Reward for proving cable differences?
Steven Sullivan
unclaimed) for anyone who can prove they hear differences between
nominally competent cables under DBT conditions.
Can anyone here elaborate on the details of this challenge?
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
The cables must be compared under double-blind conditions, with levels
matched at the speaker terminals to +/- 0.1 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz, or
at the amp input terminals for interconnects. This excudes 'silly'
comparisons such as 30-foot lengths of 24 gauge and 12 gauge cables,
but includes all the so-called 'high end' cables, aside from possibly
a couple of the extreme constructions with 'boxes' which deliberately
roll off the treble. Otherwise, the choice of system components and
music sources is entirely free to the challenger.
The premise is that 12 AWG speaker cable and Radio Shack 'Gold'
interconnects are audibly transparent, and that they sound identical
to the $1,000 a foot 'high end' cables, when you don't actually *know*
which is connected. As you rightly point out, no one has even
*attempted* to claim this cash in the three years or more that it has
been on the table (not even BEAR!). I have independently put up £1,000
on uk.rec.audio, with similar lack of response - except from one
Romanian who tried to cheat his way into it.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
BEAR
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:40:42 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've read a few times here about a standing reward of ~$1600 (as yet
> >unclaimed) for anyone who can prove they hear differences between
> >nominally competent cables under DBT conditions.
> >Can anyone here elaborate on the details of this challenge?
>
> The cables must be compared under double-blind conditions, with levels
> matched at the speaker terminals to +/- 0.1 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz, or
> at the amp input terminals for interconnects. This excudes 'silly'
> comparisons such as 30-foot lengths of 24 gauge and 12 gauge cables,
> but includes all the so-called 'high end' cables, aside from possibly
> a couple of the extreme constructions with 'boxes' which deliberately
> roll off the treble. Otherwise, the choice of system components and
> music sources is entirely free to the challenger.
>
> The premise is that 12 AWG speaker cable and Radio Shack 'Gold'
> interconnects are audibly transparent, and that they sound identical
> to the $1,000 a foot 'high end' cables, when you don't actually *know*
> which is connected. As you rightly point out, no one has even
> *attempted* to claim this cash in the three years or more that it has
> been on the table (not even BEAR!). I have independently put up =A31,00=
0
> on uk.rec.audio, with similar lack of response - except from one
> Romanian who tried to cheat his way into it.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
---> I am unclear -** who** is offering what money?<--- where is the docu=
mentation on this?
What sort of requirement is matching +/- 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 20kHz??
How is that possible, unless the resulting frequency responses are virtua=
lly *identical*??
An assumption that can not be made. There needs to be a more practical me=
ans of
"matching" levels.
Are we comparing 12ga "speaker cable" or "zip cord" - I heard it was zip =
cord that sounded
the same as speaker cable, so zip cord=3Dspeaker cable, right?
Who referees the "tests" and makes sure it is valid?
How did the Romanian attempt to cheat (we don't want to repeat his mistak=
e)??
And, WHY pray tell, Stewart don't you collect the money yourself? I have =
already
suggested multiple times HOW to inexpensively build cables out of silver =
and copper
and make the comparison(s)!!
If you find out I am correct, I will expect you to send me a check in the=
mail. I'll deduct
the cost of your parts. Ok? :- )
Oh boy! Isn't this interesting now! : -)
_-_-bear
--
_-_-bearlabs
http://www.bearlabsUSA.com
- Silver Lightning Interconnects & Custom Mods -
Arny Krueger
news:an25d7$m6g$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> What sort of requirement is matching +/- 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to
20khz??
It addresses the core of speaker cable, and general high end audio
mythology, which is that there is or are technically indescribably
*something(s)* that makes wires (and other audio components) sound
radically *different* (and better), even when they measure the *same*
(or at least measure to be very similar).
> How is that possible, unless the resulting frequency responses are
virtually *identical*??
This addresses the core of conventional orthodox audio technical
wisdom about audio gear, which is that barring gross nonlinear
distortion (example: clipping) any two audio devices with
sufficiently similar frequency response will be found to reliably
sound no different, when evaluated by means of just listening.
> An assumption that can not be made. There needs to be a more
practical means of
> "matching" levels.
Let's take a practical example. On the one hand we have ordinary
commodity 12 gauge 99.9% or better pure copper two-conductor speaker
cable obtained from Home Depot or competitor for approximately $0.25
per foot. On the other hand we have high end speaker cables of
similar length costing $5 to $50 or more per foot. We observe that
both cables have essentially the same amount of copper per foot, and
thus very similar DC conductivity.
Yet, we have quite a bit anecdotal opinion (AKA hype) claiming that
the extra money is well spent and that the more expensive cable
delivers *obviously superior* sound quality.
Since the use of silver conductors is mentioned later on,
conventional orthodox audio technical wisdom is that making the
copper speaker cable about one AWG larger (numerically a AWG number
that is smaller by one) will approximately equalize the conductivity
of copper and silver cables. IOW, 12 gauge copper wire has the same
conductivity and therefore sound quality as 13 gauge silver wire.
> Are we comparing 12ga "speaker cable" or "zip cord" - I heard it
was zipcord that sounded
> the same as speaker cable, so zip cord=3Dspeaker cable, right?
The *reference* 12 gauge speaker cable that I mentioned is
essentially 12 gauge zip cord. It is arguably lamp cord, because it
is sold to supply power to low voltage lawn lamps.
> Who referees the "tests" and makes sure it is valid?
Someone who is acceptable to both parties.
> And, WHY pray tell, Stewart don't you collect the money yourself? I
have already
> suggested multiple times HOW to inexpensively build cables out of
silver and copper
> and make the comparison(s)!!
Now that the rules have been laid out in fuller detail, do you think
this is still the case?
Mkuller
>
>> What sort of requirement is matching +/- 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to
>20khz??
>
>It addresses the core of speaker cable, and general high end audio
>mythology, which is that there is or are technically indescribably
>*something(s)* that makes wires (and other audio components) sound
>radically *different* (and better), even when they measure the *same*
>(or at least measure to be very similar).
>
>> How is that possible, unless the resulting frequency responses are
>virtually *identical*??
>
>This addresses the core of conventional orthodox audio technical
>wisdom about audio gear, which is that barring gross nonlinear
>distortion (example: clipping) any two audio devices with
>sufficiently similar frequency response will be found to reliably
>sound no different, when evaluated by means of just listening.
>
response of two cables to +/-0.1
dB from 20Hz to 20kHz? What equipment do you use? And what if they are
different by more than 0.1 dB at some high or low frequency (as I suspect most
are)? It appears you are contributing to the mythology here. When people talk
about cables "measuring" similarly, I thought they meant RLC values, not
frequency response.
And even then, no one has expected the two different wires to measure exactly
the same.
And second, maybe I'm missing something, but WHY is this total frequency
response matching necessary? In the past, proponents of blind testing have
insisted on level matching (a good thing) which has always meant with a digital
meter at a reference frequency, commonly 1kHz. Are you changing the rules now?
Regards,
Mike
Stewart Pinkerton
>>>BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> wrote :
>>
>>> What sort of requirement is matching +/- 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to
>>20khz??
>>
>>Arnie Krueger responded:>
>>It addresses the core of speaker cable, and general high end audio
>>mythology, which is that there is or are technically indescribably
>>*something(s)* that makes wires (and other audio components) sound
>>radically *different* (and better), even when they measure the *same*
>>(or at least measure to be very similar).
>>
>>> How is that possible, unless the resulting frequency responses are
>>virtually *identical*??
>>
>>This addresses the core of conventional orthodox audio technical
>>wisdom about audio gear, which is that barring gross nonlinear
>>distortion (example: clipping) any two audio devices with
>>sufficiently similar frequency response will be found to reliably
>>sound no different, when evaluated by means of just listening.
>>
>First Arnie, from a practical perspective, how do you match the frequency
>response of two cables to +/-0.1
>dB from 20Hz to 20kHz? What equipment do you use?
A voltmeter on the speaker terminals - hardly rocket science.
> And what if they are
>different by more than 0.1 dB at some high or low frequency (as I suspect most
>are)?
Most aren't. Not speculation, easily measurable *fact*.
> It appears you are contributing to the mythology here. When people talk
>about cables "measuring" similarly, I thought they meant RLC values, not
>frequency response.
It's the same thing - that should be obvious!
>And even then, no one has expected the two different wires to measure exactly
>the same.
A requirement of +/- 0.1 db is not 'exactly the same'. Indeed, almost
all CD players meet this requirement, as is obvious from magazine
reviews, yet we still hear all kinds of claims of 'night and day'
sonic differences.
>And second, maybe I'm missing something, but WHY is this total frequency
>response matching necessary?
Because treble droop due to basic RLC differences has *nothing* to do
with all the 'magical mystical' claims of sound differences made by
the cable makers.
> In the past, proponents of blind testing have
>insisted on level matching (a good thing) which has always meant with a digital
>meter at a reference frequency, commonly 1kHz. Are you changing the rules now?
No, simply noting that an intentional treble droop may be audibly
detectable, but is not related to stated claims, which tend to revolve
around 'inner detail', and other such non-specific dross.
Stewart Pinkerton
>---> I am unclear -** who** is offering what money?<--- where is the docu=
>mentation on this?
Eight regular *rational* posters put up $200 each about three years
ago on r.a.o. It can't be too hard to track this down. OTOH, I've
personally put up £1,000 on uk.rec.audio, which is pretty much the
same value, so the documentation is right here, right now.
>What sort of requirement is matching +/- 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 20kHz??
It's a standard DBT pre-requisite. Randy, are you pretending that you
are not aware of this?
>How is that possible, unless the resulting frequency responses are virtually *identical*??
That's the point, Randy. Darn it, I lost my box of DUHs.......
>An assumption that can not be made. There needs to be a more practical means of
>"matching" levels.
It's not an assumption, it's a pre-requisite. Shouldn't be a problem
for any reasonable cable.
>Are we comparing 12ga "speaker cable" or "zip cord" - I heard it was zipcord that sounded
>the same as speaker cable, so zip cord=3Dspeaker cable, right?
What's the difference?
>Who referees the "tests" and makes sure it is valid?
An independent observer.
>How did the Romanian attempt to cheat (we don't want to repeat his mistake)??
Oh, he claimed that I was sloppy about the conditions (which I was)
when I made the relevant post, and tried to jump in on the basis that
he'd compare something like 30 feet of 30 AWG to 30 feet of 12 AWG. I
hadn't mentioned the obvious level-matching requirement.
>And, WHY pray tell, Stewart don't you collect the money yourself? I have already
>suggested multiple times HOW to inexpensively build cables out of silver and copper
>and make the comparison(s)!!
Simple, really. I've tried it, and it doesn't make any difference!
Nice try, not even an old stogie, never mind a cigar...........
Reality check, here.
Do you think that a good Scot like me would put up £1,000 of cold cash
if I wasn't absolutely sure that 'magical mystical' cables are made of
purest snake oil?
A quick reminder of the basic rules:
The cables must be level-matched to +/- 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz (not
a problem for any reasonable cable), the test will consist of 20
trials with a 'pass' criterion of 16 correct identifications, the
protocol is double-blind, and the test will be proctored by an
impartial observer acceptable to both sides.
>If you find out I am correct, I will expect you to send me a check in the mail. I'll deduct
>the cost of your parts. Ok? :- )
>
>Oh boy! Isn't this interesting now! : -)
It sure is! Are you up for an *honest* level-matched DBT, or will you
admit that your website stinks to high heaven of bullshit?
Steve Tew
news:an2pnq$6rj$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
What exactly would you use as a test source for the 20 to 20k level match?
A pink noise generator through a band pass filter? It occurs to me that if
you do that the matched rms voltages would still allow the revelation of the
difference that you decry in the cables that roll off the high end, and that
they would be detectable unless you were to intercede with an equalizer,
which nullifies the test.
Steve
>
BEAR
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:45:34 GMT, BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >---> I am unclear -** who** is offering what money?<--- where is the docu=
> >mentation on this?
>
> Eight regular *rational* posters put up $200 each about three years
> ago on r.a.o. It can't be too hard to track this down. OTOH, I've
> personally put up £1,000 on uk.rec.audio, which is pretty much the
> same value, so the documentation is right here, right now.
So no one is presently offering this amount, then.
Offers made on rao are completely bogus, as is the newsgroup, sorry.
ARE YOU NOW OFFERING MONEY?
IF SO, where will you place it in escrow?
HOW will the "referee" be determined??
>
>
>
> It's not an assumption, it's a pre-requisite. Shouldn't be a problem
> for any reasonable cable.
>
> >Are we comparing 12ga "speaker cable" or "zip cord" - I heard it was zipcord that sounded
> >the same as speaker cable, so zip cord=3Dspeaker cable, right?
>
> What's the difference?
Are you then accepting as a given fact that zip cord meets the above "level matching
prequisite?" Namely that it is "flat" from 20-20kHz +/-1db, period??
>
>
> >And, WHY pray tell, Stewart don't you collect the money yourself? I have already
> >suggested multiple times HOW to inexpensively build cables out of silver and copper
> >and make the comparison(s)!!
>
> Simple, really. I've tried it, and it doesn't make any difference!
> Nice try, not even an old stogie, never mind a cigar...........
Now, let us ask the question again, and get a definitive answer:
Have YOU or have YOU not built *identical* cables for your *entire* signal path
from both silver and copper wires and compared them in an ABX test with any test
subjects other than yourself and those who hold the same views that you do?
That would be a YES, or a NO.
>
>
> Reality check, here.
>
> Do you think that a good Scot like me would put up £1,000 of cold cash
> if I wasn't absolutely sure that 'magical mystical' cables are made of
> purest snake oil?
I don't think you've done much more than flap your gums, mate.
>
>
> A quick reminder of the basic rules:
>
> The cables must be level-matched to +/- 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz (not
> a problem for any reasonable cable), the test will consist of 20
> trials with a 'pass' criterion of 16 correct identifications, the
> protocol is double-blind, and the test will be proctored by an
> impartial observer acceptable to both sides.
16? Why 16? Aren't we looking for some sort of statistical validity?
Are we only using *one* test subject?
Whaaa?
>
>
> >If you find out I am correct, I will expect you to send me a check in the mail. I'll deduct
> >the cost of your parts. Ok? :- )
> >
> >Oh boy! Isn't this interesting now! : -)
>
> It sure is! Are you up for an *honest* level-matched DBT, or will you
> admit that your website stinks to high heaven of bullshit?
<--- this is provocative nonsense and this post should have been rejected for it.
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
As far as I am concerned, you can match your brains out, Stew... Apogees still sound
like Apogees... :- )
Arny Krueger
> What exactly would you use as a test source for the 20 to 20k level
match?
(1) Multitones
You can see an example of the use of this technique at:
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/CardDDeluxe/index.htm
more specifically:
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/CardDDeluxe/index.htm#FR_2496-a
As you can see, frequency response measurements well within 0.1 dB
can be quickly and easily done using this methodology.
(2) Any signal with appreciable components in the 20-20 KHz range in
conjunction with a "Real Transfer Function" measurement technique.
You can see an example of the use of this technique at:
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm
more specifically:
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm#FR_1644-a
As you can see, frequency response measurements well within any
reasonable or even some unreasonable tolerances, even 0.01 dB can be
quickly and easily done using the "Real Transfer Function"
methodology. This methodology has the advantage of accuracy and
resolution that is essentially independent of the frequency response
of the measuring equipment. All that is required is sufficiently flat
response at any frequency so that the noise floor does not intrude.
Mkuller
>>First Arnie, from a practical perspective, how do you match the frequency
>>response of two cables to +/-0.1
>>dB from 20Hz to 20kHz? What equipment do you use?
>>
>Stewart Pinkerton responded:>
>A voltmeter on the speaker terminals - hardly rocket science.
>
Stewart,
You must have designed your own voltmeter that measures "dB" to within 0.1.
Wow, what an engineer!
So tell me, step by step, Stew, how you would match two speaker cables to
within +/- 0.1 dB from 20Hz to 20 kHz with only a voltmeter on the speaker
terminals. Get this one and we'll move on to harder stuff - like how many
engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
>>When people talk
>>about cables "measuring" similarly, I thought they meant RLC values, not
>>frequency response.>>
>It's the same thing - that should be obvious!>
Next you say it's obvious that RLC values are the SAME THING as frequency
response. You and Arnie are quite the jokers - what a sense of humor! First
the challenge was about zip cord versus exotic speaker cables. Now the two
wires have to be MATCHED TO WITHIN 0.1 DB from 20HZ to 20,000HZ as measured
with a voltmeter. You guys crack me up... And, let me guess, the payoff is
your choice of Scottish pounds or Monopoly money.
Regards,
Mike
Arny Krueger
>>> BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> wrote :
>>> What sort of requirement is matching +/- 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to
>> 20khz??
>> Arnie Krueger responded:>
>> It addresses the core of speaker cable, and general high end audio
>> mythology, which is that there is or are technically indescribably
>> *something(s)* that makes wires (and other audio components) sound
>> radically *different* (and better), even when they measure the
*same*
>> (or at least measure to be very similar).
>>> How is that possible, unless the resulting frequency responses
are
>> virtually *identical*??
>> This addresses the core of conventional orthodox audio technical
>> wisdom about audio gear, which is that barring gross nonlinear
>> distortion (example: clipping) any two audio devices with
>> sufficiently similar frequency response will be found to reliably
>> sound no different, when evaluated by means of just listening.
> First Arnie, from a practical perspective, how do you match the
> frequency response of two cables to +/-0.1
> dB from 20Hz to 20kHz?
Two options immediately spring to mind:
(1) Use two electrically similar wires.
(2) Equalize the frequency response differences if the cables aren't
similar enough.
> What equipment do you use?
If obliged to equalize the frequency response of two audio signals, I
generally do it in the digital domain with 24 bit resolution and an
appropriate sample rate up to 192 KHz. Since top-quality ADCs and
DACs are now among the most technically perfected of all audio
components, entry and exit from the digital domain using top-quality
digital hardware and software can be thought of as being subjectively
lossless. I've already shown anybody who wants to listen for
themselves, at http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm ,
that 20 round-trips into the analog domain and back are subjectively
sonically transparent if the converters are good enough.
>And what if they
> are different by more than 0.1 dB at some high or low frequency (as
I
> suspect most are)?
See my previous answers.
> It appears you are contributing to the mythology
> here.
Not at all. Answer (1) is consistent with the following paragraph
from my previous post:
"It addresses the core of speaker cable, and general high end audio
mythology, which is that there is or are technically indescribably
*something(s)* that makes wires (and other audio components) sound
radically *different* (and better), even when they measure the *same*
(or at least measure to be very similar)."
> When people talk about cables "measuring" similarly, I thought
> they meant RLC values, not frequency response.
If RLC are the same or very similar, why would frequency response be
any different?
> And even then, no one has expected the two different wires to
measure
> exactly the same.
I would expect two visibly different but electrically similar wires
to measure the same. It's fascinating and sometimes a little
mind-boggling to see how visibly dissimilar different wires can be
and still deliver the same frequency response +/- 0.1 dB to a
speaker.
> I'm missing something, but WHY is this total
> frequency response matching necessary?
By varying the LRC parameters of speaker wire, one can have speaker
wires that provide vastly different measured frequency response at
the speaker end. That's predictable using tools one learns in a good
sophomore-level EE course in electrical circuits. There's no doubt
that fairly small frequency response differences are audible.
>In the past, proponents of
> blind testing have insisted on level matching (a good thing) which
> has always meant with a digital meter at a reference frequency,
> commonly 1kHz.
I suggest that you reread Clark, David L., "High-Resolution
Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the
Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
BTW, this would be one of those referred papers from a recognized
scientific publication that people like to talk about.
>Are you changing the rules now?
AFAIK, the *rules* have not changed since May, 1982 (>20 years ago).
Sam Stark
20 given the extraordinary price differential.
I also doubt there is a detectable statistical listening difference. I
can't hear it. Perhaps a dog or bat can but I doubt we can.
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:an2ppq$6tq$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Stewart Pinkerton
>What exactly would you use as a test source for the 20 to 20k level match?
I use either a signal generator, or a test CD.
>A pink noise generator through a band pass filter? It occurs to me that if
>you do that the matched rms voltages would still allow the revelation of the
>difference that you decry in the cables that roll off the high end, and that
>they would be detectable unless you were to intercede with an equalizer,
>which nullifies the test.
Excuse me? Can I have that again in English, please? Cables which
deliberately roll off the top end are by definition exluded, although
if someone were to insist that such a 'super cable' still possessed
some 'magical mysitical' quality, I would be happy to make up a cheap
lead with the same frequency response, and run a comparison. It might
cost as much as $20 to replicate say Kimber Black Pearl at $1,000 a
foot, but it's worth it in the interests of true experimentation! :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
>>>mkuller wrote:>>
>>>First Arnie, from a practical perspective, how do you match the frequency
>>>response of two cables to +/-0.1
>>>dB from 20Hz to 20kHz? What equipment do you use?
>>>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton responded:>
>>A voltmeter on the speaker terminals - hardly rocket science.
>>
>Stewart,
>You must have designed your own voltmeter that measures "dB" to within 0.1.
>Wow, what an engineer!
Sorry if you can't understand the basics. +/- 0.1dB is pretty close to
1%, IOW the third digit on the meter - hardly rocket science.....
BTW, there are numerous DVMs on the market that will scale to dBs if
you want them to, and I also own an old H-P audio millivoltmeter that
actually is scaled in dBs as its primary measure.
>So tell me, step by step, Stew, how you would match two speaker cables to
>within +/- 0.1 dB from 20Hz to 20 kHz with only a voltmeter on the speaker
>terminals.
You hook up the cables, you inject a signal at 20Hz, 1kHz and 20kHz,
and you measure the result with a 4-digit meter - hardly rocket
science. I use a Fluke 85.
> Get this one and we'll move on to harder stuff - like how many
>engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
One.
>>>When people talk
>>>about cables "measuring" similarly, I thought they meant RLC values, not
>>>frequency response.>>
>
>>It's the same thing - that should be obvious!>
>
>Next you say it's obvious that RLC values are the SAME THING as frequency
>response.
They are directly scalar - only an incompetent would suggest
otherwise.
>You and Arnie are quite the jokers - what a sense of humor! First
>the challenge was about zip cord versus exotic speaker cables. Now the two
>wires have to be MATCHED TO WITHIN 0.1 DB from 20HZ to 20,000HZ as measured
>with a voltmeter. You guys crack me up... And, let me guess, the payoff is
>your choice of Scottish pounds or Monopoly money.
Pounds sterling or the equivalent US dollars. It doesn't matter, since
none of you guys have the guts to take up the challenge.
BEAR
Well, that's nice.
I suggested AGAIN that you do just this, Lord Pinky...
Make up a set of cables for a complete signal path - one with COPPER, one
with pure SILVER wire, and listen.
Have you done that yet? Ever? No? Why not?
Arny Krueger
> Make up a set of cables for a complete signal path - one with
COPPER, one
> with pure SILVER wire, and listen.
> Have you done that yet? Ever? No? Why not?
(1) No theoretical justification.
(2) A costly experiment with no possible audible benefits.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:56:14 GMT, "Steve Tew" <sa...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> Excuse me? Can I have that again in English, please? Cables which
>> deliberately roll off the top end are by definition exluded, although
>> if someone were to insist that such a 'super cable' still possessed
>> some 'magical mysitical' quality, I would be happy to make up a cheap
>> lead with the same frequency response, and run a comparison. It might
>> cost as much as $20 to replicate say Kimber Black Pearl at $1,000 a
>> foot, but it's worth it in the interests of true experimentation! :-)
>Well, that's nice.
I like to think so - bringing all the supposed 'wonders' of Black
Pearl to what you describe as 'the unwashed masses' can't be a bad
thing, now can it? :-)
>I suggested AGAIN that you do just this, Lord Pinky...
>
>Make up a set of cables for a complete signal path - one with COPPER, one
>with pure SILVER wire, and listen.
>
>Have you done that yet? Ever? No? Why not?
Yes, of course I have, also with aluminium, also with Teflon, PVC and
air dielectrics, also with various physical constructions including
solid-core, stranded and 'Litz' braided. Being a designer in the
military electronics industry, I had access to pretty much any kind of
wire I liked.
Given similar RLC values, no differences were heard. I gave up this
silly game close to ten years ago, and am now content to offer cold
hard cash to anyone who *can* prove the existence of 'cable sound'.
The money is still gathering interest after several years, and no has
even *attempted* the trials.
Are you up for it, or will you close down the cable section of your
website?
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:45:34 GMT, BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>> >---> I am unclear -** who** is offering what money?<--- where is the docu=
>> >mentation on this?
>>
>> Eight regular *rational* posters put up $200 each about three years
>> ago on r.a.o. It can't be too hard to track this down. OTOH, I've
>> personally put up £1,000 on uk.rec.audio, which is pretty much the
>> same value, so the documentation is right here, right now.
>
>So no one is presently offering this amount, then.
Yes, I am, and the previously offered dollar amount is still on the
table from the original pool. What's your problem with this, Randy?
>Offers made on rao are completely bogus, as is the newsgroup, sorry.
No Randy, it is *your* claims which are completely bogus, the money is
real. BTW, late news just in, MtryCraft has just offered to add $400
to the US pool, making it up to an even $2,000. It seems that fewer
people every day believe in the nonsense of 'cable sound'......
>ARE YOU NOW OFFERING MONEY?
>IF SO, where will you place it in escrow?
Anywhere acceptable to both parties, once terms are agreed.
>HOW will the "referee" be determined??
By mutual consent. Which part of 'acceptable to both sides' did you
fail to understand?
>> It's not an assumption, it's a pre-requisite. Shouldn't be a problem
>> for any reasonable cable.
>>
>> >Are we comparing 12ga "speaker cable" or "zip cord" - I heard it was zipcord that sounded
>> >the same as speaker cable, so zip cord=3Dspeaker cable, right?
>>
>> What's the difference?
>
>Are you then accepting as a given fact that zip cord meets the above "level matching
>prequisite?" Namely that it is "flat" from 20-20kHz +/-1db, period??
In most systems, yes. Note that it doesn't have to be *flat*, it just
has to be the *same* as the other cable. This should be obvious to
anyone with engineering credentials.
>> >And, WHY pray tell, Stewart don't you collect the money yourself? I have already
>> >suggested multiple times HOW to inexpensively build cables out of silver and copper
>> >and make the comparison(s)!!
>>
>> Simple, really. I've tried it, and it doesn't make any difference!
>> Nice try, not even an old stogie, never mind a cigar...........
>
>Now, let us ask the question again, and get a definitive answer:
>
> Have YOU or have YOU not built *identical* cables for your *entire* signal path
>from both silver and copper wires and compared them in an ABX test with any test
>subjects other than yourself and those who hold the same views that you do?
>
> That would be a YES, or a NO.
That would be a YES, for single variants, i.e. interconnects being
compared, or speaker cables being compared.
>> Reality check, here.
>>
>> Do you think that a good Scot like me would put up £1,000 of cold cash
>> if I wasn't absolutely sure that 'magical mystical' cables are made of
>> purest snake oil?
>
>I don't think you've done much more than flap your gums, mate.
Ditto - except that I have put up cold hard cash.
>> A quick reminder of the basic rules:
>>
>> The cables must be level-matched to +/- 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz (not
>> a problem for any reasonable cable), the test will consist of 20
>> trials with a 'pass' criterion of 16 correct identifications, the
>> protocol is double-blind, and the test will be proctored by an
>> impartial observer acceptable to both sides.
>
>16? Why 16? Aren't we looking for some sort of statistical validity?
>Are we only using *one* test subject?
>Whaaa?
There can be as many test subjects as you like. 16 out of 20 gives a
well-defined statistical validity, as you well know.
>> >If you find out I am correct, I will expect you to send me a check in the mail. I'll deduct
>> >the cost of your parts. Ok? :- )
>> >
>> >Oh boy! Isn't this interesting now! : -)
>>
>> It sure is! Are you up for an *honest* level-matched DBT, or will you
>> admit that your website stinks to high heaven of bullshit?
>
><--- this is provocative nonsense and this post should have been rejected for it.
Sez you. Funny how it's always *you* and your kind who want to silence
the opposition, but you never want to provide any *backup* for your
extraordinary claims..................................
>As far as I am concerned, you can match your brains out, Stew... Apogees still sound
>like Apogees... :- )
IOW, they sound like whatever is fed to them. Sorry Randy, but your
continual 'dissing' of other people's gear lacks any kind of
evidential backup, as must be plain to our gentle readers.
TubeGarden
>
>(2) A costly experiment with no possible audible benefits.
>
Hi Ears,
Experiments are useful learning situations. Although the new stuff we learn may
have nothing to do with the original purpose of the experiment, it is still
possible for us to learn something by performing experiments. It is less likely
we will learn anything by denying any possible expansion of our perfect
knowledge.
And being cost effective on RAHE is a bit much ;)
Happy Ears!
Al
Alan J. Marcy
Phoenix, AZ
PWC/mystic/Earhead
Richard D Pierce
>>>mkuller wrote:>>
>>>First Arnie, from a practical perspective, how do you match the frequency
>>>response of two cables to +/-0.1
>>>dB from 20Hz to 20kHz? What equipment do you use?
>>>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton responded:>
>>A voltmeter on the speaker terminals - hardly rocket science.
>>
>Stewart,
>You must have designed your own voltmeter that measures "dB" to within 0.1.
>Wow, what an engineer!
Let's see, that'd be a voltmeter with about 1.5% accuracy.
Now, from the likes of Fluke, Hewlett Packard, Dana and such,
that's actually pretty easy to do. For example, a Fluke model 45
has a basic AC accuracy of 0.025%, and a garaunteed frequency
response to better than 0.2%, 20 Hz to 100 kHz. That's an
accuracy of 0.017 dB 20 to 100 kHz. Even hand-held meters get
you to the 0.1 dB accuracy and response.
My goodness, Mr. Kuller, it only takes a brief search of the web
to find seperate meters that easily meet and exceed these
requirements. Have you not done so? I have a Fluke 8050A that I
boight at a friggin' yardsale for $50 that, once calibrated,
meets the requirements. My old Genrad 1809 will do differential
measurements to that level of accuracy.
>So tell me, step by step, Stew, how you would match two speaker cables to
>within +/- 0.1 dB from 20Hz to 20 kHz with only a voltmeter on the speaker
>terminals.
It's actually VERY easy, and doesn't even require a high
accuracy meter, just one with sifficient sensitivity: do a
differential measurement: look at the DIFFERENCE between the two
wires, for example.
>Get this one and we'll move on to harder stuff - like how many
>engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
None: engineers get people who think that engineers must design
special meters to do routine measurements to change it for them.
>>>When people talk
>>>about cables "measuring" similarly, I thought they meant RLC values, not
>>>frequency response.>>
>
>>It's the same thing - that should be obvious!>
>
>Next you say it's obvious that RLC values are the SAME THING as frequency
>response.
Next we'll say tha the frequency repsonse is, in fact,
determined by the lumped RLC parameters in the cable.
>You and Arnie are quite the jokers - what a sense of humor!
Ha! yeah, what a jokester you are! Ha! That was pretty good
above about the meter stuff, what with all the stuff that's out
there that will TRIVIALLY do the job.
>First
>the challenge was about zip cord versus exotic speaker cables. Now the two
>wires have to be MATCHED TO WITHIN 0.1 DB from 20HZ to 20,000HZ as measured
>with a voltmeter. You guys crack me up...
Yeah, too bad, sir, you don't get the joke.
Sigh.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Steve Tew
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:56:14 GMT, "Steve Tew" <sa...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >What exactly would you use as a test source for the 20 to 20k level
match?
>
> I use either a signal generator, or a test CD.
>
> >A pink noise generator through a band pass filter? It occurs to me that
if
> >you do that the matched rms voltages would still allow the revelation of
the
> >difference that you decry in the cables that roll off the high end, and
that
> >they would be detectable unless you were to intercede with an equalizer,
> >which nullifies the test.
>
> Excuse me? Can I have that again in English, please?
Your direct answer about the process to mkuller indicates taking three
sample readings rather than some sort of a more detailed spectrum
analysis...
Thank you for clearing that up. I just didn't know how you would choose to
check the 20 - 20k spec. I imagined that you might use what I used in the
Navy as an acoustic sensor tech in the way of signal generators, spectrum
analyzers and such. There is obliviously no need to be so complicated.
Please forgive my ignorance, but in this test, will a compatator be used or
will the cables be connected individually in turns?
Steve
Stephen Roehrig
How pure must the silver be in order to hear a difference?
Steve Roehrig
--On Saturday, September 28, 2002 10:51 PM +0000 BEAR
<bear...@netzero.net> wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:56:14 GMT, "Steve Tew"
>> <sa...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> Excuse me? Can I have that again in English, please?
>> Cables which deliberately roll off the top end are by
>> definition exluded, although if someone were to insist
>> that such a 'super cable' still possessed some 'magical
>> mysitical' quality, I would be happy to make up a cheap
>> lead with the same frequency response, and run a
>> comparison. It might cost as much as $20 to replicate
>> say Kimber Black Pearl at $1,000 a foot, but it's worth
>> it in the interests of true experimentation! :-) --
>>
>> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
> Well, that's nice.
>
> I suggested AGAIN that you do just this, Lord Pinky...
>
> Make up a set of cables for a complete signal path - one
> with COPPER, one with pure SILVER wire, and listen.
>
> Have you done that yet? Ever? No? Why not?
>
BEAR
> I think the test is too kind, the win criteria should be 19 or at best 18 of
> 20 given the extraordinary price differential.
>
> I also doubt there is a detectable statistical listening difference. I
> can't hear it. Perhaps a dog or bat can but I doubt we can.
Doubt is your opinion. Opinion here is fine, but meaningless to this conversation.
What we want to know is more "brass tacks" information.
The number of "correct" identifications only needs to be statistically valid.
If you raise the bar high enough, you raise it to the point of getting
meaningless results, since we are testing *human perception* - which is NOT
a constant.
Price differential is meaningless - I suggested a test conditon which is MUCH more
difficult, where the cables are *identical* other than the METAL which they are made
of. They are rather inexpensive to make yourself. I URGE you and other rahe readers
to try it for yourselves. It's only slightly more expensive than zip cord and Rat Shack wire.
Of course you have to be able to solder properly...
IF you need HELP doing this, please contact me for information and a recipe!
I am sure that if you have decent hearing, and were sat in front of some sort of
suitable system, you would be surprised at what you could hear.
On the other hand, I've learned that many who claim they can't "hear" such differences
are being honest to the extent that on *their* systems *indeed* it is impossible to hear
such things. This is not to be disparaging of anyone's system, rather it is a statement that
reflects reality and the truth of the matter.
You should be aware that I have spent a period of over 30 years sucessively refining
what my system consists of, and during that time the source material has also improved.
At one point in the early 80's I was quite sure that "wire" made no difference - in fact it didn't
make a *discernable* difference given the equipment available for me to hear at that time.
I am going to stipulate that right now, with the present speakers in the system (a particular set
of ESLs) I do NOT think I can reliably hear certain differences that were formerly *quite* obvious
using a different speaker system here. How good are the ESLs? Quite. They test far better than
many, many conventional driver speakers. Realize what I just said: *my system is NOT good
enough right now to reliably differentiate certain things.*"
>
--->Let me repeat again - for those who have not noticed - I am NOT *against* ABX as
a test tool. I find that it has not YET been shown to produce reliably *meaningful* results,
nor have I seen any evidence that there are very many if ANY contemporary tests extant. <---
Kindest Regards to All,
BEAR
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 22:51:29 GMT, BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:56:14 GMT, "Steve Tew" <sa...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Excuse me? Can I have that again in English, please? Cables which
> >> deliberately roll off the top end are by definition exluded, although
> >> if someone were to insist that such a 'super cable' still possessed
> >> some 'magical mysitical' quality, I would be happy to make up a cheap
> >> lead with the same frequency response, and run a comparison. It might
> >> cost as much as $20 to replicate say Kimber Black Pearl at $1,000 a
> >> foot, but it's worth it in the interests of true experimentation! :-)
>
> >Well, that's nice.
>
> I like to think so - bringing all the supposed 'wonders' of Black
> Pearl to what you describe as 'the unwashed masses' can't be a bad
> thing, now can it? :-)
>
> >I suggested AGAIN that you do just this, Lord Pinky...
> >
> >Make up a set of cables for a complete signal path - one with COPPER, one
> >with pure SILVER wire, and listen.
> >
> >Have you done that yet? Ever? No? Why not?
>
> Yes, of course I have, also with aluminium, also with Teflon, PVC and
> air dielectrics, also with various physical constructions including
> solid-core, stranded and 'Litz' braided. Being a designer in the
> military electronics industry, I had access to pretty much any kind of
> wire I liked.
No, Stew - let's stay on the TOPIC this time.
Have you or have you NOT made *identical* cables with plain copper and PURE Silver?
And, if so when. What year?
What sort of ABX test did you employ to determine IF you could hear a difference?
What equipment was in use for those tests (or more likely sighted listening sessions?)??
Who were the test subjects?
How many?
PLEASE, PLEASE tell us.
>
>
> Given similar RLC values, no differences were heard. I gave up this
> silly game close to ten years ago, and am now content to offer cold
> hard cash to anyone who *can* prove the existence of 'cable sound'.
> The money is still gathering interest after several years, and no has
> even *attempted* the trials.
WHERE IS THIS MONEY?
How much money?
Where will it be placed into escrow?
What will be the means of collecting??
>
>
> Are you up for it, or will you close down the cable section of your
> website?
After we all hear the truth about your offer, which seems tantamount to
fish bait at this point, we can *explore* the possibility of taking it from you.
It is possible that as the result of tests that I DO, I would change the wording of
my website to accurately reflect the latest information available - which I do anyhow.
If you lose will you agree to NEVER POST on any audio newsgroup or forum ever again?
- Now *that's motivation!*
_-_-bear
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
--
BEAR
> On 28 Sep 2002 16:58:52 GMT, BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:45:34 GMT, BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >---> I am unclear -** who** is offering what money?<--- where is th=
e docu=3D
> >> >mentation on this?
> >>
> >> Eight regular *rational* posters put up $200 each about three years
> >> ago on r.a.o. It can't be too hard to track this down. OTOH, I've
> >> personally put up =A31,000 on uk.rec.audio, which is pretty much the
> >> same value, so the documentation is right here, right now.
> >
> >So no one is presently offering this amount, then.
>
> Yes, I am, and the previously offered dollar amount is still on the
> table from the original pool. What's your problem with this, Randy?
ORIGINAL POOL? What the one in the backyard?
Who the hell is in the original pool?
Where is this documented?
Who are these people?
Is this on r.a.o?? If so it is bogus. Bring their offer HERE, and/or docu=
ment it in
writing. Or, Show a URL (public notice).
No one is lifting a finger until the supposed *offer* is found to be both=
real
and collectable.
>
>
> >Offers made on rao are completely bogus, as is the newsgroup, sorry.
>
> No Randy, it is *your* claims which are completely bogus, the money is
> real. BTW, late news just in, MtryCraft has just offered to add $400
> to the US pool, making it up to an even $2,000. It seems that fewer
> people every day believe in the nonsense of 'cable sound'......
I have no idea who that is.
Everything on r.a.o is a flame fest - so is suspect. <--- to be charitabl=
e
This needs to be set up properly, and without any BS. So far, you have
piled on the BS.
Eventually, it would have to be agreed to with a contractual agreement.
>
>
> >ARE YOU NOW OFFERING MONEY?
> >IF SO, where will you place it in escrow?
>
> Anywhere acceptable to both parties, once terms are agreed.
>
> >HOW will the "referee" be determined??
>
> By mutual consent. Which part of 'acceptable to both sides' did you
> fail to understand?
>
The part where you will not agree to anyone - and no one can be found who
is willing to make themselves available.
>
> >> It's not an assumption, it's a pre-requisite. Shouldn't be a problem
> >> for any reasonable cable.
> >>
> >> >Are we comparing 12ga "speaker cable" or "zip cord" - I heard it wa=
s zipcord that sounded
> >> >the same as speaker cable, so zip cord=3D3Dspeaker cable, right?
> >>
> >> What's the difference?
> >
> >Are you then accepting as a given fact that zip cord meets the above "=
level matching
> >prequisite?" Namely that it is "flat" from 20-20kHz +/-1db, period??
>
> In most systems, yes. Note that it doesn't have to be *flat*, it just
> has to be the *same* as the other cable. This should be obvious to
> anyone with engineering credentials.
Ok - so we can merely test copper vs. silver then as *ONE* test to run.
>
>
> >> >And, WHY pray tell, Stewart don't you collect the money yourself? I=
have already
> >> >suggested multiple times HOW to inexpensively build cables out of s=
ilver and copper
> >> >and make the comparison(s)!!
> >>
> >> Simple, really. I've tried it, and it doesn't make any difference!
> >> Nice try, not even an old stogie, never mind a cigar...........
> >
> >Now, let us ask the question again, and get a definitive answer:
> >
> > Have YOU or have YOU not built *identical* cables for your *entire=
* signal path
> >from both silver and copper wires and compared them in an ABX test wit=
h any test
> >subjects other than yourself and those who hold the same views that yo=
u do?
> >
> > That would be a YES, or a NO.
>
> That would be a YES, for single variants, i.e. interconnects being
> compared, or speaker cables being compared.
Ok, but you have NOT run a complete signal path of Copper Vs. Silver.
Try that, call back.
This is like saying: "I went to the movies wearing five sets of rose colo=
red glasses.
I took off 4 but the movie was still rose colored, then I took off 1 and =
the movie was still
rose colored. I added a pair of yellow glasses, but the movie was still r=
ose colored.
I couldn't tell any difference..." DUH.
On the other hand, maybe the gear used was so colored that changing cable=
s would have
such a minimal effect that it was virtually invisible. (more likely)
>
>
> >> Reality check, here.
> >>
> >> Do you think that a good Scot like me would put up =A31,000 of cold =
cash
> >> if I wasn't absolutely sure that 'magical mystical' cables are made =
of
> >> purest snake oil?
> >
> >I don't think you've done much more than flap your gums, mate.
>
> Ditto - except that I have put up cold hard cash.
Where did you put it "up?"
I read a *claim* here on rahe, but I could claim to be an English Lord, f=
or example
here on rahe. How does anyone *know* it is true??
>
>
> >> A quick reminder of the basic rules:
> >>
> >> The cables must be level-matched to +/- 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz (no=
t
> >> a problem for any reasonable cable), the test will consist of 20
> >> trials with a 'pass' criterion of 16 correct identifications, the
> >> protocol is double-blind, and the test will be proctored by an
> >> impartial observer acceptable to both sides.
> >
> >16? Why 16? Aren't we looking for some sort of statistical validity?
> >Are we only using *one* test subject?
> >Whaaa?
>
> There can be as many test subjects as you like. 16 out of 20 gives a
> well-defined statistical validity, as you well know.
>
> >> >If you find out I am correct, I will expect you to send me a check =
in the mail. I'll deduct
> >> >the cost of your parts. Ok? :- )
> >> >
> >> >Oh boy! Isn't this interesting now! : -)
> >>
> >> It sure is! Are you up for an *honest* level-matched DBT, or will yo=
u
> >> admit that your website stinks to high heaven of bullshit?
> >
> ><--- this is provocative nonsense and this post should have been rejec=
ted for it.
>
> Sez you. Funny how it's always *you* and your kind who want to silence
> the opposition, but you never want to provide any *backup* for your
> extraordinary claims..................................
AGAIN, STEW - your statement about my alleged "claims" is HYPERBOLE.
I have made no "claims" at all - I have related my observations, experien=
ce and
understanding on my website. On the other hand YOU claim PROOF. Which you
have ZERO of... and could generate some, along with some fame (of sorts) =
if you took
your money and did the tests you are trying to bribe me to do for you.
Odd, since the risk to you is far greater - in case I turn out to be righ=
t. And if you had
so damn much discretionary income, I still don't understand why you don't=
simply do
the tests on your transparent system, get an objective observer(s) to mon=
itor the
proceedings and publish the thing in one or more journals... Nousaine wou=
ld love to
take your findings and crow all day in one of his publications... So why =
not, Stew?
Too busy in front of the computer monitor to find the time??
>
>
> >As far as I am concerned, you can match your brains out, Stew... Apoge=
es still sound
> >like Apogees... :- )
>
> IOW, they sound like whatever is fed to them. Sorry Randy, but your
> continual 'dissing' of other people's gear lacks any kind of
> evidential backup, as must be plain to our gentle readers.
Sure, Stew, sure...
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
--
Stewart Pinkerton
>Your direct answer about the process to mkuller indicates taking three
>sample readings rather than some sort of a more detailed spectrum
>analysis...
Yes. In a minimum-phase system like a cable, this is sufficient.
>Thank you for clearing that up. I just didn't know how you would choose to
>check the 20 - 20k spec. I imagined that you might use what I used in the
>Navy as an acoustic sensor tech in the way of signal generators, spectrum
>analyzers and such. There is obliviously no need to be so complicated.
Quite so! :-)
Interestingly, some of my experience does come from designing torpedo
systems, which I'm sure you are aware are *much* more demanding than
mere domestic audio. Do you know any 'audiophile' who can identify a
submarine at a range of 1,000 miles? :-)
>Please forgive my ignorance, but in this test, will a compatator be used or
>will the cables be connected individually in turns?
I use a comparator, but in someone else's system, the choice is
theirs. It seems to be a philosophical tie between those who claim
that introducing a switchbox colours the sound, and those who are
aware from experience, that changeover delay colours the perception. I
am happy to go with either system, but in all fairness, I would
suggest that a switchbox gives the test subject more chance of
detecting subtle but *real* differences.
Arny Krueger
> Ok, but you have NOT run a complete signal path of Copper Vs.
> Silver.
> Try that, call back.
Before we start chasing what might be a wild goose, it is important
to know if *anybody* ever has done such a thing.
A "complete signal path" would include:
microphone (contains yards of wire that the signal must pass
through).
microphone cable
microphone preamp
cable from mic preamp to mixing console
mixing console
cable from mixing console to recorder
etc., etc.
BTW, the mic preamp, mixing console, and recorder are composed of
tubes, transistors, integrated circuits, resistors, capacitors,
chassis wiring, potentiometers, connectors which according to the
"BEAR Requirement" *must* be 100% silver. Where do you find these
parts?
Is it OK if the power transformers and 120 VAC power wiring are
copper or must they be silver as well. What about the high tension
lines, transformers, and electrical power generating station? Is
copper OK?
What about the speakers? Speakers contain yards of wire that the
signal must pass through, right? Are there sources of 100% silver
woofers, tweeter, inductors and crossover capacitors?
Long story short, this requirement that the 'complete signal path" be
100% silver is mission impossible.
Bob Marcus
> Price differential is meaningless - I suggested a test conditon which is MUCH more
> difficult, where the cables are *identical* other than the METAL which they are made
> of.
Suppose one were to make identical 10-foot pairs of 12 AWG cable--one
copper, the other silver. How much would their measured frequency
response differ? (Go ahead and make any reasonable assumptions you
want about load, etc.)
bob
BEAR
> BEAR,
>
> How pure must the silver be in order to hear a difference?
I don't know. Quite pure silver solid core bare wire is available rather inexpensively,
as is copper.
That is sufficient.
I repeat, HAVE YOU TRIED IT? Why not?
It might even work with (gasp) an Adcom based system.
I repeat AGAIN - please catch up on these issues - I suggested a simple
and relatively inexpensive exercise that YOU can do YOURSELF to make
this sort of determination as to any differences *in your own system.*
That way you can make the determination to your own satisfaction, without
the use of Arny's computer files and all that it entails, without having to rely upon
anyone else but your own self. (rather than posting comments that give the
appearance of being obnoxious and satirical like the one I am replying to now)
No one is required to prefer anything that I like, or have the same experience
in listening that I have...
If you just want to belive something and don't want to make any effort, and you
prefer to argue, have fun. I am bored with beating this dead horse, fighting mules
and the like.
If you need to find out what my suggestion *was* one can either use Google's archives,
or email me privately. If enough people email, I'll post it again as a separate thread.
Mkuller
>>First
>>the challenge was about zip cord versus exotic speaker cables. Now the two
>>wires have to be MATCHED TO WITHIN 0.1 DB from 20HZ to 20,000HZ as measured
>>with a voltmeter. You guys crack me up...
>
>Yeah, too bad, sir, you don't get the joke.
First there were objectivist claims that "all cable sound the same",
so you should buy the cheapest you can find. "Get zip cord or Rat
Shack because expensive audiophile cables are nothing more than
snake-oil."
When challenged, that statement was modified to: "ok, some cables
might sound different, but any cables with RLC values that aren't off
the charts will sound the same". When questioned further, even jj
noted that some manufacturers design their cables to be used as "tone
controls".
Now that the cable $$ challenge is being discussed seriously, Arny
and Pinkerton have narrowed it down to: "the cables for the
comparison must measure within +/- 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz. What is
considered the threshold of hearing? That's not 3 dB or 1dB or even
0.3dB, but 0.1dB. That's a pretty narrow window in my
non-engineering estimation.
Obviously, Stewart and Arnie are hedging their bets. Don't you see
the humor here?
They appear to be running pretty scared now that someone is taking on
their challenge. All cables apparently don't sound the same. LOL!
Regards,
Mike
Bruce Abrams
news:ana1b...@enews1.newsguy.com...
No one said ALL cables sound the same. What was said is that all "nominally
competant" cables sound the same. (Hence the flat measurement requirement.)
I don't think anyone doubts that you can design a cable to color the signal
in a certain way, especially when a mystical black box is part and parcel of
the cable design!
If you want to design a cable to roll off the high freqencies so that it
matches "synergistically" with an already bright system, go ahead, but that
cable design does not, under any circumstances, qualify as "nominally
competant", as long as competance is defined as the ability to pass an
electrical signal without distortion.
Richard D Pierce
>>>mkuller wrote:>>
>>>First
>>>the challenge was about zip cord versus exotic speaker cables. Now the two
>>>wires have to be MATCHED TO WITHIN 0.1 DB from 20HZ to 20,000HZ as measured
>>>with a voltmeter. You guys crack me up...
>>
>>Dick Pierce wrote:>
>>Yeah, too bad, sir, you don't get the joke.
>
>
>and Pinkerton have narrowed it down to: "the cables for the
>comparison must measure within +/- 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz. What is
>considered the threshold of hearing? That's not 3 dB or 1dB or even
>0.3dB, but 0.1dB. That's a pretty narrow window in my
>non-engineering estimation.
And that is precisely your estimation: non-engineering. YOU sir,
mocked the notion of using a voltmeter to measure to within 1
dB. THAT'S the joke I was refering to. Your engineering naivety,
which, in and of itself, is something I have absolutely no issue
with whatsoever. However, YOU made assertions that were entirely
within a technical and engineering domain, and then proceeded to
mock an otherwise perfectly reasonable engineering and technical
statement.
Beyond that, the claim was made by those in an engineering
context that the sound of loudspeaker cables can be fully
explained by the RLC differences between the cables.
However, others have made the claim that there are differences
in the cound that ARE NOT due to these differences. THAT'S the
claim being challenged. That some mysterious mechanism is at
work here. That the differences in sound are NOT explained by
RLC and thus frequency response differences.
If that's the claim being challenged, the RLC and thus the
resultant frequency response differences must be removed to
maximize sensitivity to these other, mysterious non-RLC
differences.
Or would you RATHER that these grosser differences mask the REAL
differenes that are claimed?
If you believe that there are such difference, fine: I will not
argue with you. If you insist they are real, then design the
experiment to prove it. We all know that gross RLC differences
cause differences in frequency response that could well be
audible. If a cable is causing an audibly significant difference
in the frequency response, there are those that would
legitimately argue that such a cable is misdesigned or broken.
We're not talking about those differences.
We're talking about the claims due to mechanisms like:
1. Dielectric absorbtion.
2. non-linear dielectric effects
3. "Intercrystalline micro diodes"
4. "time smear"
5. Heretofore unexplained, uncharacterized or "proprietry"
solutions to such problems.
If you want these possibly subtle effects to be overwhelmed by
response differences, that's your choice, and you'll fail to
prove your point.
But back to MY point. You have admitted to being a non-engineer
type, and that's cool. Yet you chose to hold forth on the
measurement capability of what truns out to be relatively
routine equipment and thus mocked that particualr engineering
point.
I spend my days routinely making measurements at this and finer
resolutions, and, frankly, your mocking response did nothing to
reinforce the credibility of your position. If you don't know
about it, don't go there.
I haven't told you what you did or did not hear. Don't pretend
to tell me what I and others can and cannot measure.
Arny Krueger
>>> mkuller wrote:>>
>>> First Arnie, from a practical perspective, how do you match the
>>> frequency response of two cables to +/-0.1
>>> dB from 20Hz to 20KHz? What equipment do you use?
>> Stewart Pinkerton responded:>
>> A voltmeter on the speaker terminals - hardly rocket science.
> Stewart,
> You must have designed your own voltmeter that measures "dB" to
> within 0.1. Wow, what an engineer!
0.1 dB is an approximate 1% change in voltage. Back in the days of
analog meters, we generally relied on taut-band meters to check for
differences this small. Jeweled-bearing meters could be sticky. Of
course you could tap them gently to overcome stiction. Taut-band
meant no tapping.
With modern 4-digit meters, determining the presence or absence of a
1% change is pretty easy.
Please remember that the challenge involves MATCHing voltage within
1%, which is not the same as measuring voltage with 1% accuracy.
Matching is far less challenging for both the equipment and the
person. If you measure both voltages with a meter that has
less-than-perfectly flat response, or a source with
less-than-perfectly flat response, not to worry. You're looking for a
difference, not an absolute value.
> Next you say it's obvious that RLC values are the SAME THING as
> frequency response. You and Arnie are quite the jokers - what a
sense
> of humor!
No, we are both engineers. Why not start by telling us what else can
cause > 0.1 dB frequency response differences in speaker cable
besides R, L, and C. BTW we've already covered skin effect
implicitly, because skin effect is essentially frequency-dependent R.
>First the challenge was about zip cord versus exotic
> speaker cables. Now the two wires have to be MATCHED TO WITHIN 0.1
DB
> from 20HZ to 20,000HZ as measured with a voltmeter.
0.,1 dB matching is often easier done than said. If the cables or
other equipment are similar, it may already be done. All you have to
do is verify it. I've verified it many times with all sorts of
signal sources and measuring equipment over the past 25 years.
In another reply that you've ignored, I've showed practical examples
of far more precise measurements, over a far wider range of
frequencies.
>You guys crack me up...
Why, because we've mastered the relevant technology?
Alan Hoyle
>
> No one said ALL cables sound the same. What was said is that all "nominally
> competant" cables sound the same. (Hence the flat measurement requirement.)
> I don't think anyone doubts that you can design a cable to color the signal
> in a certain way, especially when a mystical black box is part and parcel of
> the cable design!
>
> If you want to design a cable to roll off the high freqencies so that it
> matches "synergistically" with an already bright system, go ahead, but that
> cable design does not, under any circumstances, qualify as "nominally
> competant", as long as competance is defined as the ability to pass an
> electrical signal without distortion.
I believe you mean to say "audio signal" not "electrical signal" in
this context. The properties of an cable at MHz frequencies (as
you would find on e.g. computer networking cables) are not relevant to
passing an analog audio signal.
-alan
--
Alan Hoyle - al...@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.
jjn...@sonic.net
> Obviously, Stewart and Arnie are hedging their bets. Don't you see
> the humor here?
> They appear to be running pretty scared now that someone is taking on
> their challenge. All cables apparently don't sound the same. LOL!
Just because you have been selectively not paying attention doesn't mean
they are globally wrong within their position. What they are saying has been
their position all along. The point is that with few exceptions, cables
sound identical in DBT, the exceptions being those that measure with electrical
parameters (RLC, and with associated equipment output impedance influences
to that and etc.) that have been shown in such tests to be above audible
thresholds determined by such tests.
Now, in observing your arguments over time (assuming you understand the
above explanation) you will simply go back to claiming that DBT's obscure
differences. It has happened many times.
Their position is rational, yours is not. If you like being that way about
audio performance, that is perfectly fine, there is no law and there
shouldn't be one to discourage people from that pursuit. However I would
suggest that most people would agree that such irrationality is best reserved
for creating and enjoying music itself, not its reproduction. Hence, the
probable correctness of their other statements saying that such positions are
in the minority, but that is something that you dispute as well.
Capish?
Nousaine
Better yet, why doesn't Randy supply a used and broken-in demo cable for such
an experiment. I'll be happy to conduct same using a 3rd party subject and
return the cables afterward (including the comparison zip cord) so he can
duplicate the experiment.
I'm wondering why Randy hasn't already conducted and published experimental
results on his website. It could be really good for business if he were toprove
his case to skeptics like me.
Bob Marcus
subset of the cables out there (or, more precisely, what subset of the
possible cable comparisons out there) would be excluded under this
criteria. Depending on where the rolloff started/how steep it was, I
would think one cable could be down a fair bit more than 0.1 dB at
20kHz without a difference being audible. But then it's not my money.
However, I think Mike has misunderstood the point of this little
challenge. It is not to prove that "all cables are the same," or even
that some cables are the same. It's to prove that if cables are
audibly different, it is because of something we know about and can
measure, namely the frequency response differences caused by each
cable's RLC characteristics. By holding this constant, we can
determine whether there's "something else" in there.
bob
Nousaine
>"BEAR" <bear...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>news:an7k28$ucm$1...@bourbaki.localdomain
>
>> Ok, but you have NOT run a complete signal path of Copper Vs.
>> Silver.
>
>> Try that, call back.
>
>Before we start chasing what might be a wild goose, it is important
>to know if *anybody* ever has done such a thing.
>
>A "complete signal path" would include:
>
>microphone (contains yards of wire that the signal must pass
>through).
>microphone cable
>microphone preamp
>cable from mic preamp to mixing console
>mixing console
>cable from mixing console to recorder
>etc., etc.
>
>BTW, the mic preamp, mixing console, and recorder are composed of
>tubes, transistors, integrated circuits, resistors, capacitors,
>chassis wiring, potentiometers, connectors which according to the
>"BEAR Requirement" *must* be 100% silver. Where do you find these
>parts?
You forgot the circuit board traces and phono cartridge moving coil and TT,
cartridge and arm leads.
>Is it OK if the power transformers and 120 VAC power wiring are
>copper or must they be silver as well. What about the high tension
>lines, transformers, and electrical power generating station? Is
>copper OK?
>
>What about the speakers? Speakers contain yards of wire that the
>signal must pass through, right? Are there sources of 100% silver
>woofers, tweeter, inductors and crossover capacitors?
Those silver tinsel leads are pretty hard to find. So are the silver voice
coils, not to make too fine a point of it.
>Long story short, this requirement that the 'complete signal path" be
>100% silver is mission impossible.
I would guess that Randy really meant only the interconnects and speaker wires
found in the end-user playback system even though he did say "complete" signal
path.
Steven Sullivan
And Mkuller has been told this numerous times. He *knows* that neither
Stewart nor Arny (nor any other 'objectivist' I can think of) claim that
'all cables sound the same', without qualification. He knows that both of them,
as well as the other 'objectivists' here, agree that cables *can* be made
to sound different, in ways fully predicted from physics and engineering.
One way is to grossly mismatch length and guage of the two wires, for example.
So, Mike, please explain to RAHE why you keep misrepresenting the 'objectivist' claim
about cables.
François Yves Le Gal
wrote:
>However, others have made the claim that there are differences
>in the cound that ARE NOT due to these differences [RLC].
Well, there are some *real world* objective (measurable) and subjective
(perceptible) differences between cables with the same RLC.
Just imagine two identically RLC spec'ed cables with the same flat
response in the audio band. One is very well shielded, the other isn't.
Measure them in lab settings, preferably using a nice high resolution
spectrum analyzer, then put them in the average domestic urban
environment and measure them again. Then try them in rural, non polluted
settings. Quite different results, huh?
But, of course, there's no "magic" at work here, just parameters beyond
the usual RLC mantra.
Then you could go on with HF analysis, the interaction between the cable
- acting as an antenna and injecting HF noise - and the electronics it's
connected to. No "magic" again...
Graeme Nattress
> competant" cables sound the same. (Hence the flat measurement requirement.)
> I don't think anyone doubts that you can design a cable to color the signal
> in a certain way, especially when a mystical black box is part and parcel of
> the cable design!
>
> If you want to design a cable to roll off the high freqencies so that it
> matches "synergistically" with an already bright system, go ahead, but that
> cable design does not, under any circumstances, qualify as "nominally
> competant", as long as competance is defined as the ability to pass an
> electrical signal without distortion.
What I think it comes down to is does cheap RLC sound any different to
expensive RLC? So take your black perl and construct a cable which has
the same RLC values, then compare the sound between with the methods
already suggested.
Or conversely, make two differently constructed cables with the same
RLC and see how they compare.
I don't think that the big disagreement is over wether different
cables have a different sound or not, but wether different cables that
measure the same sound different or not.
Graeme
Nousaine
>
>On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:56:14 GMT, "Steve Tew" <sa...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>What exactly would you use as a test source for the 20 to 20k level match?
>
> I use either a signal generator, or a test CD.
>
>>A pink noise generator through a band pass filter? It occurs to me that if
>>you do that the matched rms voltages would still allow the revelation of the
>>difference that you decry in the cables that roll off the high end, and that
>>they would be detectable unless you were to intercede with an equalizer,
>>which nullifies the test.
>
>Excuse me? Can I have that again in English, please? Cables which
>deliberately roll off the top end are by definition exluded, although
>if someone were to insist that such a 'super cable' still possessed
>some 'magical mysitical' quality, I would be happy to make up a cheap
>lead with the same frequency response, and run a comparison. It might
>cost as much as $20 to replicate say Kimber Black Pearl at $1,000 a
>foot, but it's worth it in the interests of true experimentation! :-)
>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Better yet use the dreaded equalizer to 'fix' the zip cord and match the other.
Lots of vituperative invective aside, I continually hear that 'networks' alter
frequency response but as of yet I haven't seen an example of one that has been
shown to do so. I've dissected one of them and found the network component
didn't alter frequency response in the least.
No matter what a 'resolution' defeating extra equalizer should make the task
even easier for the expectant subjective subject :)
Nousaine
Hey if you want to tame a bright system a little twist of the treble control is
far faster, more effective and less expensive :)
Howard Ferstler
In the past, at least two individuals who spouted off on
usenet about their abilities to hear differences between
nominally good amps and nominally good wires suddenly
discovered that someone was at their door with a cheap amp
and some cheap wires. In both cases, they did not do very
well.
If this happens to you and you cannot hear differences, what
are you going to use for an excuse? Note that those times no
money bets were involved, and all that resulted were some
admissions and later on some excuses. However, this time it
appears that there is a bet, and so it would be a good idea
on your part to take some money out of your savings account.
Also, there is nothing wrong with level matching cables and
checking for LCR effects prior to the comparison (although
if the runs are not too long and the cables are not too
weird this is probably not required), in order to make sure
that those mysterious artifacts that cable enthusiasts claim
exist can do their work in proper isolation.
Howard Ferstler
Harry Lavo
news:an9tg...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Is this your idea of a joke? Or are you really that misdirected?
What he means is: silver from source to preamp, from preamp to power amp,
and from power amp to speakers. Normal audiophile usuage for "complete
signal path". Sheesh!
Arny Krueger
>>> mkuller wrote:>>
>>> First
>>> the challenge was about zip cord versus exotic speaker cables.
Now
>>> the two wires have to be MATCHED TO WITHIN 0.1 DB from 20HZ to
>>> 20,000HZ as measured with a voltmeter. You guys crack me up...
>> Dick Pierce wrote:>
>> Yeah, too bad, sir, you don't get the joke.
> First there were objectivist claims that "all cable sound the
same",
> so you should buy the cheapest you can find. "Get zip cord or Rat
> Shack because expensive audiophile cables are nothing more than
> snake-oil."
"First"? This would be a truncated, even revisionist view of
history.
First, back in the early 60's and earlier, speaker cable and
interconnects weren't much of an issue. Most speakers were hooked up
with number 16 or number 18 zip cord. I worked at a Lafayette store
and we even sold number 24 "speaker cable". But we wired our
amplifier/speaker demo/test switchbox with number 16 zip cord.
Then, about the same time as we invented ABX (ca. 1975), there
started to be some kind of a drumbeat about sound quality and speaker
cables and interconnects. That was one of the early *complaints*
about ABX - the box added relay contacts and extra cable length.
Certainly, by the early 80's, speaker cables and interconnects were
big business. That's one reason for the existence of Greenhill,
Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo
Review, ( Aug 1983).
I think that history will show that interest in speaker cable and
interconnects maxed out some time around the middle 1990's. After the
mid-1990's a number of years of hard debunking via Usenet may have
started taking its toll. At the peak, the wire and cable "true
believers" would boldly belittle the idea that wires that measured
the same, either in terms of LRC or frequency response at the load
end, would sound very similar or identical.
It appears that advocates of strong audible differences due to wires
and cables are no longer bold enough to belittle the idea that wires
that measured the same, either in terms of LRC or frequency response
at the load end, would sound very similar or identical. I take this
as being symptomatic of the fact that interest in speaker wires and
interconnect cables has lost quite a bit of momentum.
In times past, people from the engineering/science viewpoint would
analyze high end wire offerings and find that they did not
substantially vary from commodity wire in terms of RLC or measured
frequency response. People from the engineering/science viewpoint
would then predict an absence of audible differences. They were
belittled by wire/cable advocates for believing that the sound
quality of wire could be predicted from RLC properties or frequency
response at the load end of the wire/cable.
> When challenged, that statement was modified to: "ok, some cables
> might sound different, but any cables with RLC values that aren't
off
> the charts will sound the same".
This has been the scientific/engineering viewpoint all along. At the
peak of wire/cable *enthusiasm* a common derogatory comment,
wire/cable enthusiasts belittled people who thought that the sonic
properties of a cable are predictable from just R, L, and C.
It appears that wire/cable enthusiasm has worn off to the point that
wire/cable enthusiasts are wary of claiming audible differences for
cables that DON'T vary in terms of RLC or measured frequency
response.
Works for me!
> When questioned further, even jj
> noted that some manufacturers design their cables to be used as
"tone
> controls".
Easy enough to do. Take a speaker with a non-uniform impedance curve
and hook it ups with a resistor, or a speaker cable with significant
series impedance. You've got your basic non-adjustable equalizer,
although some adjustment is possible by varying the series impedance
of the wire. The series impedance of the wire can be varied by
changing the gauge of the wire or changing the intimacy of the
magnetic coupling between the two wires (Plus and minus) in each
speaker cable. Some high end speaker cables have "impedance matching"
network boxes at one or both ends. These network boxes have
undisclosed contents, but could be use to artificially change the
impedance and therefore frequency-dependent losses of the speaker
cables.
> Now that the cable $$ challenge is being discussed seriously, Arny
> and Pinkerton have narrowed it down to: "the cables for the
> comparison must measure within +/- 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz. What
is
> considered the threshold of hearing?
Obviously, more than that!
>That's not 3 dB or 1dB or even
> 0.3dB, but 0.1dB. That's a pretty narrow window in my
> non-engineering estimation.
This has been the scientific/engineering viewpoint all along. At the
peak of wire/cable *enthusiasm* a common derogatory comment,
wire/cable enthusiasts belittled people who thought that the sonic
properties of a cable are predictable from measured frequency
response. It appears that the enthusiasm has worn off to the point
that wire/cable enthusiasts are wary of claiming audible differences
for cables that DON'T vary in terms of frequency response.
> Obviously, Stewart and Arnie are hedging their bets.
No, we are espousing the orthodox engineering viewpoint which has
remained unchanged for decades.
>Don't you see the humor here?
I think its pretty funny that wire/cable enthusiasts appear to be
retrenching while falsely claiming that engineering types are
changing their stories.
> They appear to be running pretty scared now that someone is taking
on
> their challenge.
Not at all. Nothing's changed - nobody wants to step up to it, even
with no money of theirs at risk!
>All cables apparently don't sound the same.
Nobody from the engineering/science viewpoint can reasonably be
expected to say that wires that have substantially different RLC
characteristics or substantially different frequency response would
sound the same.
Arny Krueger
news:anbjs8$ocm$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
I'm completely serious. If there's any misdirection here, the
misdirection is obviously imbedded in the claim that silver from
source to preamp, from preamp to power amp, and from power amp to
speakers would actually be a "complete signal path".
The audio system in your home is only a fraction of the total audio
system that is used to reproduce sound, and the interconnects and
speaker cables in your audio system compose only a fraction of the
actual signal path in the audio system in your home.
> What he means is: silver from source to preamp, from preamp to
power amp,
> and from power amp to speakers. Normal audiophile usage for
"complete
> signal path". Sheesh!
In case you didn't notice it Harry, I completely deconstructed the
idea that this would be a "complete signal path". It may be "Normal
audiophile usage", but it doesn't stand a common-sense exploration of
what the signal path REALLY consists of.
Apparently, normal audiophiles don't understand what the signal path
used to reproduce music is actually composed of. I'm merely trying to
correct that mistaken idea.
bear
Let me clarify for those who missed the point, within the context...
for these purposes in terms of *this* thread a "complete signal path" means:
- interconnects
- speaker cables.
Ok?
And, Yes, mon ami - one *can* find a studio (or two) wired in pure silver, using
silver
wire even in the mic cables.
One can find preamps and amps wired with pure silver.
And no, one can not find resistors made of pure silver...
but you can find inductors, and capacitors...
Just FYI...
Silvery regards,
_-_-bear
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "BEAR" <bear...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:an7k28$ucm$1...@bourbaki.localdomain
>
> > Ok, but you have NOT run a complete signal path of Copper Vs.
> > Silver.
>
> > Try that, call back.
>
> Before we start chasing what might be a wild goose, it is important
> to know if *anybody* ever has done such a thing.
>
> A "complete signal path" would include:
>
> microphone (contains yards of wire that the signal must pass
> through).
> microphone cable
> microphone preamp
> cable from mic preamp to mixing console
> mixing console
> cable from mixing console to recorder
> etc., etc.
<snip>
--
_-_-bear
http://www.bearlabs.com
Silver Lightning Interconnects & more...
douglas pratt
respective groups, puncuated by bwine mCBowelmovement's intestinal events.
simply put:-- the value in cabling is not in what you hear [or see viz.
video]-- it's in what you don't. people seem to forget the forest behind the
trees-- the goal is to reproduce audio and video information to true
fidelity of the original presentation. you can doctor up a lousy recording,
but then it's not true to form. my philosophy is, make a better recording
and present it at its best. this idea of one cable "sounding" better than
another is a farce-- the best thing cables can possibly do is transfer
signals from one component to another with a minimal amount of coloration--
ideally the cable doesn't "sound" like anything at all: its presence in the
system is absolutely neutral. such should be the focus everywhere, from
performer to listener, as if the artist were playing to their heart's
content, not quibbling over technical subtleties. of course, everybody's
taste and preferences are different, and what looks best on paper and in the
laboratory leave much to subjective interpretation among listeners/viewers,
and so the show must go on. a truly unbiased evaluation becomes extremely
difficult to make unless one sits in on the original recording session
before being asked to judge how the equipment used to reproduce that session
renders it-- everything from microphones to room acoustics to mixing to
recording media to etc... ad infinitum will play an important part in how
the final product is perceived and interpreted. i love the moody blues and
elo, can't stand kenny rogers or foghat, so program material and personal
preference figure into the equation as much as what and how it was done,
both in technique and technology. if kenny were sitting in my living room
with guitar in hand, i'd shake his hand and tell him thanks but no thanks
and offer him a drink and let's watch a dvd before asking him to leave, but
i'm sure everybody knows what i mean. several years ago i had paul stookey
at my desk for business not related to music, and would have gladly bought
him any guitar he wanted just to hear him play for half an hour-:)*. my line
of work does give rise to occasional meetings with world reknowned
personalities-- had it been kenny rogers i would have extended to him the
same courtesy, even if not complementing him so eloquently on his musical
talent. once i recognized who i was dealing with, i signed off an approval
for paul on the spot for an amount far above and beyond what he actually
needed. it was an honor to meet him, which remains unto this day a highlight
in my richly rewarding and successful career.
the question of absolutely faithful rendition still looms before us. along
comes halcro, with a line of monoblock power amps claiming to solve this
part of the equation-- sometimes it gets as bad as the unfied field
theory--:(*. let's take a moment to pause and whine and whimper over this
problem that forever eludes resolution. i auditioned a pair of halcro
dm-68's, list is $36,000 a pair, and they did sound great. the dealer rented
a $2500/month apartment and tweaked it to death and back-- speakers were
wislon bishop towers, audionote everything from source out, cabling nordost
valhalla-- second to none if you can keep everything else quiet, which he
did in this sonic haven of thick carpet, the most perfect audiophile
furniture, high ceilings dampened to hell and back, and flawless
sweetspotted geometry to boot. the equipment cost was about triple that of
my own, coming in at about $135,000 to my $45,000. my smaller room has yet
to be optimized and tweaked, which seems to make as much a difference as
anything else. we used ben zander's performance of beethoven's 5th, a
glorious hdcd remaster of shades of deep purple, and a gold special release
of judy collins' colors of the day for reference material. i know ben zander
personally, and the dynamism he exhibits at the podium serves only to
underscore that which you see of him in person-- this genius is equally
manifest and expressive both inside and outside of the spotlight as he
performs. what you see and hear at symphony, or in recordings, is
representative of who he is and the unique ways he expresses his chosen art
form. telarc has recorded many of his symphonic interpretations on hdcd--
i've made a request or two for works such as daphne & chloe, prince igor,
and shorter works [warsaw concerto, capriccio italien, barber adagio for
strings] which i'm sure he would love to do when time permits.
the $35 24k carat gold cd of judy collins' colors of the day was a pinnacle
of excellence on the high-end system i auditioned earlier this year-- in
spite of the 30 year age of this recording, what i heard was judy sitting at
a fixed point on the stage before me, and every accompanying intstrument in
its own place on the same stage, what i would call nearly perfect recreation
of a musical performance in every way. it still tends to sound more like a
stereo system here at home, though i think alot of that will markedly
improve once i iron out the kinks and tweakeries-- this means proper speaker
placement and isolation, component isolation, numerous cabling upgrades,
decent line conditioning for the entire system, resonance control,
accoustical tweaks, and dedicated a/c lines for every component or series of
components operating on each dedicated circuit.
good ol' rock & roll is less demanding, and i've got to hand a complement
off to the shades of deep purple remaster-- it's a gem. this is not to say
it is without flaw-- my older krell kav-500 amp in a bi-amp configuration
doesn't have the finnesse of the rowland mc-6 that replaced it, the latter
revealing a bit more of the imperfections in the recording and remaster than
the krell, but either way, this one leaves nothing to be desired. i'm happy
to attribute this accomplishment primarily to the remastering itself. albeit
less demanding than the beethoven and judy collins, this one is among the
best hard rock recordings i have ever heard, and my system offered it up in
a realism as dynamic and expressive as that costing $90,000 more, furthering
my belief that quality of source material may be the most influential factor
determining performance, and ultimately, enjoyment, of this wonderful
endeavor to reach perfection, regardless of cost, for those of us with the
means to carry the torch to the very top--
i'd be willling to take the double-blind test in my own system, so long as i
know what the contenders are. the interlinks i have running from preamp to
poweramp are custom made TMC gold reference, with a design very similar to
tara rsc-2-- air dialetric, single copper run supported by aluminum clips
along the run, heavy copper shielding in stiff copper outer jacket to
eliminate the "skin effect" and provide maximum shielding from outside
rfi/emf. i'm not familiar with tara rsc-3, though i'm willing to concede
that it may be superior to TMC gold based upon what i've read about it. TMC
gold is a twin tube design, with positive and negative running parallel in
individually shielded copper and teflon jackets, so there is no possibility
of emf interference coming from inside the cable, positive to negative. i
paid $600 for a 2 meter custom run of this interconnect set up as y-cords
for bi-amping, along with a single run for my center channel speaker and one
matching unbalanced subwoofer cable. my local dealer had a set of $1300
kimbers that ran too bright and had no shielding, and siltech wanted $2200
just to make up a similar setup, this to be stuck with if i didn't like it.
a 12 inch pair of audiotruth y-lines showed up on ebay, and i bid them up to
$188--- adding additional connections degrades the signal further.
it does require a mighty fine source to discern the differences among the
finest audio cables, though when every other component is in good order and
brought to optimal performance, actual improvements related to cabling
become readily apparent, and can often be quite dramatic in how one
experiences and ultimately appreciates recorded music and video. the finer
the equipment throughout the rest of an a/v system, the more impact more
subtle parts of the whole, such as cabling, isolation devices, power
conditioners, disc cleaners, turntable mats, etc... have on overall
performance. i might be tempted to call all these things by the skeptic's
"pigbath, snake oil, etc... ad pukeum" had i not checked out, experimented,
and discovered with my own eyes and ears that little things can make a big
difference, and the more you spend, the more you have to lose when one
crummy mistake slips in and undermines the rest of a state of the art
system. if you're not going to make every effort to do it right, you might
as well head to radio shack or best-buy with $199 and do it all in glorious
plastibox mid-fi. those of us who seek the best and are willing to pay for
it expect alot better, wouldn't you say?--
enjoy--
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:amss7q$gl7$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> I've read a few times here about a standing reward of ~$1600 (as yet
> unclaimed) for anyone who can prove they hear differences between
> nominally competent cables under DBT conditions.
> Can anyone here elaborate on the details of this challenge?
>
Richard D Pierce
François Yves Le Gal <fle...@aingeal.com> wrote:
>On 30 Sep 2002 19:21:41 GMT, DPi...@TheWorld.com (Richard D Pierce)
>wrote:
>
>>However, others have made the claim that there are differences
>>in the cound that ARE NOT due to these differences [RLC].
>
>Well, there are some *real world* objective (measurable) and subjective
>(perceptible) differences between cables with the same RLC.
>
>Just imagine two identically RLC spec'ed cables with the same flat
>response in the audio band. One is very well shielded, the other isn't.
The context under which I was operating was that of speaker
cables, not interconnects, thus the shielding issues is somewhat
irrelevant.
If that context was not clear, then my apologies.
>Measure them in lab settings, preferably using a nice high resolution
>spectrum analyzer, then put them in the average domestic urban
>environment and measure them again. Then try them in rural, non polluted
>settings. Quite different results, huh?
In the larger context, certainly, but one might argue that
non-shielded interconnects do not constitute a "competent"
application, no? Are there high-end cable companies that sell
non-shielded interconnects that this would be applicable to?
>But, of course, there's no "magic" at work here, just parameters beyond
>the usual RLC mantra.
As to the "magic," I enumerated some of those "magic"
properties, such as "inter-crystaline micro-diodes," and such.
Steven Sullivan
> i'd be willling to take the double-blind test in my own system, so long as i
> know what the contenders are.
So I presume the claims you make for your components are not based on
controlled comparisons?
> the interlinks i have running from preamp to
> poweramp are custom made TMC gold reference, with a design very similar to
> tara rsc-2-- air dialetric, single copper run supported by aluminum clips
> along the run, heavy copper shielding in stiff copper outer jacket to
> eliminate the "skin effect" and provide maximum shielding from outside
> rfi/emf. i'm not familiar with tara rsc-3, though i'm willing to concede
> that it may be superior to TMC gold based upon what i've read about it. TMC
> gold is a twin tube design, with positive and negative running parallel in
> individually shielded copper and teflon jackets, so there is no possibility
> of emf interference coming from inside the cable, positive to negative. i
> paid $600 for a 2 meter custom run of this interconnect set up as y-cords
> for bi-amping, along with a single run for my center channel speaker and one
> matching unbalanced subwoofer cable. my local dealer had a set of $1300
> kimbers that ran too bright and had no shielding, and siltech wanted $2200
> just to make up a similar setup, this to be stuck with if i didn't like it.
> a 12 inch pair of audiotruth y-lines showed up on ebay, and i bid them up to
> $188--- adding additional connections degrades the signal further.
Again, these clainms are based on...what sort of comparisons?
> it does require a mighty fine source to discern the differences among the
> finest audio cables, though when every other component is in good order and
> brought to optimal performance, actual improvements related to cabling
> become readily apparent, and can often be quite dramatic in how one
> experiences and ultimately appreciates recorded music and video.
If readily apparent, then it shoudl be abreeze to confirm them with
controls in place. Until you've done so, though, the claims shoudl be
qualified.
> the finer
> the equipment throughout the rest of an a/v system, the more impact more
> subtle parts of the whole, such as cabling, isolation devices, power
> conditioners, disc cleaners, turntable mats, etc... have on overall
> performance. i might be tempted to call all these things by the skeptic's
> "pigbath, snake oil, etc... ad pukeum" had i not checked out, experimented,
> and discovered with my own eyes and ears that little things can make a big
> difference, and the more you spend, the more you have to lose when one
> crummy mistake slips in and undermines the rest of a state of the art
> system.
What sort of experimenting?
Indeed, the more you spend, the more you stand to lose...if it turns out
that you could have gotten the *same* audible performance from stuff 10X
cheaper.
> if you're not going to make every effort to do
it right, you might
> as well head to radio shack or best-buy with $199 and do it all in glorious
> plastibox mid-fi. those of us who seek the best and are willing to pay for
> it expect alot better, wouldn't you say?--
I would say 'those who seek the best' don't always realize the
assumptionm they're making.
TubeGarden
>and we even sold number 24 "speaker cable".
Hi Ears!
Yup. I use Belden Mediatwist. Sounds OK. Nice post:)
Happy Ears!
Al
Alan J. Marcy
Phoenix, AZ
PWC/mystic/Earhead
Arny Krueger
news:ancgh...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> In the larger context, certainly, but one might argue that
> non-shielded interconnects do not constitute a "competent"
> application, no? Are there high-end cable companies that sell
> non-shielded interconnects that this would be applicable to?
If you want a real thrill, please check out
http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/tweaks/index.html , specifically
http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/tweaks/interconnects.html and
http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/tweaks/speakercable.html .
It turns out that unshielded interconnects aren't as totally crazy as
they may seem. At most frequencies inductive coupling predominates,
and simply using twisted pair provides a goodly measure of
interference rejection.
Nousaine
>Ok, Arny, exagerrate the whole thing to the point of absurdity.
>
>Let me clarify for those who missed the point, within the context...
>
> for these purposes in terms of *this* thread a "complete signal path"
>means:
>
> - interconnects
> - speaker cables.
>
>Ok?
>
>And, Yes, mon ami - one *can* find a studio (or two) wired in pure silver,
>using
>silver
>wire even in the mic cables.
>
>One can find preamps and amps wired with pure silver.
Really; silver circuit board traces? Silver transistor leads?
>
>And no, one can not find resistors made of pure silver...
>
>but you can find inductors, and capacitors...
Silver capacitor leads? Haven't seen many of those. Do you use this stuff in
your products/system?
Nousaine
...large snips.....
>
>i'd be willling to take the double-blind test in my own system, so long as i
>know what the contenders are. the interlinks i have running from preamp to
>poweramp are custom made TMC gold reference, with a design very similar to
>tara rsc-2-- air dialetric, single copper run supported by aluminum clips
>along the run, heavy copper shielding in stiff copper outer jacket to
>eliminate the "skin effect" and provide maximum shielding from outside
>rfi/emf. i'm not familiar with tara rsc-3, though i'm willing to concede
>that it may be superior to TMC gold based upon what i've read about it.
Oh yeah Tara Labs RSC cables. RSC stands for rectangular solid core I believe.
I was showing a friend a Tara Labs RSC speaker cable (you could see the
conductor through the translucent jacket) and he said "I know that wire, we
used it for rewinding starter motors when I worked at ......" Just so you
know, neither Tara Labs nor any other wire "manufacturer" makes wire AFAIK.
Some of them , terminate wires and make network boxes but they generally use
off-the-shelf cable that may be used in another application, as above.
Webmarketing
nothing more than twisted hookup wire. It seems to work just fine without
any shielding at all.
Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ancqp2$bs7$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
François Yves Le Gal
wrote:
>The context under which I was operating was that of speaker
>cables, not interconnects, thus the shielding issues is somewhat
>irrelevant.
Then agreed. RF noise picked up by the cables has then a minimal
influence, barely measurable using some high rez gear and IMO w/o any
subjective side effects. Except of course with barely adequate
peripheral gear.
>In the larger context, certainly, but one might argue that
>non-shielded interconnects do not constitute a "competent"
>application, no?
A number of "high end" cables are unshielded. Some use basic twisted
wire or figure of eight designs, which can be surprisingly efficient.
Others are just two conductors side by side, 300-ohm antenna style (but
not at RatShack prices)...
>Are there high-end cable companies that sell
>non-shielded interconnects that this would be applicable to?
Kimber springs to mind, with such interconnects as the highly successful
PBJ, the KC-AG (a pure silver cable retailing for around USD 500 per
meter), as well as maybe a dozen other "manufacturers".
>As to the "magic," I enumerated some of those "magic"
>properties, such as "inter-crystaline micro-diodes," and such.
Considering that we have access to very high resolution lab gear, able
to measure down to -140 dB or more, if such micro-diode effects did
exist, they should have been measured and the results published by one
of the "high end" manufacturers under "We told you so years ago". But,
AFAICT, nothing, nada, zilch.
:-)
Richard D Pierce
Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote:
>bear bear...@netzero.net wrote:
>
>>Ok, Arny, exagerrate the whole thing to the point of absurdity.
>>
>>Let me clarify for those who missed the point, within the context...
>>
>> for these purposes in terms of *this* thread a "complete signal path"
>>means:
>>
>> - interconnects
>> - speaker cables.
Okay, that's fine.
I have 10 feet of copper wire connecting my amplifier to my
speakers. That's 20 feet altogether of copper. I'll replace it
with solid silver.
What do I do about the 31 feet of copper wire that sits in the
voice coil of the woofers? (Oh, by the way, it is REALLY,
SERIOUSLY ordinary copper wire.)
Is that wire NOT part of the signal path? If it IS, then it is
impossible to even jokingly discuss "complete signal path" if
you ignore this. If it ISN'T part of the signal path, then I
should be able to remove this wire without having any effect on
the audible performance of the speaker.
But, when I DO remove it, the speaker doesn't work, so it MUST
be part of the signal path.
Can someone explain why it's important that a few feet of very
heavy gauge wire that is effectively the smallest contributor
to total system losses in the entire amplifier speaker system be
made out of solid silver, while DOZENS of feet of very fine
strand, very ordinary copper is allowed to be in the "complete"
signal path.
Why isn't solid silver voice coil windings EVER advocated?
(and when they are, guess why they are)
(extra credit: why are some voice coils wound out of
phosphor bronze?)
Webmarketing
as you say. I once took apart an interconnect cable (at the request of its
owner) that cost $1500 per 1 meter pair. I don't remember what wire it was
but it was a stock Belden product with properties that wouldn't seem to lend
themselves to audio applications-other than being fashionably thick and
heavy. It didn't surprise me that the cable rolled off highs and was the
only one out of 15 pairs that sounded any different from the others during a
listening test. The owner of the cable was curious why the cable was
audibly different from the others and asked me to take it apart to look
inside. I think he's still using them. He seems to like the rolled off
highs. I wouldn't have any reason to doubt your RSC wire story. The audio
cable industry is a strange place.
Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
"Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ancs5p$ctd$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Harry Lavo
Your assumption about the knowledge and the IQ of the rest of us here in
RAHE is breathtaking, Arnie. It is exactly this pedantic approach to things
that makes many of us have to take a vacation every other week or so.
François Yves Le Gal
wrote:
>Why isn't solid silver voice coil windings EVER advocated?
A number of companies, such as Lowther and Audio Note (UK), offer
drivers with silver voice coil windings.
AN also offers "all silver" complete loudpseakers :
"Front veneered Birch ply cabinets, silver wired voice coils, silver
tuning capacitors and inductors.
AN-J/SE-Silver - 2-way 1" dome tweeter, 8" woofer, rear ported, 90dB
sensitivity.
AN-E/SE-Silver - 2-way 1" dome tweeter, 8" woofer, rear ported, 93.5dB
sensitivity."
Wonder how much they cost...
:-)
Steve Tew
them for single driver speaker projects. They rave about the quality of the
musical presentation... Have any of you guys heard them?
Steve
"François Yves Le Gal" <fle...@aingeal.com> wrote in message
news:andd3n$kp6$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Rolv-Karsten Rønningstad
news:and7k...@enews4.newsguy.com...
To expand upon this:
Why use expensive signal- and speaker wire when one have:
- Internal, cheap wire.
- PCB tracks of quite normal Cu.
- Transistor and other component legs of completely "normal" materials.
- Thin internal bonding wire in transistors and ICs.
All these, and more, are in the signal path.
-RK
Richard D Pierce
François Yves Le Gal <fle...@aingeal.com> wrote:
>On 1 Oct 2002 22:29:34 GMT, DPi...@TheWorld.com (Richard D Pierce)
>wrote:
>
>>Why isn't solid silver voice coil windings EVER advocated?
>
>A number of companies, such as Lowther and Audio Note (UK), offer
>drivers with silver voice coil windings.
Yes, I know, but one should note that "a number" is really
a "very small number."
>AN also offers "all silver" complete loudpseakers :
>
>"Front veneered Birch ply cabinets, silver wired voice coils, silver
>tuning capacitors and inductors.
>
>AN-J/SE-Silver - 2-way 1" dome tweeter, 8" woofer, rear ported, 90dB
>sensitivity.
>
>AN-E/SE-Silver - 2-way 1" dome tweeter, 8" woofer, rear ported, 93.5dB
>sensitivity."
>
>Wonder how much they cost...
And in the case of lowther, do we know WHY the voice coils are
silver? (hint: figure out what happens to n0 given the mass and
resistance of a silver vs copper voice coil. Also, this is a
hint to the extra credit question about phosphor-bronze).
Rusty Boudreaux
> In article <ancrrt$cm1$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> phosphor bronze?)
PB is copper base with 3-10% tin deoxidized with <1% phosphorus. Density is
roughly equal to Cu. Resistivity is 5-6x Cu. So for given resistance you
have 5-6x the weight. I would guess it's a way of adding mass to a driver
(woofer, subwoofer) w/o affecting the cone construction. Is this common?
-Rusty B.
François Yves Le Gal
>They rave about the quality of the musical presentation...
Yeah. I sometimes wonder if Lowther is a speaker manufacturer or some
kind of a cult.
:-)
>Have any of you guys heard them?
Yes. There are some good points, such as a very high efficiency, an
overall coherency with an easy, dynamic and quite seductive
presentation. But they are vastly outweighed by the numerous defects,
such as severely limited extension at frequency extremes, "in your face"
midrange, very high beaming/bad directivity patterns, obscene price,
inadequate build quality, peculiar after sales services.
Howard Ferstler
> Not quite true. Kimber actually makes some of their own wire. Most don't
> as you say. I once took apart an interconnect cable (at the request of its
> owner) that cost $1500 per 1 meter pair. I don't remember what wire it was
> but it was a stock Belden product with properties that wouldn't seem to lend
> themselves to audio applications-other than being fashionably thick and
> heavy. It didn't surprise me that the cable rolled off highs and was the
> only one out of 15 pairs that sounded any different from the others during a
> listening test. The owner of the cable was curious why the cable was
> audibly different from the others and asked me to take it apart to look
> inside. I think he's still using them. He seems to like the rolled off
> highs. I wouldn't have any reason to doubt your RSC wire story. The audio
> cable industry is a strange place.
The audio world on the whole is a strange place. If sound were visible
audiophile land would probably not be occupied by so many weird and
borderline unbalanced people. Unfortunately, it is invisible, and so
mystics are attracted to it, and people debate our modern version of
how many angels can balance on the head of a pin.
I am surprised that the wire owner let you cut into his $1500
interconnects. Got to give him credit for having both courage and
profound curiosity.
Howard Ferstler
Nousaine
>
>Not quite true. Kimber actually makes some of their own wire. Most don't
>as you say.
Kimber draws copper? I remain skeptical.
I once took apart an interconnect cable (at the request of its
>owner) that cost $1500 per 1 meter pair. I don't remember what wire it was
>but it was a stock Belden product with properties that wouldn't seem to lend
>themselves to audio applications-other than being fashionably thick and
>heavy. It didn't surprise me that the cable rolled off highs and was the
>only one out of 15 pairs that sounded any different from the others during a
>listening test. The owner of the cable was curious why the cable was
>audibly different from the others and asked me to take it apart to look
>inside. I think he's still using them. He seems to like the rolled off
>highs.
Did you document frequency response? That would be helpful.
I wouldn't have any reason to doubt your RSC wire story. The audio
>cable industry is a strange place.
>
>Fred
>The Good Gourmet
>http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
Of course, my comment about the wire was an anecdote but I have been to the
facilities of a 'name' cable company and their warehouse (actually an old barn,
small one at that) was stocked with wire spools that read New England Cable and
Wire.
This company did assemble 'networks' but there no facilities remotely
resembling wire manufacture. The R&D department was an empty conference room
with no people and 1 or 2 instruments in it. I doubt that Kimber is that much
larger. What kind of wire do they "make"?
BEAR
> "douglas pratt" douglas...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> ...large snips.....
>
<snippy>
> Just so you
> know, neither Tara Labs nor any other wire "manufacturer" makes wire AFAIK.
> Some of them , terminate wires and make network boxes but they generally use
> off-the-shelf cable that may be used in another application, as above.
Just so you know, BEAR Labs has its wire **custom made** in a custom wire *manufacturers*
plant. The wire I use IS NOT available to YOU or anyone else, much less is it available
as any sort of "off-the-shelf" product which is used in *any* other application.
The cost of owning such equipment means that you are in a different business than high-end
audio.
Just so you know - NO wire *manufacturer* actually *makes* the raw wire (the metal).
That is done by specialty refiners. It is then supplied to the "wire manufacturers" in relatively
large gauges, whereupon the *wire manufacturer* DRAWS the wire down to the requisite
gauge. Then the wire is run through a machine that strands it together (for stranded wire).
Next the wire is run through a machine that applies the plastic jacket/insulation - or in the
case of magnet wire, enamel. Belden is an example of a larger company that does this sort
of thing to *wire.*
Just so you know - NO wire *manufacturer* actually "makes" the wire by the standard you
set. None.
Now you know.
Regards,
_-_-bear
--
_-_-bearlabs
http://www.bearlabsUSA.com
- Silver Lightning Interconnects & Custom Mods -
Stewart Pinkerton
>BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> wrote in message news:<an7b3...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>
>> Price differential is meaningless - I suggested a test conditon which is MUCH more
>> difficult, where the cables are *identical* other than the METAL which they are made
>> of.
>
>Suppose one were to make identical 10-foot pairs of 12 AWG cable--one
>copper, the other silver. How much would their measured frequency
>response differ? (Go ahead and make any reasonable assumptions you
>want about load, etc.)
It wouldn't, certainly not to within 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz, since
the L and C components of the impedance would be invariant. Further,
the resistance would be within 6%, and would be around 0.03 ohms in
both cases, leading to negligible measured differences at the speaker
terminals, even of Martin-Logan speakers.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
B&W have also done this in their 'Silver Signature' models. This is
interesting for an engineering-led company, since the conductvity to
mass ratio of copper is significantly *worse* than that of copper!
Methinks the marketing department 'designed' this particular range!
Note that - despite the appalling difficulty of making good electrical
connections to this metal - many very serious driver companies such as
Dynaudio, JMlab and JBL use aluminium for voice coils, since it has an
even higher conductivity/mass ratio than copper.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Bruce Abrams <bru...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<ana71a$3eh$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>...
>> No one said ALL cables sound the same. What was said is that all "nominally
>> competant" cables sound the same. (Hence the flat measurement requirement.)
>> I don't think anyone doubts that you can design a cable to color the signal
>> in a certain way, especially when a mystical black box is part and parcel of
>> the cable design!
>>
>OTOH, 0.1 dB is a rather tight specification, and we don't know what
>subset of the cables out there (or, more precisely, what subset of the
>possible cable comparisons out there) would be excluded under this
>criteria. Depending on where the rolloff started/how steep it was, I
>would think one cable could be down a fair bit more than 0.1 dB at
>20kHz without a difference being audible. But then it's not my money.
It's not particularly tight in practice, and as noted, I'll be happy
to add a few cents worth of L or C to the zipcord in order to achieve
an acceptable match with *any* 'high end' cable.
>However, I think Mike has misunderstood the point of this little
>challenge. It is not to prove that "all cables are the same," or even
>that some cables are the same. It's to prove that if cables are
>audibly different, it is because of something we know about and can
>measure, namely the frequency response differences caused by each
>cable's RLC characteristics. By holding this constant, we can
>determine whether there's "something else" in there.
Quite so. Still no takers, BTW...... :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
>>>mkuller wrote:>>
>>>First
>>>the challenge was about zip cord versus exotic speaker cables. Now the two
>>>wires have to be MATCHED TO WITHIN 0.1 DB from 20HZ to 20,000HZ as measured
>>>with a voltmeter. You guys crack me up...
>>
>>Dick Pierce wrote:>
>>Yeah, too bad, sir, you don't get the joke.
>
>First there were objectivist claims that "all cable sound the same",
That's never been said.
>so you should buy the cheapest you can find. "Get zip cord or Rat
>Shack because expensive audiophile cables are nothing more than
>snake-oil."
That certainly has been said.............
>When challenged, that statement was modified to: "ok, some cables
>might sound different, but any cables with RLC values that aren't off
>the charts will sound the same". When questioned further, even jj
>noted that some manufacturers design their cables to be used as "tone
>controls".
Quite so. Your point?
>Now that the cable $$ challenge is being discussed seriously, Arny
>and Pinkerton have narrowed it down to: "the cables for the
>comparison must measure within +/- 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz. What is
>considered the threshold of hearing? That's not 3 dB or 1dB or even
>0.3dB, but 0.1dB. That's a pretty narrow window in my
>non-engineering estimation.
Why comment on something which those of an engineering bent are aware
is a pretty *wide* window for almost all the 'designer' cables?
>Obviously, Stewart and Arnie are hedging their bets. Don't you see
>the humor here?
>They appear to be running pretty scared now that someone is taking on
>their challenge. All cables apparently don't sound the same. LOL!
No Mike, those have *always* been the preconditions for ABX, and we
*all* agree that any cable which is so grossly incompetent that it
can't meet this simple criterion, may very well sound different.
We're not talking about comparing thirty feet of 24AWG zipcord with 30
feet of 12 AWG Monster here, we're talking about say comparing 12 AWG
zipcord with $300 a foot 'designer' cables like Cardas, Transparent,
Kimber AG etc. These cables are not sold on having unusually low
resistance, or particular RLC values which would lead to easily
measurable frequency droops, they are sold on some undefined
technobabble such as 'Golden Mean' stranding.
Stewart Pinkerton
<douglas...@verizon.net> wrote:
<snipping to the chase>
>i'd be willling to take the double-blind test in my own system, so long as i
>know what the contenders are.
Anything you like on the 'high end' side, compared to cheap 'Radio
Shack' interconnects and 12 AWG or similar 'zipcord' speaker cables.
>it does require a mighty fine source to discern the differences among the
>finest audio cables, though when every other component is in good order and
>brought to optimal performance, actual improvements related to cabling
>become readily apparent, and can often be quite dramatic in how one
>experiences and ultimately appreciates recorded music and video.
Well, that remains to be seen, now doesn't it?
> the finer
>the equipment throughout the rest of an a/v system, the more impact more
>subtle parts of the whole, such as cabling, isolation devices, power
>conditioners, disc cleaners, turntable mats, etc... have on overall
>performance. i might be tempted to call all these things by the skeptic's
>"pigbath, snake oil, etc... ad pukeum" had i not checked out, experimented,
>and discovered with my own eyes and ears that little things can make a big
>difference, and the more you spend, the more you have to lose when one
>crummy mistake slips in and undermines the rest of a state of the art
>system.
Quite so - I take it therefore that you use DBT evaluation? :-)
>if you're not going to make every effort to do it right, you might
>as well head to radio shack or best-buy with $199 and do it all in glorious
>plastibox mid-fi. those of us who seek the best and are willing to pay for
>it expect alot better, wouldn't you say?-
I'm sure you do - but we have still to resolve the question of whether
what you get for all that money actually sounds any
different...........
Stewart Pinkerton
>"Webmarketing" webmar...@kconline.com wrote:
>>Not quite true. Kimber actually makes some of their own wire. Most don't
>>as you say.
>
>Kimber draws copper? I remain skeptical.
I think he means that they buy in the stranded wire and do their own
braiding. Kinda like a quilting bee..... :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>news:an9tg...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> "BEAR" <bear...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>What he means is: silver from source to preamp, from preamp to power amp,
>and from power amp to speakers. Normal audiophile usuage for "complete
>signal path". Sheesh!
You miss the point, Harry. BEAR is always complaining that the
'engineers' are not being precise. Sauce for the goose... :-)
Besides, consider the logic of the above description of the *complete*
signal path, and consider the likelihood that the substitution of a
few feet of that path for some insanely expensive solid silver wire,
will have *any* effect whatever on the sound quality.
François Yves Le Gal
Pinkerton) wrote:
>B&W have also done this in their 'Silver Signature' models. This is
>interesting for an engineering-led company, since the conductvity to
>mass ratio of copper is significantly *worse* than that of copper!
I guess that you meant that "the conductivity to mass ratio of silver is
significantly *worse* than that of copper".
Ag has a density of 10,5 and a conductivity of 630.5 1/mohm-cm, while Cu
has a density of 8,9 and a conductivity of 595.8 1/mohm-cm, not showing
what I would call a significative advantage.
>Methinks the marketing department 'designed' this particular range!
It was designed as an homage to the late John Bowers, as a "cost no
object" compact loudspeaker. IMO, B&W did a great job: they were
excellent!
A complete test can be found on the Stereophile web site:
http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?272
>Note that - despite the appalling difficulty of making good electrical
>connections to this metal - many very serious driver companies such as
>Dynaudio, JMlab and JBL use aluminium for voice coils, since it has an
>even higher conductivity/mass ratio than copper.
They also use hexagon shaped wire in order to pack more turns in a given
volume, resulting in high power handling/high efficiency drivers.
Different designs, different applications.
BEAR
> In article <andd3n$kp6$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
>
> >
> >Wonder how much they cost...
>
> And in the case of lowther, do we know WHY the voice coils are
> silver? (hint: figure out what happens to n0 given the mass and
> resistance of a silver vs copper voice coil. Also, this is a
> hint to the extra credit question about phosphor-bronze).
Hmmm... sounds like the ribbon driver equation...
_-_-bear
>
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | DPi...@world.std.com |
--
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 18:13:17 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>B&W have also done this in their 'Silver Signature' models. This is
>>interesting for an engineering-led company, since the conductvity to
>>mass ratio of copper is significantly *worse* than that of copper!
>
>I guess that you meant that "the conductivity to mass ratio of silver is
>significantly *worse* than that of copper".
Oooops! Yes, indeed.
>Ag has a density of 10,5 and a conductivity of 630.5 1/mohm-cm, while Cu
>has a density of 8,9 and a conductivity of 595.8 1/mohm-cm, not showing
>what I would call a significative advantage.
That depends on whether you regard an 11% difference as 'significant'.
Given the comments generally seen regarding cables, I suggest that
most r.a.h-e regulars would consider it to be *colossal*! :-)
There is no doubt that it *is* an inferior material in this regard, so
why use it?
>>Methinks the marketing department 'designed' this particular range!
>
>It was designed as an homage to the late John Bowers, as a "cost no
>object" compact loudspeaker. IMO, B&W did a great job: they were
>excellent!
One might certainly hope so, given the enormous price increase over
the base model 805! The use of silver itself is of questionable value
in any performance differences.
>A complete test can be found on the Stereophile web site:
>http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?272
>
>>Note that - despite the appalling difficulty of making good electrical
>>connections to this metal - many very serious driver companies such as
>>Dynaudio, JMlab and JBL use aluminium for voice coils, since it has an
>>even higher conductivity/mass ratio than copper.
>
>They also use hexagon shaped wire in order to pack more turns in a given
>volume, resulting in high power handling/high efficiency drivers.
>Different designs, different applications.
Designs still searching for engineering efficiency, not fashion. There
is absolutely no good *technical* reason to use silver for voice
coils, it is an *inferior* material to copper in this role.
BEAR
> In article <ancrrt$cm1$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote:
> >bear bear...@netzero.net wrote:
> >
> >>Ok, Arny, exagerrate the whole thing to the point of absurdity.
> >>
> >>Let me clarify for those who missed the point, within the context...
> >>
> >> for these purposes in terms of *this* thread a "complete signal path"
> >>means:
> >>
> >> - interconnects
> >> - speaker cables.
>
> Okay, that's fine.
>
> I have 10 feet of copper wire connecting my amplifier to my
> speakers. That's 20 feet altogether of copper. I'll replace it
> with solid silver.
>
> What do I do about the 31 feet of copper wire that sits in the
> voice coil of the woofers? (Oh, by the way, it is REALLY,
> SERIOUSLY ordinary copper wire.)
Maybe because it is in an inductor?
Maybe it makes no difference, except as you might find that the changing
of a shock absorber changes the apparent performance of a tire?
Maybe one should try it before worrying about how or what happens?
>
>
> Is that wire NOT part of the signal path? If it IS, then it is
> impossible to even jokingly discuss "complete signal path" if
> you ignore this. If it ISN'T part of the signal path, then I
> should be able to remove this wire without having any effect on
> the audible performance of the speaker.
Oh? Is that how your speakers are set up now? ;- )
>
>
> But, when I DO remove it, the speaker doesn't work, so it MUST
> be part of the signal path.
Ok, Dick, have a winder make you some enameled silver wire, and wind
a voice coil, and have one of your many contracting companies make you
a speaker with a silver voice coil...
Let's just get the whole thing out to the point of insanity...
Of course, if it *turns out* that THEY like the silver voice coil better than
the copper, you will tell them to send ME the check, not you??
Oh, I know, it won't happen that way.
>
>
> Can someone explain why it's important that a few feet of very
> heavy gauge wire that is effectively the smallest contributor
> to total system losses in the entire amplifier speaker system be
> made out of solid silver, while DOZENS of feet of very fine
> strand, very ordinary copper is allowed to be in the "complete"
> signal path.
Dunno. Try it - see what you can figure out, and what you can measure.
TRY IT. <---- it's cheap and its fun.
>
>
> Why isn't solid silver voice coil windings EVER advocated?
>
> (and when they are, guess why they are)
Well, that's a contradiction!
>
>
> (extra credit: why are some voice coils wound out of
> phosphor bronze?)
Dunno, mass? Tempco?
_-_-bear
>
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | DPi...@world.std.com |
--
Webmarketing
see if some cables really did sound different and one pair did, as I
described. There is no doubt it rolled off the highs. It was quite audible
to me and to two other listeners. The result was like dialing down the
treble control on a preamp (when preamps had treble controls.)
I don't know about Kimber's manufacturing from personal experience. I have
a friend in the area who owns an audio store and is a Kimber dealer. He
told me they were the only high end cable maker he knew of that made some of
their own wire. He mentioned some estimated volume figures that would make
them large for the high end audio industry-right up there with Audio
Research and B&W. A fairly small company, to be sure, but large relative to
the majority of the industry. Why not just contact them. They would sure
know more about it than me or my audio dealer friend.
Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
"Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:anf5l...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Richard D Pierce
>>significantly *worse* than that of copper".
>>has a density of 8,9 and a conductivity of 595.8 1/mohm-cm, not showing
>>what I would call a significative advantage.
Except that the problem is not so simple. YOu simply can't look
at the ratio of the two and be done with it. Even so, if we were
to invent a new parameter " comductivity per unit mass," (might
I propose it be in units of LeGalPinkertons?):
Ag: 10.5g/.630/ohm-cm = 16.7 LGP
Cu: 8.9g/.596/ohm-cm = 14.9 LGP
Whatever such a unit means, there's still a fairly big
difference.
Where it becomes fun is that there are several crucial driver
parameters that are affected by the mass and resistance, and not
necessarily in such a simple ratio as above. The problem is not
so important for woofers, where the voice coil mass is not a
lartge part of the total mass, but it IS crucial for tweeters,
where the voice coil mass represents a substantial portion of
the total mass: it's not uncommon to find that it is the
majority of the moving mass.
For example, the resistance plays no part in determining the
mechanical resonance of tyhe driver, so that any differences in
mass are reflected in a change in the resonat frquency of the
driver.
Changes in mass and resonant frequency reflect themselves in
changes in damping at resonance. THe mechanical damping is
proportional to the resonant frequency, and resistance, again,
plays no part. Electrical damping is a function of resonant
frequency also, and it's a direct function of mass and
resistance as well.
And the elecro-acoustic efficiency of a driver goes linearly as
resistance, but as the inverse SQUARE of the mass.
Let's look at this latter case: if we were to substitute the
same gauge silver wire for the copper in a voice coil (and there
is very good reason NOT to change the gauge of the wire, see
below), the resistance woul drop to 94% that of the copper,
which by itself would contribute to a 5.8% increase in
efficiency due to electrical loss reduction. However, the
increase in massof 18%, since efficiency goes as the inverse
square of mass, would result in a 40% decrease in efficiency
itself.
So we get a whopping .25 dB increase due to lowered resistance,
but a 1.5 dB DECREASE due to the increased mass (assuming the
voice coil mass is the entire mass of the driver). If we assume
the voice coil mass is half that, not unreasonable for a
tweeter, then we still get the .25 dB increase for the
resistance portion, but a .75 dB loss due to mass. Maybe not a
lot, maybe it is, depedning upon the application.
Well, maybe we COULD change the gauge to compensate. THat works
against us for several reasons. The ratio of mass and
conductivity is independent of gauge: since BOTH are directly
proportional to the cross-sectional area of the wire: double
the diameter quadruples the conductivity, it also quadruples
the mass.
Where is really starts to bite us is that making the gauge
smaller or larger changes the LENGTH of the wire we can fit in
the voice coil, and the efficiency goes as the SQUARE of the
length of wire in the gap.
Anyway, if you actually sit down and examine the effects of all
this, you find that, quite unfortunately, copper is closest to
the optimum in terms of any common material for manufacturing
voice coils. Aluminum was mentioned as having a better ratio,
but that ignores the fact that aluminum is VERY difficult to
make a reliable mechanicla and electrical bond with in a
production voice coil environment: it's use encurs significant
cost penalties.
François Yves Le Gal
wrote:
>Whatever such a unit means, there's still a fairly big
>difference.
Hmm. Around 12 % isn't a big difference in my book, but I see your
point.
>the voice coil mass represents a substantial portion of
>the total mass: it's not uncommon to find that it is the
>majority of the moving mass.
Agreed 100 %. I always wonder why manufacturers are still stuck in the
dome/VC electrodynamic model while some alternative technologies -
isodynamic, for instance - offer much better performance.
>Changes in mass and resonant frequency reflect themselves in
>changes in damping at resonance.
Yes, but it is fairly easy to design low res tweeters using adequately
damped back chambers and nearly saturated gaps. Most high end
scandinavian tweeters follow this path, to very good effect IMO.
<SNIP some interesting stuff>
>Anyway, if you actually sit down and examine the effects of all
>this, you find that, quite unfortunately, copper is closest to
>the optimum in terms of any common material for manufacturing
>voice coils.
Agreed, again. I'm not advocating silver voice coils : they do exist,
that's all. Copper is fine for most applications...
Arny Krueger
I can only judge by what I read on RAHE. If someone says "complete
audio path", and then says that a high percentage of many well-known
portions of the "complete audio path" are irrelevant, what are we to
think?
>It is exactly this pedantic approach
> to things that makes many of us have to take a vacation every other
> week or so.
Please explain to me why the "complete audio path" does not include
the items that I listed, above.
More specifically how can the "complete audio path" be silver when
some or all of the following components don't have all of their
relevant parts made of silver?
microphone (contains yards of wire that the signal must pass
through).
microphone cable
microphone preamp
cable from mic preamp to mixing console
mixing console
cable from mixing console to recorder
etc., etc.
BTW, the mic preamp, mixing console, and recorder are composed of
tubes, transistors, integrated circuits, resistors, capacitors,
chassis wiring, potentiometers, connectors which according to the
"BEAR Requirement" *must* be 100% silver. Where do you find
these all of these parts?
Isn't it true that it is technically impossible to make tubes,
capacitors, solid state devices and resistors from 100% silver?
Again:
Is it OK if the power transformers and 120 VAC power wiring are
copper or must they be silver as well. What about the high tension
lines, transformers, and electrical power generating station? Is
copper OK?
What about the speakers? Speakers contain yards of wire that the
signal must pass through, right? Are there sources of 100% silver
woofers, tweeter, inductors and crossover capacitors?
Isn't it true that silver is a technically suboptimal component for
many applications where it can be used, and other materials function
more efficiently?
Why should audiophiles aspire to have audio components that are made
with technically suboptimal materials?
ludovic mirabel
myself hears that teflon is superior to eg. polyvinyl. Is it?
Does it affect the cable sound reproduction quality and if so
are the differences covered by the "RLC mantra"?
These questions may just show up my ignorance of the basics but
at least I'm seeking help. That's what RAHE is for.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. Many DIYers wouldn't dream of using anything but
teflon-coated silver for wiring their projects. That makes
silver gain a little % advantage over copper within their
systems. And planar speakers have no voice coils copper or
other.
Ludovic Mirabel
Fran ois Yves Le Gal <fle...@aingeal.com> wrote in message news:<anbilj$nmo$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>...
> On 30 Sep 2002 19:21:41 GMT, DPi...@TheWorld.com (Richard D Pierce)
> wrote:
>
> >However, others have made the claim that there are differences
> >in the cound that ARE NOT due to these differences [RLC].
>
> Well, there are some *real world* objective (measurable) and subjective
> (perceptible) differences between cables with the same RLC.
>
> Just imagine two identically RLC spec'ed cables with the same flat
> response in the audio band. One is very well shielded, the other isn't.
>
> Measure them in lab settings, preferably using a nice high resolution
> spectrum analyzer, then put them in the average domestic urban
> environment and measure them again. Then try them in rural, non polluted
> settings. Quite different results, huh?
>
> But, of course, there's no "magic" at work here, just parameters beyond
> the usual RLC mantra.
>
> Then you could go on with HF analysis, the interaction between the cable
> - acting as an antenna and injecting HF noise - and the electronics it's
> connected to. No "magic" again...
Michael Lyle
>
> Why isn't solid silver voice coil windings EVER advocated?
>
> (and when they are, guess why they are)
>
> (extra credit: why are some voice coils wound out of
> phosphor bronze?)
And I, as someone who used silver traces on circuit boards in the 1960s
(in a military computer system delivered to the Swiss), silver is no fun
in a circuit. We carefully plated gold over the silver to hold down the
tarnish, and then after several years of use, the silver electrically
migrated to the top of the gold, tarnished, and formed a high resistance
connection, even in gas tight connectors. We (Hughes Aircraft) had to
replace all the computers, as there was no simple fix.
Silver is not an easy metal to work with in electronics.
--
Michael
ml...@pacbell.net
Steven Sullivan
> No, I didn't do any frequency response measurements. I was just trying to
> see if some cables really did sound different and one pair did, as I
> described. There is no doubt it rolled off the highs. It was quite audible
> to me and to two other listeners. The result was like dialing down the
> treble control on a preamp (when preamps had treble controls.)
"It was quite audible to me and to two other listeners' simply isn't
proof, by itself, in such cases. You had an owner tell you , first off,
that he had a cable that sounded different. So you've got ground for
strong expectation bias right there, in yourself. Was there any attempt
to control for such bias? Did the other listeners know in advance that
the cables had been reported to sound different/rolled off?
These cables *may indeed* have been rolled off and *may indeed* have
sounded different. But nothing you report here is good evidence for those
claims. It' s just too easy to *think* you hear cable differences.
Richard D Pierce
BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> wrote:
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
>> What do I do about the 31 feet of copper wire that sits in the
>> voice coil of the woofers? (Oh, by the way, it is REALLY,
>> SERIOUSLY ordinary copper wire.)
>
>Maybe because it is in an inductor?
Uh, no it's not, any more than the windings of an electric motor
under load are an inductor.
>> But, when I DO remove it, the speaker doesn't work, so it MUST
>> be part of the signal path.
>
>Ok, Dick, have a winder make you some enameled silver wire, and wind
>a voice coil, and have one of your many contracting companies make you
>a speaker with a silver voice coil...
>
>Let's just get the whole thing out to the point of insanity...
>
>Of course, if it *turns out* that THEY like the silver voice coil better than
>the copper, you will tell them to send ME the check, not you??
Well, s I pointed out elsewhere, you CAN'T POSSIBLE make the
experiment work in any way that the ONLY difference is the
material the conductor is made out of. Since, unlike all but
pathological a speaker wires, the DC resistance is a major
factor in determining the operating parameters of the driver,
and since, unlike speaker wires, the specific gravity of the
wire material can have a major effect on determining the
operating parameters of the speaker, you can't possibly make two
speakers where the operating parameters are the same and the
only difference is the material the voice coil is made of.
THat change in material will result in changes in the voice
coil Re, the effective moving mass of the driver, and thus its
resonance, its damping at resonance, it's efficiency, just to
mention a few.
>Oh, I know, it won't happen that way.
Because it can't: you simply cannot reduce the comparison to a
single value experiment. How, then, do you propose to separate
out the effects due to changes in Re and Mms and its derivative
parameters from the material issue?
And, just so you know, Randy, I HAVE made tweeters voice coils
out of silver, phosphor bronze, and aluminum, in addition to
copper. So, indeed, I HAVE had the experience, HAVE listended to
the results, HAVE measured the differences.
And the differences are TOTALLY dominated by the simple
differences in Re and Mms.
>> Can someone explain why it's important that a few feet of very
>> heavy gauge wire that is effectively the smallest contributor
>> to total system losses in the entire amplifier speaker system be
>> made out of solid silver, while DOZENS of feet of very fine
>> strand, very ordinary copper is allowed to be in the "complete"
>> signal path.
>
>Dunno. Try it - see what you can figure out, and what you can measure.
>
>TRY IT. <---- it's cheap and its fun.
Actually, I HAVE tried, and three clients paid me to do it.
They insisted I do it, I recommended against it, they claimed it
was better, I made the drivers for them, they bought the initial
run, then came back and asked for them with copper voice coils.
>> (extra credit: why are some voice coils wound out of
>> phosphor bronze?)
>
>Dunno, mass? Tempco?
If you don't know that, why would one wind them out of silver?
Why are they wound from copper?
Why are they rarely done in aluminum?
Why not gold?
Richard D Pierce
ludovic mirabel <elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote:
>P.S. Many DIYers wouldn't dream of using anything but
>teflon-coated silver for wiring their projects. That makes
>silver gain a little % advantage over copper within their
>systems.
Advantage in what sense? DC resistance? So why not go to the
next larger gauge of copper and get nearly a 20% advantage over
the silver?
What about the fact that, as has been shown elsewhere, that
the advantage gained by the lowerd DC resistance of silver voice
coils is to one degree or another countered by the larger
DISadvantage of the increased mass?
>And planar speakers have no voice coils copper or
>other.
Really?
So planar speakers like Magnapans have NO voice coils at all?
And ribbon drivers have no voice coils at all?
How do they work?
François Yves Le Gal
mirabel) wrote:
>Do the different insulating materials matter?
A resounding YES at high frequencies. Very little at audio frequencies.
Except if your PVC insulation happens to be really plagued by
piezo-electric side effects, something that can alas happen.
>A layman like
>myself hears that teflon is superior to eg. polyvinyl. Is it?
It is. But it's also a royal pain in the neck at the manufacturing
level.
>Does it affect the cable sound reproduction quality and if so
>are the differences covered by the "RLC mantra"?
Bad dielectrics can have a measurable effect at audio frequencies, but I
very much doubt it is perceptible except in very extreme situations.
And, no, the RLC mantra doesn't deal with such dynamic behaviors.
>P.S. Many DIYers wouldn't dream of using anything but
>teflon-coated silver for wiring their projects.
Teflon coated wire has some very nice properties, as PTFE/Teflon is able
to bear with poor soldering techniques (read: overheated cables),
something we can't say of typical PVC-clad cables.
>And planar speakers have no voice coils copper or
>other.
Well, they don't have "voice coils", but they use a glued conducting
strip, usually made of aluminum. Some even use copper if I do remember
correctly.
François Yves Le Gal
wrote:
>We carefully plated gold over the silver to hold down the
>tarnish, and then after several years of use, the silver electrically
>migrated to the top of the gold, tarnished, and formed a high resistance
>connection, even in gas tight connectors.
Well, your problem wasn't caused by silver, but rather probably by an
intermediary layer of nickel or another metal migrating in poorly
built/designed connectors.
Silver oxide is actually an *excellent* conductor and properly designed
connectors should never display such problems, even using problematic
metals such as bronze/beryllium or plain copper.
François Yves Le Gal
wrote:
> Are there sources of 100% silver
>woofers, tweeter, inductors and crossover capacitors?
YES. And you forgot internal cabling, for which the answer is also a
resounding YES.
François Yves Le Gal
wrote:
>And ribbon drivers have no voice coils at all?
Well, the ribbon is flat or corrugated, not coiled...
:-))
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>On 3 Oct 2002 21:36:00 GMT, François Yves Le Gal <fle...@aingeal.com>
>wrote:
>>>I guess that you meant that "the conductivity to mass ratio of silver is
>>>significantly *worse* than that of copper".
>>>Ag has a density of 10,5 and a conductivity of 630.5 1/mohm-cm, while Cu
>>>has a density of 8,9 and a conductivity of 595.8 1/mohm-cm, not showing
>>>what I would call a significative advantage.
>
>Except that the problem is not so simple. YOu simply can't look
>at the ratio of the two and be done with it. Even so, if we were
>to invent a new parameter " comductivity per unit mass," (might
>I propose it be in units of LeGalPinkertons?):
Please no, I beg you not to create such an association!!! :-)
<MacSnip>
>Anyway, if you actually sit down and examine the effects of all
>this, you find that, quite unfortunately, copper is closest to
>the optimum in terms of any common material for manufacturing
>voice coils. Aluminum was mentioned as having a better ratio,
>but that ignores the fact that aluminum is VERY difficult to
>make a reliable mechanicla and electrical bond with in a
>production voice coil environment: it's use encurs significant
>cost penalties.
Quiite so. I believe that I did allude to this, but not in such
eloquent terms!
Stewart Pinkerton
mirabel) wrote:
>Do the different insulating materials matter? A layman like
>myself hears that teflon is superior to eg. polyvinyl. Is it?
That depends on the conditions under which you 'heard' it. There are
indeed *theoretical* reasons to prefer Teflon to PVC, but I've never
detected any *audible* difference.
>Does it affect the cable sound reproduction quality and if so
>are the differences covered by the "RLC mantra"?
No, it has to do with dielectric absorption. For an instrumentation
engineer like me, it's a nightmare, but it seems to have no audible
effect in an audio context.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
>> In article <ancrrt$cm1$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
>> Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >bear bear...@netzero.net wrote:
>> >
>> >>Ok, Arny, exagerrate the whole thing to the point of absurdity.
>> >>
>> >>Let me clarify for those who missed the point, within the context...
>> >>
>> >> for these purposes in terms of *this* thread a "complete signal path"
>> >>means:
>> >>
>> >> - interconnects
>> >> - speaker cables.
>>
>> Okay, that's fine.
>>
>> I have 10 feet of copper wire connecting my amplifier to my
>> speakers. That's 20 feet altogether of copper. I'll replace it
>> with solid silver.
>>
>> What do I do about the 31 feet of copper wire that sits in the
>> voice coil of the woofers? (Oh, by the way, it is REALLY,
>> SERIOUSLY ordinary copper wire.)
>
>Maybe because it is in an inductor?
Unfortunately for you, in practice it's a resistor - it it wasn't, the
speaker would do no work, and hence would produce no sound.........
>Maybe it makes no difference, except as you might find that the changing
>of a shock absorber changes the apparent performance of a tire?
>Maybe one should try it before worrying about how or what happens?
Maybe one should consider that, since all that copper really *is*
there, how could six feet of silver make a difference - always
assuming that you actually think that it *might* make a difference in
the first place.
>> Is that wire NOT part of the signal path? If it IS, then it is
>> impossible to even jokingly discuss "complete signal path" if
>> you ignore this. If it ISN'T part of the signal path, then I
>> should be able to remove this wire without having any effect on
>> the audible performance of the speaker.
>
>Oh? Is that how your speakers are set up now? ;- )
Nope, and mine are set up with several yards of aluminium in the same
position.
>> But, when I DO remove it, the speaker doesn't work, so it MUST
>> be part of the signal path.
>
>Ok, Dick, have a winder make you some enameled silver wire, and wind
>a voice coil, and have one of your many contracting companies make you
>a speaker with a silver voice coil...
It's been done, but this doesn't affect *your*n arguments concerning
silver cables used with copper voive coils.
BTW, I note that your own 'Silver Thunder' speaker cables are in
*fact* just standard MIL-spec Teflon-coated silver-plated OFHC copper
hookup wire, made up into bundles and jacketed. Given that I've used
the same construction for purely practical EE 101 reasons, I'm not
seeing the 'magic' of silver here......................... :-)
>Let's just get the whole thing out to the point of insanity...
>
>Of course, if it *turns out* that THEY like the silver voice coil better than
>the copper, you will tell them to send ME the check, not you??
>
>Oh, I know, it won't happen that way.
Um, will you send an equivalent check the other way if 'they' can't
tell the difference? :-)
Oh, I know, it won't happen that way.
ludovic mirabel
correction and information. But still re ELS - do they have a voice
COIL?
Another clarification of my sloppy, non-technical phrasing. When I
said that using silver wiring inside the DIY projects gives %
adavantage to silver I did not have its characteristics in mind. I
simply meant that it increases the ratio of silver to other materials
in your system eg. copper. I learnt that the conventional copper voice
coil outweighs silver in the interconnects etc.
How about silver wiring of your preamp. plus amp plus interconnects
and speaker
wires plus ELS planar speaker?
I know that audio advantages of silver are unproven. Neither of course
is the contrary assertion. We're in the area of subjective responses
which are another question altogether ( a sigh!).
Ludovic Mirabel
François Yves Le Gal
mirabel) wrote:
>But still re ELS - do they have a voice COIL?
Nope, but how would you use silver there ? Silver-plate the stators ?
:-)
>I know that audio advantages of silver are unproven. Neither of course
>is the contrary assertion.
The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the persons stating that
silver cables sounds "faster, more detailed, more spacious" - or
anything else - than equivalent copper models.
dangling entity
>> phosphor bronze?)
I look forward to the answer to this tidbit! Please don't forget to
reveal when the time is appropriate. :)