensible.
Agreed. But ever since the late 20's or early 30's we've had much
better test equipment than VU meters.
> And the opposite is true, as well. I've done lots of remixes in
which there
> is no discernible, visible difference in the moment-to-moment flow
> of the meters when done, but the instruments, vocals, and stereo
placement are all
> far clearer and easier to listen to -- at least, that's what my
ears hear
> and what the recipients say --
> simply from making millisecond-level timing modifications and
minimal-
> angle changes in stereo placement.
> In both cases, they'll read the same on meters, but are
> significantly different musical experiences.
Agreed. But ever since the late 20's or early 30's we've had much
better test equipment than VU meters. I think that everything you've
mentioned can be captured via instrumentation using the test signals
shown at http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/reference/#cs_snr and
http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/reference/#impulse_temporal .
> Besides which, I was talking about studio environments, in which
one doesn't
> have one cable with a .2 dB difference (as adhered to in your very
useful
> sizing guide) but ten or twenty or thirty or more in a single
signal chain.
The wonderful story about good technology done right is that farily
ordinary equipment and cable can be so good that even after passing
through 10, 20, or 30 cables, a signal can have less than 0.2 dB
added variations in frequency response. One achieves this by simply
conforming to currently accepted audio engineering practices. Now,
good audio engineering practices are not always followed, but when
they are, the results can be "outstanding".
> And, as you've pointed out, small losses are cumulative...
I can reliably measure variations in frequency response down to below
0.01 dB. Even at that level, good cable properly attached to good
equipment can be pretty blameless.
Andrzej Popowski
piszesz:
>> Would you agree, that if somebody find resonable to spend $100 for a
>> new speaker wire, then he should also accept spending $10,000 on
>> rewiring voice coils in his speaker?
>
>Were resistance the only matter at hand, and if that rewiring cost 100
>times as much, perhaps. But neither is true.
What does really matter? What is your theory on hearing wire
distortion? Can you prove that theory in a way that exclude preception
errors?
Pozdrowienia,
Andrzej Popowski
William Sommerwerck
When you swap cables on an amplifier, and there is a gross difference in the way the
amplifier handles square waves, and there is a corresponding major change in the
amplifier's sound, you don't question the validity of your observations.
I never said the cable itself "sounded different." I said the cable and amplifier
interacted to change the amplifier's behavior. If you don't believe this is possible,
read a textbook that explains how feedback works, and the conditions needed for
stability. Clearly, this amplifier did not "like" the load presented by the Polk
Cobra cable.
William Sommerwerck
> I suggest that enthusiasts do not take my word for this. They should get some
> wires, put together or purchase a switching device, and see for themselves. The
> ability to do quick switching is mandatory, however. One may listen to any wire as
> long as they want, but when it comes time to do the switchover, it has to be done
> fast. The unplug/plug/listen technique is NOT fast.
I've got an even BETTER test.
Put one type of cable on one channel, and another type on the other channel. You
might be surprised.
William Sommerwerck
> I presume you are talking about the return to cheap lamp cord. However, the
> writer['s] egregious logic, justifying obsessing over speaker cables because
> once upon a time there was a short run of marginally unstable power
> amplfiiers, needs to be pointed out as well.
Obsessing?
At the beginning of what I wrote, I plainly said that I did not know whether
speaker cables had characteristic sounds of their own. HOW do you interpret
that as an obsession with speaker cables (exotic/expensive ones, presumably)?
Please stop projecting your own viewpoints onto other people's remarks.
By the way, I have no idea how stable or unstable amplifiers are. No one (that
I know of) has studied this in depth. Are you, or anyone else, prepared to say
that all modern amplifiers are free from load interactions? Probably most good
solid-state designs are (especially those using little or no feedback). But
tube circuits are notoriously sensitive. Look for example, at the
frequency-response curves Stereophile publishes, using a "standard" synthetic
speaker load. Most tube amps don't even come close to a flat response. Such
amplifiers would, presumably, be more sensitive to cable characteristics.
There are several major problems with the audio industry. They are:
1. Most of the people designing, reviewing, or buying equipment are congenital
idiots.
2. Ditto for those making recordings.
3. Few of the above understand that "science" is a process, not a collection of
"facts."
4. Most of the above think sound reproduction should be euphonic, rather than
accurate. This is why the quality of sound reproduction has improved very
little in 30 years.
5. Most of the above are devoid of any ability to make critical judgments, and
either blindly believe what they hear ("I hear it, so it must be true"), or
trust test equipment ("I can't measure it, so there can't be anything to
hear").
6. No one wants to do the difficult experimental work needed to understand the
psychology and psychoacoustics of sound reproduction and the listening process
itself.
I feel like Linus in a old Peanuts strip. He complains that Lucy yells at him.
She replies that when she speaks quietly, he doesn't listen. Most people don't
listen to reason (critical thinking isn't taught in school), so I'm reduced to
simple nastiness.
Mike Rivers
> What does really matter? What is your theory on hearing wire
> distortion? Can you prove that theory in a way that exclude preception
> errors?
If he can prove that people can identify a wire by improved sound at a
better rate than chance predicts, then he should be able to measure
what difference they're hearing, and what, electrically, causes that
difference. That's the scientific part. Until this can be related to
science, I'll continue to hook up my speakers with #12 stranded copper
wire at under half a buck a foot.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Arny Krueger
"William Sommerwerck" <will...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:393FB56D...@nwlink.com...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > I presume you are talking about the return to cheap lamp cord.
However, the
> > writer['s] egregious logic, justifying obsessing over speaker
cables because
> > once upon a time there was a short run of marginally unstable
power
> > amplfiiers, needs to be pointed out as well.
>
> Obsessing?
Yes, I think people do such things! Maybye not you, but someone else
who reads this anecdote.
> At the beginning of what I wrote, I plainly said that I did not
know whether
> speaker cables had characteristic sounds of their own. HOW do you
interpret
> that as an obsession with speaker cables (exotic/expensive ones,
presumably)?
I really didn't mean to say that you were doing that. Can you see how
a person might easily twist the anecdote that way?
> Please stop projecting your own viewpoints onto other people's
remarks.
OK, lets both agree to try not to do that! ;-)
> By the way, I have no idea how stable or unstable amplifiers are.
I do have some idea about that. Unstable amplifers tend to produce
warranty returns. The rest follows.
>No one (that I know of) has studied this in depth. Are you, or
anyone else, prepared to say
> that all modern amplifiers are free from load interactions?
*all* would be a word I would try to avoid. However, the world seems
to be full of really stable amplifiers. More and more as time goes
by.
>Probably most good
> solid-state designs are (especially those using little or no
feedback).
The market share of power amplifiers with little or no feedback is
about vanishingly small. I don't know if feedback audio amplifers
have 99.99% market share or 99.999% market share if you catch my
drift. Back in the late 1960's there were a lot of SS amps that
lacked feedback, but they were mostly in $6.95 transistor radios. If
you lift the covers on most current cheap power amp chip designs you
find a feedback loop or 2. If you lift the covers on the better ones
you find a feedback loop or 6. If you look at the power amps in cheap
recievers you find feedback loops. If you look at the power amps in
car radios your find feedback loops. Feedback helped put a man on the
moon!
> But tube circuits are notoriously sensitive.
One good reason to avoid them if that is true. However, even in the
60's we had a ton of tubed power amps that were very good, even
soncially transparent. Feedback, multiple feedback loops,
compensation, it all works.
> Look for example, at the
> frequency-response curves Stereophile publishes, using a "standard"
synthetic
> speaker load. Most tube amps don't even come close to a flat
response. Such
> amplifiers would, presumably, be more sensitive to cable
characteristics.
I agree with the reference you have cited. However, the amplifier
that is most likely to produce audible effects with cables is one
that has a very low source impedance all by itself. That way has very
good response before the cable takes its shot at mucking up the
works. An amplifier with a high output impedance will probably
actually be less sensitive to common kinds of differences between
cables.
> There are several major problems with the audio industry. They are:
> 1. Most of the people designing, reviewing, or buying equipment are
congenital
> idiots.
Completely and totally false. Every biz has its idiots, but audio
professionals, particularly if you stay away from the high end have
at least a simple majority of reasonably competent people.
> 2. Ditto for those making recordings.
Hardly. After reading RAO and RAHE (basically listener's forums) and
RAP, alt.music.mp3, alt.audio.minidisc and several of the CD
production and sound card NG's for years, I can tell you that the
listeners forums is where you find the most congenital idiots.
> 3. Few of the above understand that "science" is a process, not a
collection of "facts."
I think that almost everybody who is into production (recordings or
equipment) has to have a healthy respect for "process". One problem
with RAO and RAHE is lack of involvement with "process". I still
recall some guy telling me how he liked to read about how recordings
are made. I suggested that he check out RAP because all they ever
seem to talk about over there is process-related stuff.
> 4. Most of the above think sound reproduction should be euphonic,
rather than
> accurate. This is why the quality of sound reproduction has
improved very
> little in 30 years.
Audio reproduction has not improved very much because so much effort
is expended on things that are not audible or barely audible.
> 5. Most of the above are devoid of any ability to make critical
judgments, and
> either blindly believe what they hear ("I hear it, so it must be
true"), or
> trust test equipment ("I can't measure it, so there can't be
anything to
> hear").
RAP is full of critical listeners and critical measurers and people
who do both.
> 6. No one wants to do the difficult experimental work needed to
understand the
> psychology and psychoacoustics of sound reproduction and the
listening process
> itself.
Agreed. It ain't that much work to order Zwick & Fastl and Yost from
Amazon and get into them. I've promoted both books here. How many RAO
people have given the suggestions a second look?
> I feel like Linus in a old Peanuts strip. He complains that Lucy
yells at him.
> She replies that when she speaks quietly, he doesn't listen. Most
people don't
> listen to reason (critical thinking isn't taught in school), so I'm
reduced to
> simple nastiness.
That sometimes seems warranted.
Howard Ferstler
Well, I would be certainly surprised indeed if the two
channels sounded alike with a stereo recording, but that
would not have anything to do with the wires or cables being
used.
Now, if you pulled the speakers out and used a mono source,
there would still be audible differences, particularly if
you used a pink-noise test signal. However, those
differences would be the result of the fact that even the
best same-model speakers do not sound alike, even when fed
by identical signals. Indeed, even absolutely identical
speakers would sound slightly different, because of the way
the room will impact the sound of speakers in different
locations, and also because of the way the position of the
head in relation to the differently positioned speakers will
cause subtle differences in the sound. Again, this will be
most readily noticed with a pink-noise source.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> There are several major problems with the audio industry. They are:
>
> 1. Most of the people designing, reviewing, or buying equipment are congenital
> idiots.
This is almost like something I would be accused of saying.
I disagree in any case. I think that most are certainly not
idiots, and some of them are both very smart and level
headed.
> 2. Ditto for those making recordings.
While I agree that many who turn out recordings could do a
better job (I published two books on this topic, complete
with lots of reviews), the factor of taste has so much to do
with how one perceives a recording that I do not think that
just because a recording does not appeal to an individual
does not make the producer of that recording an idiot.
> 3. Few of the above understand that "science" is a process, not a collection of
> "facts."
Well, I will agree that what idiots there are out there do
not understand this.
> 4. Most of the above think sound reproduction should be euphonic, rather than
> accurate. This is why the quality of sound reproduction has improved very
> little in 30 years.
It is tough to get accurate in typical listening rooms.
However, certainly with stuff like amps, wires, and CD
players accuracy should be paramount. Since what those
devices do is pretty straightforward, that also should be no
big technical deal.
With speakers and surround processors, and of course
listening rooms, all (well, OK, most) bets are off. While I
prefer wide-dispersion speakers (those being models that are
uniformly wide over as much of the audible bandwidth as
possible) and DSP surround manipulating for two-channel
recordings (and genuine 5-channel sound if possible), and
also prefer that my listening room be fairly large, I can
see how some people might prefer different kinds of
speakers, a different brand of surround processor from the
ones I use, and maybe even a smallish or very, very large
listening room.
> 5. Most of the above are devoid of any ability to make critical judgments, and
> either blindly believe what they hear ("I hear it, so it must be true"), or
> trust test equipment ("I can't measure it, so there can't be anything to
> hear").
Well, you are outlining two extremes, here, and I agree with
you. However, I think that what one hears certainly can be
incorporated into a critical judgment, if proper procedures
are used, and certainly with some kinds of hardware a good
series of measurements will pretty much tell the tale.
> 6. No one wants to do the difficult experimental work needed to understand the
> psychology and psychoacoustics of sound reproduction and the listening process
> itself.
Well, I think that some people do want to do this (think
Stan Lipshitz, Floyd Toole, Dave Griesinger, Mark Davis,
etc.) and that in some cases the work has been done.
> I feel like Linus in a old Peanuts strip. He complains that Lucy yells at him.
> She replies that when she speaks quietly, he doesn't listen. Most people don't
> listen to reason (critical thinking isn't taught in school), so I'm reduced to
> simple nastiness.
Me, too, sometimes.
Howard Ferstler
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Paul Wagner <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>But there's much more to sound than momentary amplitude differences.
Um, no, but there's a word-usage problem here. "Amplitude"
in tech-speak generally means the instantaneous amplitude as a function
of time of a voltage, current, etc. So in that usage, it
directly describes, and exactly so (to limits of measurement,
etc) the voltage/current analog of the sound.
>You can send me a music mix that's clear as a bell, and I can send you
>a version back that measures the same, played in real time on VU
>meters,
>but is absolutely incomprehensible.
Now, here you use "amplitude" in a more informal sense, meaning
"VU measurement". People do use the term this way, but it's
really not the technical thing. dB VU would be better.
Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are, I think, talking
with crossed definitions here, and that could be part of
the problem.
>In both cases, they'll read the same on meters, but are
>significantly different
>musical experiences.
Well, agreed, a VU meter, for instance, discards a huge quantity
of information in its ballistics, etc, that are designed to
help an engineer set levels in an old analog-style system.
People often use VU in terms of "loudness" as well, and it's not
a loudness meter,either.
Loudness is an internal variable. Intensity is the external
variable, sometimes summarized (with risk of incorrectness) as
SPL.
Neither of those is directly dbVU, of course, that depends on the
transduction equipment, monitor gain, etc.
>Besides which, I was talking about studio environments, in which one doesn't
>have one cable with a .2 dB difference (as adhered to in your very useful
>sizing guide) but ten or twenty or thirty or more in a single signal chain.
>And, as you've pointed out, small losses are cumulative...
And that is surely a different, and annoying problem, for sure.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, 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.
Doug Stabler
You wouldn't be referring to the Human Auditory system, would you?
Course that's not really a component either.
Cedric Lathan
Short and to the point. I sorta said the same thing way back at post #4 of
the original question. We sure can get off on different tangents and some
quite nasty. Keep up the good quick, short answers. Thanks
William Sommerwerck
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >
> > > I suggest that enthusiasts do not take my word for this. They should get some
> > > wires, put together or purchase a switching device, and see for themselves. The
> > > ability to do quick switching is mandatory, however. One may listen to any wire as
> > > long as they want, but when it comes time to do the switchover, it has to be done
> > > fast. The unplug/plug/listen technique is NOT fast.
>
> > I've got an even BETTER test.
>
> > Put one type of cable on one channel, and another type on the other channel. You
> > might be surprised.
>
> Well, I would be certainly surprised indeed if the two channels sounded alike with a
> stereo recording, but that
> would not have anything to do with the wires or cables being used.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Ferstler, you've GOT to be kidding.
When I was young, I thought I knew everything. As I got older, I discovered I was woefully
ignorant about everything, and developed some respect for other peoples' knowledge and
experience.
But I also saw that 99.9% of the population is incapable of critical thinking (This
includes most "educated" people). They are unable to separate their own opinions and
desires from objective fact. And worse, they don't even understand that there is a
difference.
This lack of anaytical thought also leads to a woeful lack of imagination, an inability to
see past the surface of things, and a failure to make connections.
I ought to start teaching Remedial Thinking 101. But the people who need this course don't
know they need it.
Peter Corey
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Peter Corey" <pc...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:393EE855...@att.net...
> > William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > >
> > > I missed the beginning of this. I do not know as a fact whether
> speaker cables
> > > have a characteristic "sound." However...
> > >
> > > It is a matter of objective fact that cables can interact with
> the amplifier to
> > > alter the sound. Murray Zeligman of Baltimore demonstrated this
> to me around 20
> > > years ago, using a Berning tube amp and Polk "Cobra cables."
> These particular
> > > cables caused this particular amp to severely overshoot on
> transients. This was
> > > visible on an oscilloscope (using square waves) and plainly
> audible with
> > > program material. Changing to ordinary lamp cord removed the
> problem, both
> > > measurably and audibly.
>
> > Forgive him Father, for he has sinned.
>
You are correct
> However, the writer egregious logic, justifying obsessing over
> speaker cables because once upon a time there was a short run of
> marginally unstable power amplfiiers, needs to be pointed out as
> well.
Perhaps I should have added ;-)
>
> > > I have heard significant, gross, differences among low-level
> interconnects.
> > > Whether they "really" exist, I don't know. I am not going to get
> into any
> > > discussion on this (unless HF insists).
>
> > It's not that you can or cannot hear the differences.
> > It's that the differences you do or do not hear,
> > are the differences that are or are not really there to be heard !
>
> Whatever. I think the writer deserves credit for at least considering
> the possibility that his own experience could be all about illusions,
> not technology.
Of course, and that what was the intent if my comment
>
> > Which raises a question worthy of consideration.
> > Which component of the music reproducing chain has frequency
> response
> > variations exceeding +/- 30 db and phase shifts up to 180 degrees
> and
> > accompanied by distortion levels all of which are easily detectable
> in
> > listening tests?
>
> > Assuming the listener uses the sighted technique of course.
>
> Actually, the technical changes can vastly exceed the limits you've
> set. They often can be heard in DBT's quite nicely, thank you!
>
> > A clue:
>
> > It's neither a speaker cable or an interconnect.
>
> Good point to bring out. One is dusting the listening room. One
> inadvertantly nudges a loudspeaker. One has just activated an audible
> difference that vastly exceeds the audible differences between at
> least half the contents of any high end audio magazine's recommended
> components list.
We agree!
Peter Corey
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> Mr. Corey, I wish you would read what I wrote. You obviously didn't.
>
> When you swap cables on an amplifier, and there is a gross difference in the way the
> amplifier handles square waves, and there is a corresponding major change in the
> amplifier's sound, you don't question the validity of your observations.
>
> I never said the cable itself "sounded different." I said the cable and amplifier
> interacted to change the amplifier's behavior. If you don't believe this is possible,
> read a textbook that explains how feedback works, and the conditions needed for
> stability. Clearly, this amplifier did not "like" the load presented by the Polk
> Cobra cable.
I have been saying that all along and I agree.
Perhaps I should have appended a... ;-)
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/remote_cable.html
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/coathangers.html
>
> Peter Corey wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 12:00:08 -0700
> > William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > >
> > > I missed the beginning of this. I do not know as a fact whether speaker cables
> > > have a characteristic "sound." However...
> > >
> > > It is a matter of objective fact that cables can interact with the amplifier to
> > > alter the sound. Murray Zeligman of Baltimore demonstrated this to me around 20
> > > years ago, using a Berning tube amp and Polk "Cobra cables." These particular
> > > cables caused this particular amp to severely overshoot on transients. This was
> > > visible on an oscilloscope (using square waves) and plainly audible with
> > > program material. Changing to ordinary lamp cord removed the problem, both
> > > measurably and audibly.
> >
> > Forgive him Father, for he has sinned.
( was but a a specious reference to your conclusion ) and was directed
at "True Believers" otherwise known as dedicated enthusiasts.
We are friends, believe me, and I apologize for not being more specific
and avoiding a misunderstanding.
Scott Dorsey
>Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>> In article <393f814d...@news.tpnet.pl> po...@friko.onet.pl writes:
>>
>> > What does really matter? What is your theory on hearing wire
>> > distortion? Can you prove that theory in a way that exclude preception
>> > errors?
>>
>> If he can prove that people can identify a wire by improved sound at a
>> better rate than chance predicts, then he should be able to measure
>> what difference they're hearing, and what, electrically, causes that
>> difference. That's the scientific part. Until this can be related to
>> science, I'll continue to hook up my speakers with #12 stranded copper
>> wire at under half a buck a foot.
>>
>Mike, I've noticed you've always been a voice of reason on this news group.
>Short and to the point. I sorta said the same thing way back at post #4 of
>the original question. We sure can get off on different tangents and some
>quite nasty. Keep up the good quick, short answers. Thanks
>
Well, I believe that I can hear differences in cables that are the result
of cable strand sizes, although quite frankly I can't think of any mechanism
which could cause this and therefore I don't know how to measure such a
mechanism.
But because I believe I can hear it, I buy the finest stranded #12 copper
that I can. Hint: your local boating supply has stuff that is much more
finely stranded than the stuff from the electrical supplier.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Stefan Markowitz
DUNCLIF schrieb in Nachricht
<20000607193356...@ng-fs1.aol.com>...
>>c.smith schrieb in Nachricht
>><0e2be268...@usw-ex0106-044.remarq.com>...
>>
>>>I have spent a lot of time
>>>auditioning various cables and I can hear differences in their sonic
>>>signatures. Most of the differences are quite small, yet in certain
>>>applications cable can have drastic effects on things. For instance,
>>>in guitar cables different cables capacitance can increase the loading
>>>on the pickups and make the sound murky and noisy.
>>
>>Now this is a completely different thing. The discussion so far was about
>>speaker cables. You are talking about Hi-Z signal sources. A guitar cable
>>should have a specific capacitance for the best sound, this shifts the
>>resonance frequency of the pickup to the desired point.
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Stefan
>>
>
>It should be noted (and probably is later in this thread) that with speaker
>wire you are dealing with an output impedance that approaches (or should)
zero.
> The capacitance of the cable will have no effect at audio frequencies with
>output impedance's this low driving loads typically under 10 ohms.
>
>What is the output impedance of your guitar? What is the impedance of the
>load? These things make a difference.
Why are you telling me this? I already pointed out that a guitar pickup has
a high Z,
which is "a completely different thing". So where is your point?
Stefan
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8hpae0$vv$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Well, I believe that I can hear differences in cables that are the result
> of cable strand sizes, although quite frankly I can't think of any
mechanism
> which could cause this
The most likely candidate is the (dreaded) skin effect - alternating current
flows more at the boundary of (an imperfect) conductor than in the middle.
The dropoff of current with penetration is exponential.
You can define the "skin depth", that is the distance at which an
electromagnetic wave entering a conductor is damped to a fraction 1/e =
0.3689 of its surface amplitude, loosely speaking, impedance is a little
more than doubled at this penetration depth. This depth depends on
frequency; the penetration depth is approximately inversely proportional to
the square root of the frequency.
According to Jackson*, the skin depth in copper, is about 0.85 cm at 60Hz,
and 0.00071 cm at 100 Mhz. For ball park estimates skin depth in copper will
be approximately given (in centimeters) by
6.83 / sqrt(f)
where f is the frequency of the signal component.
Note that the skin effect is essentially totally irrelevant to mains power
cords with a conductor diameter less than a centimeter, and those are way
huge mains power cords, a.k.a. jumper cables.
At audio frequencies, say 20kHz, the penetration depth in copper is
something like 0.048 cm, say half a millimeter. At an implausible 40kHz,
it's about 0.034 cm or about a third of a millimeter. I don't have a table
of wire gauges immediately to hand, but you can compare these distances to
the radii of your wires.
*J. D. Jackson's _Classical Electrodynamics_, second edition, Section 7.7
"Waves in a Conducting or Dissipative Medium" pp. 296ff (1975)
Now the next thing to consider is the distributed reactance of the wires.
> and therefore I don't know how to measure such a mechanism.
The skin effect is measurable; I don't know how people normally do it, but
I'd think voltage as a function of frequency of a single strand would be one
practical approach. The distributed reactance of the wires would be measured
the same way, but for the stranded cable as a whole.
Another approach which I'd go for is to send a broadband modulated known
signal into one end of the wire and put the output on on scope. It's
basically the radar deal, but lining up the input and output signal should
be easier. This would get you the response of the wire; magnitude and phase.
If you have access to the right kind of coded signal this is in principal
the easiest measurement. You might have to deal with the probes, which is a
mild complication if you're looking for differences between strand sizes.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Peter Corey
--
Now that makes good sense;
_______
[[]***[]]
\_[#######]_/
| ^ ^ |
[ 0 0 ]
-oOOo-(_)-oOOo-
N.Bonaparte @bellevue.org
FAX 1-2BU TNM YSHU
Paul Keinanen
<smul...@home.com> wrote:
>> Well, I believe that I can hear differences in cables that are the result
>> of cable strand sizes, although quite frankly I can't think of any
>>mechanism which could cause this
>The most likely candidate is the (dreaded) skin effect - alternating current
>flows more at the boundary of (an imperfect) conductor than in the middle.
This is an explanation only if the strands are isolated from each
other, as is the case in Litz wire, which is used in LF and MF radio
coils, which require a lot of turns. In this case the RF current flows
near the surface of each conductor.
However, if there is no isolation between the strands, the bunch of
strands will work as a single thick conductor with the current flowing
near the surface of this conductor and the innermost strands carrying
very little current.
At 20 kHz with skin depth of 0.5 mm, a conductor with 1 mm diameter
will use the whole cross section area quite effectively, a 2 mm
conductor will have a 1 mm core that does not carry much current, thus
3/4 of the surface is in effective use and the conductor having the
same resistance as a 1.7 mm conductor at DC, so there is not much to
worry about at practical conductor diameters.
The situation is a bit different for 10 mm conductor diameters, in
which 9 mm is unused at 20 kHz and the resistance is the same as the
DC resistance of a 4.4 mm conductor, not very much to worry in this
case either.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
"Paul Keinanen" <kein...@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:va01ksg6na8v4vo89...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 01:43:42 GMT, "Andrew P. Mullhaupt"
> <smul...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Well, I believe that I can hear differences in cables that are the
result
> >> of cable strand sizes, although quite frankly I can't think of any
> >>mechanism which could cause this
>
> >The most likely candidate is the (dreaded) skin effect - alternating
current
> >flows more at the boundary of (an imperfect) conductor than in the
middle.
>
> This is an explanation only if the strands are isolated from each
> other,
I mentioned the other case in my post as well. That's the part about the
distributed reactances between strands. It's not easy to talk about those in
general, but it's probably worth measuring them.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
/Lerch
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:27:03 GMT, Peter Corey <pc...@att.net> wrote:
>Which raises a question worthy of consideration.
>Which component of the music reproducing chain has frequency response
>variations exceeding +/- 30 db and phase shifts up to 180 degrees and
>accompanied by distortion levels all of which are easily detectable in
>listening tests?
>Assuming the listener uses the sighted technique of course.
>A clue:
>It's neither a speaker cable or an interconnect.
Obviously the drivers are the only source.
Followed by the enclosure type/size mis-matches, x-over design flaws, dampening
material selection (or lack there of) and driver alignment flaws.
James
Stefan Markowitz
Andrew P. Mullhaupt schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8hpae0$vv$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>> of cable strand sizes, although quite frankly I can't think of any
>mechanism
>> which could cause this
>
>
>The most likely candidate is the (dreaded) skin effect - alternating
current
>flows more at the boundary of (an imperfect) conductor than in the middle.
<---snip--->
You should re-read Scott愀 posting and pay attention to the hint. <g>
Cheers,
Stefan
Andrzej Popowski
<smul...@home.com> wrote:
>> This is an explanation only if the strands are isolated from each
>> other,
>
>I mentioned the other case in my post as well. That's the part about the
>distributed reactances between strands. It's not easy to talk about those in
>general, but it's probably worth measuring them.
I asked question: What is theory on _hearing_ wire
distortion.
I can't see any problem in masuring differences (impedance, distorion,
skin effect, looses etc.)
The first use of this theory should be like that: You can measure and
sort every wire from the best to the worst.
I don't think, that such a teory exist :-)
Psychological explanation of sound differences in speaker cable is
simple and well proven. There is no known to me reason to search for
another.
Andrzej Popowski
Paul Wagner
>
> In article <393F522F...@earthlink.net>,
> Paul Wagner <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >But there's much more to sound than momentary amplitude differences.
>
> Um, no, but there's a word-usage problem here. "Amplitude"
> in tech-speak generally means the instantaneous amplitude as a function
> of time of a voltage, current, etc. So in that usage, it
> directly describes, and exactly so (to limits of measurement,
> etc) the voltage/current analog of the sound.
> "VU measurement". People do use the term this way, but it's
> really not the technical thing. dB VU would be better.
> Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are, I think, talking
> with crossed definitions here, and that could be part of
> the problem.
I agree. Before posting what I did to Arny, I carried on at
length in my own mind trying to distinguish between the kind
of amplitude he would no doubt talk about (sampled slices)
and what I was referring to (ongoing flow) but the only analogy
I could come up with was comparing GNP to actual details of
micro-economic activity, and I was afraid that would attract
the unreconstructed Reaganites :+)
>
> >In both cases, they'll read the same on meters, but are
> >significantly different
> >musical experiences.
>
> Well, agreed, a VU meter, for instance, discards a huge quantity
> of information in its ballistics, etc, that are designed to
> help an engineer set levels in an old analog-style system.
>
> People often use VU in terms of "loudness" as well, and it's not
> a loudness meter,either.
>
> Loudness is an internal variable. Intensity is the external
> variable, sometimes summarized (with risk of incorrectness) as
> SPL.
>
> Neither of those is directly dbVU, of course, that depends on the
> transduction equipment, monitor gain, etc.
Thank you for those definitions. I think that your post will stay in
the Mark As Unread (so it doesn't disappear) category for quite
some time.
>
> >Besides which, I was talking about studio environments, in which one doesn't
> >have one cable with a .2 dB difference (as adhered to in your very useful
> >sizing guide) but ten or twenty or thirty or more in a single signal chain.
> >And, as you've pointed out, small losses are cumulative...
>
> And that is surely a different, and annoying problem, for sure.
As I mentioned obliquely to Arny, I use breathing sounds
as a measurement fairly often, because there's an intimate
quality to them that can cause emotional discomfort with
any distortion, and reveals it at relatively low levels. I hear
VERY little equipment, and NO chains of it, that doesn't distort
the human breath audibly.
Paul Wagner
> > But there's much more to sound than momentary amplitude
> differences.
>
> If you would allow me to shrink the time scale of "momentary" a bit,
> then "momentary amplitude differences" is all sound is! ;-)
True, on that level -- believe me, I had hacked my way through
Pohlmann's "Principles" within a month of its release -- but I think
that as JJ points out in his response in the next post after this,
we're using the term amplitude in different senses.
>
> > You can send me a music mix that's clear as a bell, and I can send
> you
> > a version back that measures the same, played in real time on VU
> meters,
> > but is absolutely incomprehensible.
>
> Agreed. But ever since the late 20's or early 30's we've had much
> better test equipment than VU meters.
Also agreed.
>
> > And the opposite is true, as well. I've done lots of remixes in
> which there
> > is no discernible, visible difference in the moment-to-moment flow
> > of the meters when done, but the instruments, vocals, and stereo
> placement are all
> > far clearer and easier to listen to -- at least, that's what my
> ears hear
> > and what the recipients say --
> > simply from making millisecond-level timing modifications and
> minimal-
> > angle changes in stereo placement.
>
> > In both cases, they'll read the same on meters, but are
> > significantly different musical experiences.
>
> Agreed. But ever since the late 20's or early 30's we've had much
> better test equipment than VU meters. I think that everything you've
> mentioned can be captured via instrumentation using the test signals
> shown at http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/reference/#cs_snr and
> http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/reference/#impulse_temporal .
Agreed again.
>
> > Besides which, I was talking about studio environments, in which
> one doesn't
> > have one cable with a .2 dB difference (as adhered to in your very
> useful
> > sizing guide) but ten or twenty or thirty or more in a single
> signal chain.
>
> The wonderful story about good technology done right is that farily
> ordinary equipment and cable can be so good that even after passing
> through 10, 20, or 30 cables, a signal can have less than 0.2 dB
> added variations in frequency response. One achieves this by simply
> conforming to currently accepted audio engineering practices. Now,
> good audio engineering practices are not always followed, but when
> they are, the results can be "outstanding".
> I can reliably measure variations in frequency response down to below
> 0.01 dB. Even at that level, good cable properly attached to good
> equipment can be pretty blameless.
This must be a digital-era thing; most recording studios are still filled
with analog chains, and in them, even a well-maintained TT patch bay
will show up on a 'scope printout as damaging the upward-rising
first transients in a way that's not only visible, but if a second party
is switching out of sight, usually audible.
In fact, that was one of my strongest studio lessons -- I loved long effects
chains, then would complain about the sound distorting. One day my
studio mentor got down his scope, meters, analyzers, etc, and showed
me that not one single in-and-out transduction did not modify the physical
shape of the waveforms, including simple in-and-out bypass circuits;
the transductions themselves did visible, and often audible, damage,
simply due to the number of mediums the signals had to jump from and
to -- six for each in-and-out set of connections.
I, attached to effects, went into denial for months. He STILL sometimes
teases me by having an outboard circuit, such as a monitoring recorder,
hooked up when I come in to review a session, and when I begin complaining
that the singer's breath is distorted, he pretends that no, there's
nothing in
the chain, admitting only after a few minutes, when I become
pester-y and
discouraged, that yes, he's led the signal out and in, thus
reminding me of
my more foolish days. And he's a crack engineer -- work nominated
for
Oscars, etc.
BTW, if I mention a cable graph on a specific site, would you
comment on it
in a relatively neutral fashion> <g...>
Paul Wagner
>
> Thu, 08 Jun 2000 07:37:25 GMT, Paul Wagner <paulw...@earthlink.net>
> piszesz:
>
> >> Would you agree, that if somebody find resonable to spend $100 for a
> >> new speaker wire, then he should also accept spending $10,000 on
> >> rewiring voice coils in his speaker?
> >
> >Were resistance the only matter at hand, and if that rewiring cost 100
> >times as much, perhaps. But neither is true.
>
> distortion? Can you prove that theory in a way that exclude preception
> errors?
No, I can't cite theory. I can only cite experiences. And I cite
them
within a context of (a) having a degree in psychology and being
aware of the universality constancy of projection due to expectation,
wish, and conditioning, and (b) having some years of Buddhist practice
under my belt (if that's where it's stored...) and knowing that even
intellectual awareness of projective processes does not necessarily
null them.
Regardless, when I brought my rewired and un-rewired studio monitors
in to our local studio for blind testing, the difference, tested
blind with
no cues, was absolutely and instantly identifiable in all trials.
And that's
only one of a dozen or so such tests I've done. After those experiences,
the theory became far less interesting, to be honest.
Mike Rivers
> Mike, I've noticed you've always been a voice of reason on this news group.
> Short and to the point. I sorta said the same thing way back at post #4 of
> the original question. We sure can get off on different tangents and some
> quite nasty.
My secret to success with threads like this is that if I notice that
rec.audio.opinion is in the list of crossposted newsgroups, I delete
it in my reply. Sometimes I miss it, though.
Arny Krueger
Digital helps!
However, recording studios are kind of "worst case" for wiring.
I took your comment about cables in the context of RAO, which is a
consumer group. In a recording studio really long cables (pushing 100
feet and more) are not unusual. In a home system they are exceedingly
rare. BTW, my rule of thumb for the length of a cables in walls, like
we see in many recording studios, is twice the distance between the
two locations plus 10 feet.
> In fact, that was one of my strongest studio lessons -- I loved
long effects
> chains, then would complain about the sound distorting.
Well distortion is what effects chains do, technically speaking! ;-)
> One day my
> studio mentor got down his scope, meters, analyzers, etc, and
showed
> me that not one single in-and-out transduction did not modify the
physical
> shape of the waveforms, including simple in-and-out bypass
circuits;
> the transductions themselves did visible, and often audible,
damage,
> simply due to the number of mediums the signals had to jump from
and
> to -- six for each in-and-out set of connections.
I'd be curious to know what kind of square wave that was. At 10 KHz
yes, that is pretty much how things work. However, doing DBT's
comparing 10 KHz sine waves and 10 KHz square waves can be pretty
embarassing once the levels are properly matched.
> I, attached to effects, went into denial for months.
I wouldn't. After all, technically speaking, distortion is what
effects boxes do. By design. By intent. If they don't distort the
music then the music does not sound different.
> He STILL sometimes
> teases me by having an outboard circuit, such as a monitoring
recorder,
> hooked up when I come in to review a session, and when I begin
complaining
> that the singer's breath is distorted, he pretends that no, there's
nothing in
> the chain, admitting only after a few minutes, when I become
pester-y and
> discouraged, that yes, he's led the signal out and in, thus
reminding me of
> my more foolish days. And he's a crack engineer -- work nominated
> for Oscars, etc.
Well, I see the point that he's trying to make is that the msot
pleasing sounds are often the most accurate ones.
> BTW, if I mention a cable graph on a specific site, would you
comment on it
> in a relatively neutral fashion> <g...>
Sure. As neutral as I get! ;-)
IA Nichols
Reply-To: i.a.n...@bris.ac.uk
Distribution:
Peter Corey (pc...@att.net) wrote:
: On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:35:55 -0400
: joshi wrote:
: >
: > Peter Corey wrote in message <393EE855...@att.net>...
: > >Which raises a question worthy of consideration.
: > >Which component of the music reproducing chain has frequency response
: > >variations exceeding +/- 30 db and phase shifts up to 180 degrees and
: > >accompanied by distortion levels all of which are easily detectable in
: > >listening tests?
: > >Assuming the listener uses the sighted technique of course.
: > >A clue:
: > >It's neither a speaker cable or an interconnect.
: >
: > Speaker placement.
: >
: > joshi
:
: Close Joshi, but no cigar.
You are referring, i believe to the loudspeakers themselves. I don't
smoke cigars, so you can keep it.
--
________________________________________________________________________
* | |
| / | |/-\ | Ian A. Nichols |
| | | | | | |
| \-/| | / | i.a.n...@bris.ac.uk |
| * ia...@argonet.co.uk |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DALJHD
It is a sensitive and accurate system for determining very small audible
differences - but only if the differences can consistently be heard under
"blind A-B comparisons".
Otherwise, the "system's" accuracy can be can be degraded by psychological
preconceptions, pre-existing biases, etc.
John D.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
"Andrzej Popowski" <po...@friko.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:3940b563...@news.tpnet.pl...
> Fri, 09 Jun 2000 06:53:21 GMT, "Andrew P. Mullhaupt"
> <smul...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> This is an explanation only if the strands are isolated from each
> >> other,
> >
> >I mentioned the other case in my post as well. That's the part about the
> >distributed reactances between strands. It's not easy to talk about those
in
> >general, but it's probably worth measuring them.
>
> I asked question: What is theory on _hearing_ wire
> distortion.
That depends if there is any significant wire distortion. Most of the change
in sound will be from filtering, not distortion.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Howard Ferstler
> When I was young, I thought I knew everything. As I got older, I discovered I was woefully
> ignorant about everything, and developed some respect for other peoples' knowledge and
> experience.
>
> But I also saw that 99.9% of the population is incapable of critical thinking (This
> includes most "educated" people). They are unable to separate their own opinions and
> desires from objective fact. And worse, they don't even understand that there is a
> difference.
Well, and don't take this wrong, but when somebody starts
saying that 99.9% of the population is incapable of critical
thinking (including those who are "educated"), we have to
assume that the person saying such a thing believe
themselves to be a member of that elite, .1% segment that is
able to think critically. Few people, particularly if they
believe what you say about the nature of intellectual
elitism, would relegate themselves to the other group. Most
people like to think that they can think critically.
While I also consider myself a critical thinker in some
respects, I usually cut the rest of the population a bit
more slack than you apparently do. I think that the ability
to think critically is something that involves gradation,
rather than black and white as you imply.
Interestingly, your comments about opinions, desires, and
objective fact indicate that maybe you have read a little
Spinoza.
Howard Ferstler
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
"Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote
> I also consider myself a critical thinker
> Howard Ferstler
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Howard Ferstler
>
> in article 39414F0A...@mailer.fsu.edu, Howard Ferstler at
> hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu wrote on 10/6/00 6:09:
> > While I also consider myself a critical thinker in some
> > respects, I usually cut the rest of the population a bit
> > more slack than you apparently do.
> Well, you've never considered yourself an "audiophile."
I prefer to consider myself as being simply curious about
the world, which of course includes the world of audio.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> "Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote
> > I also consider myself a critical thinker
> > Howard Ferstler
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
He who laughs last, laughs best.
Howard Ferstler
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net
More Like I am Curious, Ferstler
(Where's the Swedish Flag when you need it, Damn it!)
Ed
ke...@listen2us.com
space. A tightly wound bundle of small strands will essentially be the
(quasi-static) equivalent of a single conductor, in terms of self-inductance
and skin effect. It is therefore appropriate to eliminate SE as a potential
mechanism in favor of small strands, if the overall conductor geometry is
similar.
Forgetting the theory for a moment: about 10 years ago, I was retained by a
major manufacturer of audiophile cable to do comparative measurements on a
variety of speaker cable constructions and operating conditions. Tests were
made using a network analyzer calibrated to within about .01 dB to 20KHz.
Three types of driving source were used, and five types of terminating load.
Pure resistive, resistance plus capacitance, and three actual speakers. I
never found any detectible influence of skin effect on actual transfer
functions. For that matter, I never saw any transmission line or non-linear
considerations at all. Everything was always swamped by the lumped
parameter errors, which were not always audibly negligible. For what that
is worth.
--
Ken Kantor
Vergence Technology, Inc.
www.vergenceaudio.com
www.anxioushippy.com
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <smul...@home.com> wrote in message
news:iZX%4.119784$R4.7...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>
> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8hpae0$vv$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Well, I believe that I can hear differences in cables that are the
result
> > of cable strand sizes, although quite frankly I can't think of any
> mechanism
> > which could cause this
>
>
> The most likely candidate is the (dreaded) skin effect - alternating
current
> flows more at the boundary of (an imperfect) conductor than in the middle.
> The dropoff of current with penetration is exponential.
>
ke...@listen2us.com
If you can demonstrate to me at any time over the next 5 years that you can
audibly differentiate between any of three models of power amp I choose OR
any of the three brands of A/D/A converters in my studio OR any of three
mixing boards I own, using breath sounds, I will buy you $100 dinners for a
month. You may have all the reasonable listening time you want. I will
adjust the levels and eliminate extraneous cues. All I want to know is what
you will put up!
--
Ken Kantor
Vergence Technology, Inc.
www.vergenceaudio.com
www.anxioushippy.com
"Paul Wagner" <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3940B6A5...@earthlink.net...
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
<ke...@listen2us.com> wrote in message
news:rPa05.14$MZ1....@news.pacbell.net...
> Hang on... that analysis for skin effect is for a solid conductor in free
> space.
Did you read this part?
> > Now the next thing to consider is the distributed reactance of the
wires.
....
> > The distributed reactance of the wires would be measured
> > the same way, but for the stranded cable as a whole.
> A tightly wound bundle of small strands will essentially be the
> (quasi-static) equivalent of a single conductor, in terms of
self-inductance
> and skin effect.
You have to consider interstrand resistance, which is not simple in real
life, unless the strands are individually insulated from each other. You can
"spin" the skin effect in multistrand wires a couple different ways; you
might expect the skin effect to force the electrons to the outside of the
bundle and cause lots of strand-to-strand conduction (say, if strands go
through the bundle center), you might expect the skin effect to reduce
strand-to-strand conduction by keeping the electrons in strands that don't
go through the center of the bundle. If there are any losses of this sort,
(and there are - it's only a question of how big they are), then you might
have to junk both the single conductor estimates both for the strands and
the combined wire.
> It is therefore appropriate to eliminate SE as a potential
> mechanism in favor of small strands, if the overall conductor geometry is
> similar.
I think it's probably easier to do the measurement on the wire in question
to see if it correlates with the perceptions.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Paul Dormer
>If you can demonstrate to me at any time over the next 5 years that you can
>audibly differentiate between any of three models of power amp I choose OR
>any of the three brands of A/D/A converters in my studio OR any of three
>mixing boards I own, using breath sounds, I will buy you $100 dinners for a
>month. You may have all the reasonable listening time you want. I will
>adjust the levels and eliminate extraneous cues. All I want to know is what
>you will put up!
Aaah.. a wager.. just like the good old days ;-)
Paul Dormer Me...@clara.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Design, Editing, Mastering
Howard Ferstler
You will always have a sales-clerk mentality, Ed. You cannot help
yourself.
Howard Ferstler
Peter Corey
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never fear since despite the shotgun attempt you needn't take up the
habit as you're not quite there yet.
;-)
--
With Best regards;
| ^ ^ |
[ 0 = ] _ _____
(~~~~~~-oOOo-(_)-oOOo-~~~~~~)_ _ _ _ _(_\_____o /_/_ |
( P.Corey@The Hi-End Haven™ ) >-----._/_/__]>
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~) `0 |
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/hiendhaven.html
<><>
Distributors of the "Hi-End Haven Capsule™ "
The "CD Alternative™ " &
The powerful, self powered "Powerless Power Cord™ "
Dave Platt
Derwyn Williams <der...@tech.screaming.net> wrote:
>The obvious solution to the speaker cable problem is to include the cable in
>the NFB loop.
>Disconnect the NFB loop at the O/P tranny.
>Run a third cable to the speaker, and connect the NFB there.
>Now the speaker cables are inside the NFB loop. Any losses are compensated.
>
>How good does the NFB cable have to be?
Sounds as if you're talking about a Kelvin, or remote-sensing
connection.
This would compensate pretty well for voltage drop in the speaker
wiring (which shouldn't be a problem as long as the speaker wire is
adequately sized).
It seems to me that it would introduce a whole raft of other problems
in place of voltage-drop, though. The stability of the resulting
negative-feedback loop could go all to heck, due to the length of the
amplifier-output-to-speaker and speaker-terminal-back-to-sense-input
cables. You'd have to limit the output bandwidth of the amplifier
pretty severely, in order to make sure that inductive and capacitive
effects in the cables didn't turn your negative-feedback loop into an
extremely effective oscillator!
--
Dave Platt dpl...@radagast.org
Visit the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior/
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net
Oh, dear, Howie. You *made* me do it. Am I now to be
institutionalized along with poor, poor pitiful you? (song cue for
you, Howard. You've reviewed 4,300,417 cds. Perhaps you recognize it?
Oh. That's right. I forgot. You don't listen to the music. You listen
to the engineering.)
Hmmm...perhaps you can help me out here, Howard. Am I an
obsessive-compulsive narcissist like you, or am I just a
run-of-the-mill sociopathic sales clerk?
Ed
DUNCLIF
>Why are you telling me this? I already pointed out that a guitar pickup has
>a high Z,
>which is "a completely different thing". So where is your point?
>
>Stefan
>
My point is, I do not sit in front of the computer waiting for all replies to a
given post. I also do not read every post that may have come in during the
two, three or even four days that I have not been in front of the computer, on
the web, before I reply. This might be the reason I said:
>>It should be noted (and probably is later in this thread)
Sorry if this caused you some angst.
ke...@listen2us.com
allow a FULLY definitive theoretical answer. I have done some measurements,
as I said. And there are publications in the JAES on the topic from Greiner
and Fred Davis. Nothing that I have seen seems to establish anything but
lumped R-L-C as particularly important, issues of construction quality
notwithstanding.
--
Ken Kantor
Vergence Technology, Inc.
www.vergenceaudio.com
www.anxioushippy.com
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <smul...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Owc05.121625$R4.7...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>
> You have to consider interstrand resistance, which is not simple in real
> life, unless the strands are individually insulated from each other. You
can
> "spin" the skin effect in multistrand wires a couple different ways; you
> might expect the skin effect to force the electrons to the outside of the
> bundle and cause lots of strand-to-strand conduction (say, if strands go
> through the bundle center), you might expect the skin effect to reduce
> strand-to-strand conduction by keeping the electrons in strands that don't
> go through the center of the bundle. If there are any losses of this sort,
> (and there are - it's only a question of how big they are), then you might
> have to junk both the single conductor estimates both for the strands and
> the combined wire.
>
>