High dollar speaker cables and speaker crossovers [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : High dollar speaker cables and speaker crossovers



Billiam
01-24-2006, 10:55 AM
I have noticed that speaker makers rarely, if ever, use high dollar speaker wire inside the speaker (perhaps I am wrong on that). Let alone the crossovers, that can be quite diverse in parts and design. How do the yeah sayers explain spending a lot of money on speaker cables when all of that signal has to go through the inner works of the speaker before you hear the sound anyway? I am on the fense on this one and would like to see the responses.

Florian
01-24-2006, 11:11 AM
While i would agree with that in general, let me ask you a back question. Why should i run cheap cables that carry less information to even worse parts that will loose even more information? On my personal external crossover the parts used were very good and very solid with great connections. Kharma, Genesis, Martin Logan, Apogee, Audionote, or my Sphinx Gear use pure silver inside or other high quality parts. So i do think that most high class audio company/products use great parts. Of course if you open a B&W, Paradigm etc.. you will not find very good parts but i think the parts they used are good enough for the speaker. Is there a model in particular you saw?

PS: Before i will get splashed, Yes i have seen the inside of the B&W 602 and it was good, but nothing special. Matched the price of the speaker.

In addition to my normal posts i have decided to add a "Florian-Mood-Meter" and this post is a very positive and happy post with no agression :p

Billiam
01-24-2006, 11:19 AM
While i would agree with that in general, let me ask you a back question. Why should i run cheap cables that carry less information to even worse parts that will loose even more information? On my personal external crossover the parts used were very good and very solid with great connections. Kharma, Genesis, Martin Logan, Apogee, Audionote, or my Sphinx Gear use pure silver inside or other high quality parts. So i do think that most high class audio company/products use great parts. Of course if you open a B&W, Paradigm etc.. you will not find very good parts but i think the parts they used are good enough for the speaker. Is there a model in particular you saw?

I am in a fact finding mission. However, my thoughts on that are this. I would suggest that a speaker cable's main purpose is to not degrade the signal and allow it to pass from the electronics to the speaker freely. Would a 12 gauge OHFC cable allow that to happen. I would imagine so. If a cable supposedly enhances bass (as I have heard about an XLO and other products) or whatever, I would say that it is a poorly designed cable. So, back to your question, wouldn't it be possible to "out do" speaker cable compared to the parts of the speaker itself? Wouldn't you need some type of balance?

Once again, I am on the fence on this. I really haven't made up my mind. I have built speakers and made my own cables. I am just curious as to what others think.

Florian
01-24-2006, 11:29 AM
Well i think the same can be said about speakers or capacitors or spools. For instance you can buy a 22uF capacitor from Mundorf or from Audyn which are "technically" the same. But they sound quite different actually. Another example can me said about spools, if you take a 4.5mH spool and then compare the normal air inductor one to a pure foil spool they sound vastly different. So i think the same can be said about cable, since power runs on the outside shell of a cable and has sometimes be next to spools, heat etc.. i believe that cables can have a dramatic difference in a particular setup. Also cables have different resistances which effect different frequencys which also contributes to a different sound. Our hobby cannot be explained by technical aspects alone, eventough i would like that :-)

Resident Loser
01-24-2006, 11:29 AM
Why should i run cheap cables that carry less information to even worse parts that will loose even more information?

...you have something other than anecdotal speculation to support this? Of what measurable magnitude are these supposed "losses"?

jimHJJ(...aggressive, maybe not...contentious, big time...)

Florian
01-24-2006, 11:35 AM
Your not worth talking to, so you might as well stop now and contribute something usefull to the original poster.

Resident Loser
01-24-2006, 11:45 AM
Your not worth talking to, so you might as well stop now and contribute something usefull to the original poster.

...I requested that you somehow substantiate your "Florian Factoids"...

Oh, and by the way...beißen Sie mich!

jimHJJ(..."They also serve who stand and wait"...Milton...)

Florian
01-24-2006, 11:50 AM
i believe that cables can have a dramatic difference in a particular setup What does this read to you? It is my sole opinion and if you would like some proof then i invite you over for a weekend to my home in germany where i can demonstrate the difference of speaker cables, interconnects to you on the Apogee DIVA Reference. We can try severeal amps from Speed Spectrum Technologies, Sphinx, Pathos and from Krell. If you think DAC's dont make a difference we can also listen to the differences of them incl. Transports from Krell, Wadia, Teac and Rega.

Your post have the sole purpose to pick a fight and have nothing to do with the original poster. If you want prove, come to my home in germany and hear for yourself.

PS: Please do not missuse my language since you are obviously incapable of using it half way usefull.

Resident Loser
01-24-2006, 12:05 PM
If a cable supposedly enhances bass (as I have heard about an XLO and other products) or whatever, I would say that it is a poorly designed cable

...Wire is "passive" it cannot enhance anything...what it can do is attenuate the higher frequencies...it's all relative...so in all honesty, it may not be a "poorly designed" cable...it may be just what it's designer wanted: a tone control...I prefer mine to be in the shape of a knob and be defeatable when not required.

Most of the 'high end"-types eschew tone controls per se only to "wire in" a similar, non-adjustable fuction...

jimHJJ(...Hi-Fi: Straight wire with gain...)

Resident Loser
01-24-2006, 12:12 PM
PS: Please do not missuse my language since you are obviously incapable of using it half way usefull.

...bratwurst-breath...Was the phrase understandable in translation as "bite me!" ?

If so, I'd guess it was useful as it conveyed my sentiments precisely...

jimHJJ(...your language? Who died and left you Kaiser?...)

Florian
01-24-2006, 12:18 PM
...bratwurst-breath...Was the phrase understandable in translation as "bite me!" ?
Wear the American flag proudly and keep on quoting Adolf Hitler.

Resident Loser
01-24-2006, 12:54 PM
Wear the American flag proudly

...I believe it's a Muted Hunting Stewart...a Scots tartan dontcha' know...


and keep on quoting Adolf Hitler.

Sometimes even the Devil speaks the truth...

jimHJJ(...Don't quite get the irony, eh?...)

markw
01-24-2006, 01:21 PM
Your not worth talking to, so you might as well stop now and contribute something usefull to the original poster.RL simply asked, nicely I might add, for you to substantiate your questionable claim.

...and here you go dragging this down into the mud with personal insults ...as usual.

poneal
01-24-2006, 02:26 PM
Even some exotic cap have tin leads as do most resistors. And then the inductors are nothing but solid copper wrapped around a bobbin, etc. The DCR of these inductors is probably greater than any wire. So in the end it's up to the consumer, but I just use the 14-2 **** from Home Depot for a few cents a foot.

bacchanal
01-24-2006, 02:32 PM
In addition to my normal posts i have decided to add a "Florian-Mood-Meter" and this post is a very positive and happy post with no agression :p

Does this improve your sound quality, and if so, where can I get one?

But seriously though...I would answer the original question something like this...

If you have to ask...they probably aren't going to make much of a difference. If you 'know' enough to have high-end gear that can benefit from high end cable, then you might as well add the icing to the cake.

In reality, it's all relative. What gear do you have? What cable do you currently have? What are you looking at going to? If you're going from 24ga speaker wire to Cardas cables, yeah you'll probably notice a difference. If you're going from quality shielded, factory terminated cable, to something that costs 3, 4 or 5 times as much...well it depends on your gear and your ears I guess.

E-Stat
01-24-2006, 03:16 PM
...Wire is "passive" it cannot enhance anything...what it can do is attenuate the higher frequencies...
As well as conduct RFI making them sound bright and hard as nails, shrink the soundstage and lose overall resolution. :)

rw

Billiam
01-24-2006, 03:18 PM
Does this improve your sound quality, and if so, where can I get one?

But seriously though...I would answer the original question something like this...

If you have to ask...they probably aren't going to make much of a difference. If you 'know' enough to have high-end gear that can benefit from high end cable, then you might as well add the icing to the cake.

In reality, it's all relative. What gear do you have? What cable do you currently have? What are you looking at going to? If you're going from 24ga speaker wire to Cardas cables, yeah you'll probably notice a difference. If you're going from quality shielded, factory terminated cable, to something that costs 3, 4 or 5 times as much...well it depends on your gear and your ears I guess.

Nothing I hate more than audiophile snobbery. I asked a question for the masses to answer and to prompt some polite discussion. I did not come here to state my status in life.

E-Stat
01-24-2006, 03:27 PM
I have noticed that speaker makers rarely, if ever, use high dollar speaker wire inside the speaker (perhaps I am wrong on that).
High quality cables are icing to the cake. High end speakers manufacturers do use premium cable with their products. I was given the choice of multiple wiring options for the transformers with my Sound Lab U-1s. While you won't find such in Polk speakers, for example, that doesn't mean that there is no benefit to be found.

Recently, I replaced the crossover components and wiring in my vintage New Advents to much improvement in resolution.

rw

Florian
01-24-2006, 03:30 PM
Dear Mark, i know you dont like me and that is fine. But you should reread the posts and then think again. I answered the posters question and i wrote down my opinion. Then i get attacked and simply state that the person who attacked me is of no interest to me. How can you or he or anyone else question my opinion and want proofe for it?

If you say you like a BMW M5 and i ask you to prove it what the heck would you think? You cant prove if someones observations are wrong ot not. In my case and E-Stat and many others agree that cables make a difference. Now if some guys cant hear it on their systems than thats fine, but its not caused by the cables but by the lack of resolution and quality of components.

If you guys would get off my case and simply accept my personal opinion which i never said are facts then you wouldnt get a problem with me. Simply as that!

bacchanal
01-24-2006, 03:48 PM
Nothing I hate more than audiophile snobbery. I asked a question for the masses to answer and to prompt some polite discussion. I did not come here to state my status in life.

Say what...

Are you saying my post was audiophile snobbery? Sarcasm, a little; snobbery, no. I run 12ga copper speaker wire, so that should tell you what side of the fence I'm currently on. Although I am upgrading to some better, but not super expensive, cables in the very near future. I was just trying to say that everyone has an OPINION on this subject, and you're just going to have to make up your own mind based on your gear and your ears.

I tend to agree with most, but not all of what's been said here
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/buyingguides/cablebudgetguidelines.php

And I agree with Florian...speaker cables like any other component in the system should be considered relative to the system's whole (and of course, your ears).

You can't say that there is zero improvement from speaker cables (and where would you establish a zero point), but there is certainly snake oil out there, and for the majority of us, a point of diminishing returns.

This really shouldn't be such an emotional topic...

audiomadness
01-24-2006, 11:53 PM
And I agree with Florian...speaker cables like any other component in the system should be considered relative to the system's whole (and of course, your ears).

You can't say that there is zero improvement from speaker cables (and where would you establish a zero point), but there is certainly snake oil out there, and for the majority of us, a point of diminishing returns.

This really shouldn't be such an emotional topic...


I think you've hit the heart of the matter in all this.........

and to add my 2cents worth......Heck, if you can afford to spend $5k, $10k, $15k + on a sound sytem, then why not spend the money on cables to match?

Spending $400 - $600 on say 1M silver or gold IC's on a <$1k system.........Well....let's not go there.

Peace to all.

Bernd
01-25-2006, 04:42 AM
I missed this last night-listened to music.

My opinion: Cable does make a difference and High End Speaker manufacturer do and should use the best components available for the given model.

Four years ago I made a plan to have my own Listening Room and a Reference System by the end of last year. Made it.
I had everything wired with QED Silver Spiral IC and Speaker cable. Even sound but nothing wonderful.
I then upgraded the CDP and had to use a new IC (Chord Company with a DIN plug) That didn't work, I think it was the player, and it went and a new one came and was conected with the Silver spiral again.I then wanted more from the cables and invested in Audioquest-Python,Anaconda and Viper IC and Mount Blanc Speaker cable. That made a huge difference. Gone was the slightly flat and bass heavy sound and detail that was masked before emerged.I kept this for a couple of years while I upgraded the System. I then briefly tried a Van den Hul IC-The First Ultimate. That was very soft and "nice" sounding but very boring. No attack or excitment. I can see this working well in a bright system.
I then got a good deal on Audioquest-Sky IC and Speaker cable. Wow. What a product. Incredible detailed,brightly lit and expensive. I then got the Pathos Logos and Horn speakers and the Sky started to sound too bright at times for my liking.So I invested in an all copper high end cable loom to compare this to the Audioquest Sky all silver. So the Cardas-Golden Reference arrived and made an instant impact. That was exactly what I was looking for.
My room was coming on and I had a dedicated spur and meter layed with Kimber Cable and have invested in Kimber PK10 and PK14 Palladian Power cables and Isotek Minisub and Titan Mains filters.
The the final Equipment upgrade happened and all sloted together beautifully.
Sorry about the long winded story, but I wanted to show how cables and the synergy with the electronics work. During this process I tried Silver,Cooper,Silver plated cooper and Carbon. And for me only the cooper (Cardas Golden Reference) worked.
I don't want to invest large amount of hard earned in hardware and then only enjoy 80-90% of it's performance. Great cables give you that final piece to complete your system. I believe that goes for any price range.I also do not let Signal or Speaker cables come into contact with Power cables.
And yes by re-selling the mistakes I make a loss or sometimes brake even, but will never try and make a profit as it is a hobby and hobbies shouldn't make money.They cost you.
If I would now replace the Cardas Speaker cable with Bell wire I bet everything I own it will make a difference like day and night.I kept the Audioquest Viper IC and out of interest exchanged one of the Cardas ICs with that one. Very audible difference.
So in my experience and in my system and with my hearing Cables make a difference.
I am not a scientist and do not understand- why- all I know is that they do.
Phew!

The Power of music gives you wings

Bernd

Resident Loser
01-25-2006, 09:21 AM
As well as conduct RFI making them sound bright and hard as nails, shrink the soundstage and lose overall resolution...

...you have something other than anecdotal speculation to support this?

Gee, where have I heard that before?

I seem to remember the radio frequency range begins at around 3kHz and has no assignment up to around 9kHz...from that point till 14kHz it's used for radionavigation...above that to approximately 20k it's dedicated to mostly mobile maritime traffic...

I also seem to recall that wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency...that the length of the receiving antenna is best to be a quarter or half-wave of that frequency's wavelength...and that signal strength is dependent on proximity to the source of the transmission.

Sooo, all things being equal, to have RFI impinge on a say, the 10 to 20kHz signal via wire in the signal path, hereafter to be known as the bright and hard as nails region, the interference would need to have a wavelength of approximately 2-4 miles and your antenna would need to be roughly a mile for the quarter-wave and 2.0mi for the deluxe half-wave model. Cheez, and I thought my 50ft/ch was a bit much.

Seems as though you would need to reside unpleasantly near a Coast Guard base and have an awful lot of wire from your amp to your speakers for this to really matter.

Of course, there can be RFI coming from many things...from a Sharper Image "Ionic Breeze" to an electric blanket...unfortunately(or perhaps fortunately) these things seem to spew out their nasties @152kHz and above...still requires miles of wire to act as an antenna.

Of course, the preceeding gibberish has come from the mind of one who may not be in full control of his faculties, so take it or leave it as you choose...however,

You have taken the cited quote completely out of context and made much ado about naught...in response to Billiam's bass-enhanced wire scenario, my response stands...RFI (which can be sucessfully supressed by the shielding on ICs and similar suitable treatment for speaker umbilicals) was never even mentioned until your inclusion of it...even so, RFIs ability to "...shrink the soundstage and lose overall resolution..." seems to be wishful thinking.

jimHJJ(...or something like that...)

Resident Loser
01-25-2006, 09:48 AM
Even some exotic cap have tin leads as do most resistors. .

...but tin as in Sn from the periodic table? I don't think so...Tinning simply makes it easier to solder them to pcb's, etc.


And then the inductors are nothing but solid copper wrapped around a bobbin, etc

You do realize that solid copper wire wrapped around a core is what an inductor is and that the wire itself does have an almost imperceptible film of a dielectric separating the individual strands?...otherwise it would be a rather expensive and meaningless jumper.

jimHJJ(...perhaps I misunderstood your intent...)

Resident Loser
01-25-2006, 10:08 AM
I think you've hit the heart of the matter in all this.........

and to add my 2cents worth......Heck, if you can afford to spend $5k, $10k, $15k + on a sound sytem, then why not spend the money on cables to match?

Spending $400 - $600 on say 1M silver or gold IC's on a <$1k system.........Well....let's not go there.

Peace to all.

..you shouldn't buy audio jewelry if you like...saying that everything other than the high-priced spread somehow "...carries less information..." really deserves solid, substantive proof to support such contentions.

Such a premise is neither opinion, nor preference...it is presented as a statement of fact and as such requires closer examination.

jimHJJ(...such questions do not constitute an attack as some appear to believe...)

E-Stat
01-25-2006, 10:47 AM
...you have something other than anecdotal speculation to support this?
Nope. Just the shared experience of a cast of thousands.


I seem to remember...etc, etc...Of course, the preceeding gibberish has come from the mind of one who may not be in full control of his faculties, so take it or leave it as you choose...
Ok.


You have taken the cited quote completely out of context.
I merely pointed out other audible manifestations that "can" occur with wire in an audio context based upon my experience (and that of others). Yes, Virginia one can find bright sounding interconnects and speaker wires whether by commission or lack of prevention. I have some. :)

rw

Swerd
01-25-2006, 01:19 PM
I have noticed that speaker makers rarely, if ever, use high dollar speaker wire inside the speaker (perhaps I am wrong on that). Let alone the crossovers, that can be quite diverse in parts and design. How do the yeah sayers explain spending a lot of money on speaker cables when all of that signal has to go through the inner works of the speaker before you hear the sound anyway? I am on the fense on this one and would like to see the responses.The original post contained some answerable questions, that have not yet been addressed here.

Why don't speaker makers use low gauge or other higher priced types of wire inside the cabinets? Does it make sense to use thick gauge wire from the amplifier to the speaker terminals if there is only 18 gauge zipcord on the inside?

One answer is quite simple. It is very awkward to solder thick wires from the terminals of individual drivers to the much thinner connection points on the crossover. Heating such wires with a typical 30 watt hand held soldering iron would take a long time, and the required heat could damage a crossover component such as a capacitor. Thin wires, 16 gauge or smaller, are easily and rapidly soldered.

A second answer is that short lengths (1 to 2 feet) of low gauge or other high priced wire make little difference compared to the overall conductivity of the total length of wire between the amplifier and the individual drivers of the speaker. Note that I say nothing about possible performance differences due to these short lengths of wire. There simply is no evidence for or against this. At the same time, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that varying crossover designs have a great effect on speaker performance. DIY speaker builders have experimented with substituting low and high priced capacitors, inductors, and resistors and have found that high priced capacitors, and thick gauge inductors do not add to the performance of a speaker. No evidence or reports exist about substituting the wires inside a speaker cabinet. I'd be quite surprised if it were shown that they did make a difference.

The third answer is cost. Why should commercial speaker makers spend extra money on short lengths of expensive wire that will never be visible on the finished product?

Florian
01-25-2006, 01:26 PM
To Swerd: You make some great points, thanks for sharing. In my opinion it is most likely the cost and the fact that the normal customer doesnt open up their speakers. It depends on the price range and product, the real statment products dont skimp on anything usally and i think that it is only audible on a reference product.

Here are some things i can demonstrate in my home in a blind test and hear on my reference speakers and something E-Stat will hear on his SL's too.

1. Moving the DAC from a stone to wood base
2. Change in speaker cables
3. Change in interconnects
4. Change of 5cm's on speaker position
5. Change of Dacs, Transports Preamps etc....

If you cant hear these changes on your system then its not capable of showing the difference. Period :-)

Bernd
01-26-2006, 12:53 AM
I agree with that. I also know that one needs to experience the workings of a well thought out High End system to appreciate the differences small changes will make.
And it's not only the expensive stuff. A well thought out system of any kind should show changes in cables,placement, etc.
Everything you add,change or subtract will make a difference to the end result.If it doesn't then the system is not of good enough quality.

Bernd

Resident Loser
01-26-2006, 05:53 AM
Here are some things i can demonstrate in my home in a blind test and hear on my reference speakers and something E-Stat will hear on his SL's too.

1. Moving the DAC from a stone to wood base
2. Change in speaker cables
3. Change in interconnects
4. Change of 5cm's on speaker position
5. Change of Dacs, Transports Preamps etc....

If you cant hear these changes on your system then its not capable of showing the difference. Period :-)

...haven't chortled so robustly in quite some time, snicker, snicker...cough, cough...

#1. So moving a purely electronic component to and from surfaces of varying density affects things sonically? That's a good one boss! In the sandbag/wire elevator school of tweak-dom...along with eutectic solders, directional wire and $485USD, audiophile grade, wooden control knobs. Snort...chuckle, assorted noises of bodily functions....

#s 2&3. Has anyone said wires cannot sound different?...It's a question of accuracy, not simply difference and certainly not personal preferences.

#4. Speaker positioning changes the sound?!?! Zut alors!!! Tell us again how sheep's bladders may be used to predict earthquakes?...The absolute cheapest, cheezzy-est, bottom-of-the-barrel, entry level POS will sound different with even the smallest re-positioning...why not tell us something we all don't already know.

#5. Different manufacturers have different sonic signatures?...another "DUH!" moment...Why else would there be so bloody many of them? If they all sounded the same how could any one of the claim to be whatever they claim to be...again, it's accuracy not pref...some sound "warm"...some sound "cold"...but some sound "just right"...in your room...with your gear...with your source material...and, of course, some look cool, some use warm, glowing tubes(valves), some have a more pricier snob-appeal and commensurate bragging rights...

jimHJJ(...I must rest now, my sides ache...)

Florian
01-26-2006, 06:03 AM
Hey Looser, it doesnt suprise me ONE bit you cant hear the differences in cables, amps or even dacs.

If i was forced to listen with this
Currently using: Onkyo MC35 TECH Marantz SD-4050 TEAC A-3440 Sennhieser HD-414 STAX SR-44 Reference system: Other vintage analog components i wouldnt hear **** for difference either.

Peace out

Resident Loser
01-26-2006, 06:26 AM
Hey Looser, it doesnt suprise me ONE bit you cant hear the differences in cables, amps or even dacs.

If i was forced to listen with this i wouldnt hear **** for difference either.

Peace out

...When did I say that? The underlined part that is, just in case you don't understand...and I have no reason to assume you do...

And even though it did all it was required to do('ceptin, of course the bottom octave or so), I traded all that good stuff for mtry's boom-box when he left the site...but I got the speakers wired up with pure 99.97 Peruvian silver, Teflon-coated, directional wire...the mid-range simply blooms...

jimHJJ(...or was it booms?...)

musicoverall
01-26-2006, 08:35 AM
[QUOTE=Resident Loser
It's a question of accuracy, not simply difference and certainly not personal preferences.
)[/QUOTE]

*What* is a question of accuracy? How do you define accuracy with respect to cables? If two cables measure the same and sound different, which one is accurate? Actually, the last two questions go for electronics and CDP's as well.

Resident Loser
01-26-2006, 09:37 AM
...*what* is a question of accuracy? How do you define accuracy with respect to cables? If two cables measure the same and sound different, which one is accurate? Actually, the last two questions go for electronics and CDP's as well.

...the entire thread? I'm sorry, I believe your point is moot in the context of the conceptual continuity of the whole...

Why not ask Florian? He has initially stated:


...Why should i run cheap cables that carry less information...

And then simply falls back on demonstrable differences with this:


...some things i can demonstrate in my home...

jimHJJ(...I fail to see what one has to do with the other...)

FLZapped
01-26-2006, 09:37 AM
I have noticed that speaker makers rarely, if ever, use high dollar speaker wire inside the speaker (perhaps I am wrong on that). Let alone the crossovers, that can be quite diverse in parts and design. How do the yeah sayers explain spending a lot of money on speaker cables when all of that signal has to go through the inner works of the speaker before you hear the sound anyway? I am on the fense on this one and would like to see the responses.

Usually they come up with non-measurable parameters that no one can define in an objective way and exclaim how much difference these flights of fantasy make. Things like speed, pace, etc....

-Bruce

FLZapped
01-26-2006, 09:49 AM
While i would agree with that in general, let me ask you a back question. Why should i run cheap cables that carry less information to even worse parts that will loose even more information?

Would define exactly what you mean by lost information?



On my personal external crossover the parts used were very good and very solid with great connections. Kharma, Genesis, Martin Logan, Apogee, Audionote, or my Sphinx Gear use pure silver inside or other high quality parts. So i do think that most high class audio company/products use great parts.

What makes a high quality part, high quality and why? And what defines a "great connection"?

-Bruce

Resident Loser
01-26-2006, 10:09 AM
...define exactly what you mean by lost information?

...no reason to "attack" the poor lad, is there? I mean that's what he told markw I did to him by asking much the same question...

jimHJJ(...or was it simply some variant of "shoot the messenger"?...I don't think he likes me much...get in line...)

Florian
01-26-2006, 10:17 AM
Would define exactly what you mean by lost information?




What makes a high quality part, high quality and why? And what defines a "great connection"?

-Bruce
It is difficult to explain, it has to be experienced. I'll give you an example.
This is the midrange section of my DIVA

http://www.apogeespeakers.info/projectstech/diva_crossover_midrange_schematic.jpg

As you can see it has two switches and the caps are connected on a soldering bar. All cables used are thick heavy gauge silver monster cable that they made form their reference m1000 back in the day. The signal has to travel over two switches, thick coils and many caps. I have rebuidl my crossovers and junked the two switches and cut many shrtcuts which means that the signal has to travel past less parts and has a direct and solid connection.

The results is that the speaker is much more transparent (i had two people put their ear to the membrane and you cant tell its playing) with much improved texture and shimmering of instruments. The layering got much more precise and on you can hear the dead space between instruments much cleaner now.

Ofcourse this is a speaker that cost over 30K 15 years ago and the follow up model is over a 100K so far and defines the state of the art along with a few exeptions like the IRS-V, Gen 1.1, ML Statement, Martin Odeon Organ, Perigee Definitve etc...

How to define a high quality part? Well you can define it by echnical terms, but then again this would be like looser and serve absolutly noone. Get your girldfriend or someone to play a viloin or a instrument in your room and record it. Then play it back on your system, if you cant tell the difference between the recording and the live act your there. For me, i am 92% of the way there and it defines the state of the art. Exchange parts and if one cap takes you closer then it matches better to your system and you found your next path.

Simple :-)

bacchanal
01-26-2006, 04:00 PM
omg...step away from the internet people

put the mouse down and go listen to some tunes

musicoverall
01-26-2006, 04:03 PM
[QUOTE=Resident Loser

Why not ask Florian?

[/QUOTE]

Well, because you broached the subject of accuracy and I don't recall him doing so. How do you determine what is accurate? And what happens when those nasty manufacturers makes something that measures the same as something else but sounds different? Are they accurate in different ways?

Resident Loser
01-27-2006, 06:33 AM
Why not ask Florian?



Well, because you broached the subject of accuracy and I don't recall him doing so. How do you determine what is accurate? And what happens when those nasty manufacturers makes something that measures the same as something else but sounds different? Are they accurate in different ways?

...but if Forian's statement, or rather question, of "...Why should i run cheap cables that carry less information..." doesn't broach the subject of accuracy I can't imagine what does.

I read his words as some cables are inherently inaccurate simply due to their pedigree...this is not opinion it is a further factoid by Flo...

I questioned it...markw questioned it...and FLZ did likewise...others should also.

Do we really need to go into the "catch-22" of accuracy? How most recordings are recorded, mixed and mastered on 2-way speaker systems with conventional drivers...using generic Belden wire over sometimes huge distances(wire-wise)...how they are produced to sound reasonably decent on a panoply of typical home gear...Are there exceptions? Audiophile pressings and the like? Of what percentage of market share do they represent?

Accuracy? What did it sound like as a master? What does it sound like at home? That comparison should be the sole measure of accuracy...not whether it sounds warm...or if the mids bloom...or any other subjective jargonistic audiopile twaddle...straight wire with gain...

jimHJJ(...so like i said, go ask Florian, he's the one who started it...)

FLZapped
01-27-2006, 06:39 AM
As you can see it has two switches and the caps are connected on a soldering bar. All cables used are thick heavy gauge silver monster cable that they made form their reference m1000 back in the day. The signal has to travel over two switches, thick coils and many caps. I have rebuidl my crossovers and junked the two switches and cut many shrtcuts which means that the signal has to travel past less parts and has a direct and solid connection.

Okay, so you made changes, that's fine - but what kind of measurable difference can you point to? Is there a possibility that the engineers who designed the crossover took into account the effect of the switches and you've actually made the design worse?



The results is that the speaker is much more transparent (i had two people put their ear to the membrane and you cant tell its playing) with much improved texture and shimmering of instruments. The layering got much more precise and on you can hear the dead space between instruments much cleaner now.


May I assume this is just your opinion, that you don't have any other data to support your belief that you've somehow made an audible improvement to the design?




How to define a high quality part? Well you can define it by echnical terms, but then again this would be like looser and serve absolutly noone. Get your girldfriend or someone to play a viloin or a instrument in your room and record it. Then play it back on your system, if you cant tell the difference between the recording and the live act your there. For me, i am 92% of the way there and it defines the state of the art. Exchange parts and if one cap takes you closer then it matches better to your system and you found your next path.

Simple :-)

How do you know you are 92% of the way there? How do expect something recorded in one acoustic placement to sound the same in a different acoustic placement, unless that room is completely anechoic???

-Bruce

Resident Loser
01-27-2006, 07:01 AM
It is difficult to explain, it has to be experienced. I'll give you an example.
This is the midrange section of my DIVA...

...in any way supports your definition of "high quality parts"?

Eliminating some switches and a few inches of wire is a friggin' tweak, which you claim enhances your listening experience...how pleasant for you...unfortunately it proves absolutely nothing...zero, nada, zippppp...

And we won't even go into the standard golden-eared mantra of "it's difficult to explain"...the all-purpose, back-to-the-wall cop-out...


Well you can define it by (t)echnical terms, but then again this would be like looser and serve absolutly noone...

My apologies to T T...I had to temporarily take one of his "t"s to add to the above quote...

How about mil-spec or better? A part with a tolerance of +/-1% instead of +/- 10%? Made in a factory with strict quality controls (and I don't mean that Euro-centric ISO cr@p)...Something that could stand up to real-world conditions and have a long service life? Maybe that's a start...yeah, I know..."but is it musical?"...

jimHJJ(...no, it's a bloody resistor...)

Florian
01-27-2006, 08:04 AM
Hey Looser, do it the easy way. Visit me and bring your cheap cables and equipment over and will do a comparison. Will change, absorbtion, vibration control, cables, power cords etc...

Take the challange or stop your nonesene. Its really sad that you cant hear the difference and its even more sad that you have to make pointless arguments on a sound you have never even experienced.

PS: On a side note, most of my recordings and the best recordings in the industry use ribbon microphones, tube microphones and analog playback systems. Many panel speakers and electrostatics are used in recording studios. Many Apogee Stage systems where sold for monitoring, acoustats come from Pro PA systems....

The only typical bull**** 2 way mini monitors are used for the crap commerical recordings that only sound good on systems like your which are unable to retrieve and display all the information in the firts place.

Florian
01-27-2006, 08:08 AM
1. How do you meausre transparency?
2. How do you meausre transiants?
3. How do you measure tonal color?
4. How do you meausre soft or hard sound?
5. How do you measure details?

The fact is there are MANY things that are not measurebale but they still exist.

Can you measure GOD? I thought not, therefore he cant exist. Can you measure love? I thought not, so it doesnt exist. How do you know your systems is designed correctly? You cant so any change you make can have a good or negative effect!

Its idiotic to take only measurements, why dont you guys build a dead chamber (that studios DO NOT USE) and buy a two way mini monitor which is not used by all recordings and cant play the full musical range in the first place and leave real audiophiles alone.

theaudiohobby
01-27-2006, 08:08 AM
How about mil-spec or better? A part with a tolerance of +/-1% instead of +/- 10%? Made in a factory with strict quality controls (and I don't mean that Euro-centric ISO cr@p)...Something that could stand up to real-world conditions and have a long service life? Maybe that's a start...yeah, I know..."but is it musical?"...

jimHJJ(...no, it's a bloody resistor...)

You have hinted at how quality electronic parts can properly evaluated, tolerance ratings are boldly printed on passive electronic parts such as resistors and capacitors, parts with stricter tolerances limits should be better, tighter tolerances for the circuit etc.., though like true end-user consumers, many audiophiles simply buy their parts by brand name, witness Florian, scarely ever discussing such trivialities ;) such as tolerances :) , For many of them if it is much more expensive then it has to be better ;) .

TAH(...just my thoughts...)

Resident Loser
01-27-2006, 08:09 AM
....FLZ touched on a most salient point re: Florian's tweak cum proof...

When these things(amps, speakers) are designed, there is an end in sight...Take a look in either unit a see what sort of wire is or isn't inside...Chances are that the wires from the amp's output section to the BPs aren't anywhere near the gauge used to then feed that output to your speaks. Do you think that may have been taken into account by the designer? Likewise with the loudspeakers...perhaps taking out the already-compensated-for parts isn't quite what the designer planned...perhaps parts with a lower tolerance were figured into the equation allowing for a wider interface latitude. Again, personal preference vs. the designers view of accuracy.

If known testable measurement parameters are produced at an amp's output, the goal of any wire is to have those same results reproduced at the speaker end...no additions or subtractions, not warm, not cold...dead neutral...it's a simple transfer function, a numbers game... X amount in for X amount out...anything else and your fi ain't hi...you may like it better, but that's personal preference.

Then of course we have the "what if" the numbers are the same but the wires sound different...well, that's where the verboten acronym comes into play...

jimHJJ(...but let's not go there...)

Florian
01-27-2006, 08:10 AM
For many of them if it is much more expensive then it has to be better
Considering that comment shows that you dont know anything about me, or my systems or the prices. For people like you its that all equipment you cant afford is nonesense.

ruadmaa
01-27-2006, 08:41 AM
1. How do you meausre transparency?
2. How do you meausre transiants?
3. How do you measure tonal color?
4. How do you meausre soft or hard sound?
5. How do you measure details?

The fact is there are MANY things that are not measurebale but they still exist.

Can you measure GOD? I thought not, therefore he cant exist. Can you measure love? I thought not, so it doesnt exist. How do you know your systems is designed correctly? You cant so any change you make can have a good or negative effect!

Its idiotic to take only measurements, why dont you guys build a dead chamber (that studios DO NOT USE) and buy a two way mini monitor which is not used by all recordings and cant play the full musical range in the first place and leave real audiophiles alone.

Florian, anything electrical can be measured and measured quite exactly. All of your audio equipment is electrical and therefore it can be measured quite exactly. It can be measured far beyond the capabilities of your hearing and then some. Resident loser’s points are all valid, yours are not.

theaudiohobby
01-27-2006, 08:42 AM
Considering that comment shows that you dont know anything about me, or my systems or the prices. For people like you its that all equipment you cant afford is nonesense.

Well I do know about you, through your posts. As for your last statement it is simply idiotic and be warned if you go down route that you took in the Preamp/Amp thread, I am well and able to cuss you as much as I like.

Resident Loser
01-27-2006, 09:00 AM
...jumping butterballs...did you read the AEH?...the Audiopile Excuses Handbook...

What a crock...we had a regular poster here some time ago that was into the same ol' same ol' as you...sandwiched plinths to support his gear...fine, hand crafted bubingawood AC outlets filled with proprietary "stardust"...special order, limited run tubes for his amp...oh, yeah the amp...a near-custom 8Watt SET job...wanted the builder to incorporate some "special" parts and wiring in lieu of the normally provided stuff...after some negotiations, the reluctant builder agreed to do so...

The customer sent off the parts with specific instructions re: the "directional" lengths of single-crystal, 99.999% pure oxygen-free, transported-in-pima-cotton-cloth-lined-palm-frond-baskets-by-Peruvian-virgins-copper wiring that were to be used for certain aspects of the circuit wiring.

The amp was delivered...the poster was satisfied... until...da-dum(insert Bach's "Toccata and Fugue" here) curiosity got the better of him.
Upon opening up the amp he found to his utter dismay, amazement and consternation, the directional wire was going in the wrong direction...well...things were not all skittles and beer to say the least.

Without going into the contractual obligation the builder had to follow the customer's requirements, end of story is: builder refused to effect "repairs" saying it made no difference...customer goes to someone else to have the wiring reversed, paying for the privilege and to the best of my knowledge still hasn't a clue as to whether or not it did make any difference...but the wiring is reversed and he's is happy.

There was also a fellow who claimed to hear the effects the color of the wires insulation had on it's sound...some of you know of whom I speak.

jimHJJ(...all in all, a very entertaining place this can be...)

musicoverall
01-27-2006, 09:19 AM
[QUOTE=Resident Loser
Do we really need to go into the "catch-22" of accuracy? How most recordings are recorded, mixed and mastered on 2-way speaker systems with conventional drivers...using generic Belden wire over sometimes huge distances(wire-wise)...how they are produced to sound reasonably decent on a panoply of typical home gear...Are there exceptions? Audiophile pressings and the like? Of what percentage of market share do they represent?

Accuracy? What did it sound like as a master? What does it sound like at home? That comparison should be the sole measure of accuracy...not whether it sounds warm...or if the mids bloom...or any other subjective jargonistic audiopile twaddle...straight wire with gain...

jimHJJ(...so like i said, go ask Florian, he's the one who started it...)[/QUOTE]

No, we don't need to get into the accuracy thing. It's a waste of time, which was my point. We can measure the accuracy of the recording by measuring it against the master tape, if we are lucky enough to have that opportunity. Otherwise, we won't know if the recording sounds warm with bloomed mids (have to admit I'm not sure what bloomed mids sound like) or if it's our system. Chasing accuracy is like chasing lottery winnings... if we hit it, it's more due to luck than anything. Unlike the lottery, we're likely never to know if we've achieved accuracy.

musicoverall
01-27-2006, 09:24 AM
Florian, anything electrical can be measured and measured quite exactly. All of your audio equipment is electrical and therefore it can be measured quite exactly. It can be measured far beyond the capabilities of your hearing and then some. Resident loser’s points are all valid, yours are not.

Can you point me to a reference work - or several, if need be - that can tell me how transient attack and decay, detail, soundstaging width/height/depth and imaging are measured as they come from electrical components? Much appreciated.

Resident Loser
01-27-2006, 09:54 AM
We can measure the accuracy of the recording by measuring it against the master tape, if we are lucky enough to have that opportunity

...some of us have...some have even had the opportunity to compare and evaluate the performance itself to the end product and then experience playback on some of the same equipment used in producing it. Of course, it's all anecdotal...story vs. story...I can say however, it doesn't require a fortune or an endless quest to reach an exceptional level of similarity on nearly any decent rig.

jimHJJ(...it's a lot easier than some would have us believe...)

ruadmaa
01-27-2006, 10:44 AM
Can you point me to a reference work - or several, if need be - that can tell me how transient attack and decay, detail, soundstaging width/height/depth and imaging are measured as they come from electrical components? Much appreciated.

If you can hear it, it can be measured, period. Nothing etherial about it. I'm sure there are many recording engineers that can give you all the measurements you require. I am not about to search the universe for your answers. Do your own homework.

Resident Loser
01-27-2006, 11:17 AM
Can you point me to a reference work - or several, if need be - that can tell me how transient attack and decay, detail, soundstaging width/height/depth and imaging are measured as they come from electrical components? Much appreciated.

...at least in simple layman's terms, I believe most of it pertains to psychoacoustics...however, a signal's attack and decay should be easily seen on an Oscope or RTA, but that's not really what you want...If all or any of these parameters exist in the source material any decent set-up should be able to reproduce them...Whether or not you like the depth or width or the snap or the whatever is more a product of the amplifiers abilities to respond to what is presented by that source material and the loudspeaker's (along with the environment they're in) ability to translate it into a viable, realistic presentation...wires is wires...if they(the wires) somehow truncate or otherwise affect the frequency response or create delay lines altering those perceptions, something would seem to be amiss.

You would be better of speaking to jneutron when it comes to that sort of thing...he's a numbers kinda' guy.

jimHJJ(...at least that's by best guess...)

musicoverall
01-27-2006, 02:55 PM
If you can hear it, it can be measured, period. Nothing etherial about it. I'm sure there are many recording engineers that can give you all the measurements you require. I am not about to search the universe for your answers. Do your own homework.

I don't really require any answers, I was just curious if you knew them since you took the time to tell Florian his comments were without merit. Your answer doesn't disappoint because it's essentially the same one I read whenever measurement freaks are asked to put their beloved measurements into some useful context with respect to the actual listening experience.

musicoverall
01-27-2006, 03:04 PM
...at least in simple layman's terms, I believe most of it pertains to psychoacoustics...however, a signal's attack and decay should be easily seen on an Oscope or RTA, but that's not really what you want...If all or any of these parameters exist in the source material any decent set-up should be able to reproduce them...Whether or not you like the depth or width or the snap or the whatever is more a product of the amplifiers abilities to respond to what is presented by that source material and the loudspeaker's (along with the environment they're in) ability to translate it into a viable, realistic presentation...wires is wires...if they(the wires) somehow truncate or otherwise affect the frequency response or create delay lines altering those perceptions, something would seem to be amiss.

You would be better of speaking to jneutron when it comes to that sort of thing...he's a numbers kinda' guy.

jimHJJ(...at least that's by best guess...)

Your post makes perfect sense to me on a theoretical level but doesn't seem to hold up on an experiential level. I've found that particularly soundstaging and imaging to be very "wire specific", not to mention specific to different electronics, etc. Maybe it's (with respect to wire) that the common zip cord is altering the sound in a non-"accurate" way, in which case something would indeed be as amiss as it sounds in my listening room. Ok, markw, if you're reading this, it isn't THAT far amiss! :)

I could ask jneutron - good advice - but I don't know if he could answer. Of course I was baiting Ruadmaa and he responded in kind. My point was that I don't think these things ARE being measured... but I do think they CAN be. In fact, I believe as Ruadmaa does - that everything can be measured. I just don't think we know how.

Or maybe it IS all about psycho-acoustics....

jtgofish
01-27-2006, 05:42 PM
Resident Loser,I have to agree -most cables are just tone adjusters but many also lack coherence and timing-most multi stands for instance just sound wrong once you have heard even quite cheap solid core-and this must be to do with electron transfer differences between the two types.Of course to really hear this the internal wiring of your speakers should also be solid core and most aren't.Multi strand is used because it is less prone to break and easier to teminate-but it sounds like crap.

Bernd
01-28-2006, 01:40 AM
If you can hear it, it can be measured, period. Nothing etherial about it. I'm sure there are many recording engineers that can give you all the measurements you require. I am not about to search the universe for your answers. Do your own homework.

I agree completely-If you can hear it you can measure it. Great. Now for the crux. How do you measure what you feel? Love,Faith and Emotion.
Not everything can be measured.

Peace

Bernd

ruadmaa
01-28-2006, 02:41 AM
I agree completely-If you can hear it you can measure it. Great. Now for the crux. How do you measure what you feel? Love,Faith and Emotion.
Not everything can be measured.

Peace

Bernd

What in the world does your post have to do with Audio??? No, not everything can be measured, but audio certainly can.

Bernd
01-28-2006, 03:34 AM
What in the world does your post have to do with Audio??? No, not everything can be measured, but audio certainly can.

There is no response to this.You trust your measurements I and many others will trust our ears.

Have fun

Bernd

bacchanal
01-28-2006, 10:11 AM
Trusting your ears can work on a personal level, certainly for picking out gear, but it doesn't really prove anything one way or another. At the very least, it certainly begs questions about auditory memory and perception. Not a whole lot is known about musical auditory memory. For how long and how accurately can pitches and tones be remembered? I don't believe there is a conclusive answer to this question, but there is evidence to suggest that musical information is processed differently for left and right handers, males and females, musicians and non-musicians.

Trust your ears, sure, but don't trust someone else's.

FLZapped
01-28-2006, 05:10 PM
Trusting your ears can work on a personal level, certainly for picking out gear, but it doesn't really prove anything one way or another. At the very least, it certainly begs questions about auditory memory and perception. Not a whole lot is known about musical auditory memory. For how long and how accurately can pitches and tones be remembered? I don't believe there is a conclusive answer to this question, but there is evidence to suggest that musical information is processed differently for left and right handers, males and females, musicians and non-musicians.

Trust your ears, sure, but don't trust someone else's.

Actually, a lot is known about auditory memory and it is very, very short. The problem has never been with the ear, it's all in the brain and how you percieve what you're hearing.

-Bruce

FLZapped
01-28-2006, 05:14 PM
1. How do you meausre transparency?
2. How do you meausre transiants?
3. How do you measure tonal color?
4. How do you meausre soft or hard sound?
5. How do you measure details?


Transparency? hmmm...a couple ways, how about intermodulation distortion for one.
Transients are easy too, there are several ways of doing this, including broadband waterfall plots.
Tonal color/hard sound could both be frequency respaonse, although a hard sound might be due to high order harmonic distortion.
Details. With the devil, of course.

-Bruce

Bernd
01-29-2006, 01:57 AM
Trusting your ears can work on a personal level, certainly for picking out gear, but it doesn't really prove anything one way or another. At the very least, it certainly begs questions about auditory memory and perception. Not a whole lot is known about musical auditory memory. For how long and how accurately can pitches and tones be remembered? I don't believe there is a conclusive answer to this question, but there is evidence to suggest that musical information is processed differently for left and right handers, males and females, musicians and non-musicians.

Trust your ears, sure, but don't trust someone else's.

Well put. What I was talking about is when you get goosebumps and the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. You can not measure for that. Most of the time tube gear measures not very well, but sounds to my ears superior to SS or Digital. As does Vinyl to CD. And yes you can get that from resonable priced gear and you can miss it completely with expensive stuff. When something gels it gets you that feeling and you want more of it.
I don't care about measurements and graphs at all. All my system has been bought purely through auditioning and by listening. Much to often equipment is sold (and bought by gullable punters) through marketing and the latest 5 star award. I have never cared what somebody else hears. What matters to me is what I hear and feel. Also I can only ever talk about something I have experienced. Much too often I read posts where it is blatantly obvious that the contributer has no personal knowledge at all. Just because it is displayed here does not make it gospel. As you said-"Trust your ears,but not someone else's".

Bernd

Curmudgeon
01-29-2006, 06:21 PM
Going back to the original post, if a speaker system is poorly designed or built, no, I wouldn't expect expensive speaker cables to be of much benefit. Nor would I expect the drivers to be that good either.

I know for a fact that some expensive, highly regarded speakers do indeed care a great deal about the internal wiring and crossover component quality.

One of the many sweeping assertions made above is that DIYers have tried heavy wire coils and different capacitors and found no difference. I'm sure some have, but the implication that this holds for all DIYers is simply not so. As a DIYer I've recently found that some capacitors are preferable to others, as are some coils. And some wire. The last time I looked into this, about 12-15 years ago, using drivers that were very good at the time, and fair associated equipment, concrete resistors, Solen capacitors and just plain coils sounded fine; the Solens sounded better than mylars,, but that was about it. Recently, with very good associated equipment and excellent drivers, the Solens and the concrete resistors simply don't cut it.

Genes differ, training/experience differs, associated equipment differs, source quality differs. This all reminds me of the great Doppler Distortion Debates. Undeniably it existed, but it was proven time and again that the effect was too small to hear. It was not taken into account that Paul Klipsch had worked on developing early (very early) tape equipment, and had learned to hear flutter, and thus could hear doppler distortion which almost all could not, or at least not explicitly.

It's kind of sad that the same inflexibility, sweeping generalizations based on inadequate foundations, and rudeness keep appearing over and over again. Just as they did in the pentode vs. triode wars, the solid state vs. tube wars, and the cd vs. vinyl wars. In each of those cases, most of the rigidity softened, as causes for the discrepancies were slowly and painfully sorted out. Nowadays capacitors are well along in the transition, with more measured distortion and discovery of construction issues continuing the Jung/Marsh investigations. In the cases where there were strong, widespread, continuing assertions about sound quality, eventually the science caught up to the art. In those cases, the subjectivists have an excellent track record in eventually being shown to have a case.

FLZapped
01-30-2006, 03:32 AM
Solen capacitors and just plain coils sounded fine; the Solens sounded better than mylars,, but that was about it.


Uhm, a mylar capacitor is a type of capacitor, Solen is a manufacturer, so what are you trying to compare???


-Bruce

FLZapped
01-30-2006, 03:36 AM
Well put. What I was talking about is when you get goosebumps and the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. You can not measure for that.


Wonderful, but how much of that is due to the gear, how much is due to the acoutsic environment, and how much is due to the source materal? They all contribute to various extents.



I don't care about measurements and graphs at all. All my system has been bought purely through auditioning and by listening. Much to often equipment is sold (and bought by gullable punters) through marketing and the latest 5 star award. I have never cared what somebody else hears. What matters to me is what I hear and feel. Also I can only ever talk about something I have experienced. Much too often I read posts where it is blatantly obvious that the contributer has no personal knowledge at all. Just because it is displayed here does not make it gospel. As you said-"Trust your ears,but not someone else's".

Bernd

Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself? While you have assembled your own system based on your own experiences, you are also agreeing that you cannot have someone else "listen" for you and that you don't care what someone else hears. So what difference does it make if someone has "experience" or not?

The other problem is, many plop out thier listening "experience" as though it is fact and that won't hold water anywhere, when you need an objective point of view. So you're left with measurements (Which are a repeatable and reliable source) as a grounds for beginning your search. Of course, when it comes to cables, you'll virtually never find that.

BTW - Don't you find it interesting, that tube amps measure poorly yet "sound" good make a statement about the psychology of hearing vs the pursuit of some mythically superior equipment?

-Bruce

Resident Loser
01-30-2006, 10:47 AM
I've found that particularly soundstaging and imaging to be very "wire specific"...

...somewhere in the deep, dark, past...I recall an album (that's what we used to call them) which may have been Dave Mason's "Alone Together"...notable mostly for it's packaging and the marbled, multi-hued vinyl it was pressed on...not that the content was shabby mind you. I say may have, because thirty-six years is long ago and far away, and much was listened to through a smokey haze, but be that as it may, there was one track on the album that, according to the liner notes, was not compatable with monophonic playback. It certainly wasn't, smoke notwithstanding.

The inclusion of out-of-phase information on this track, expanded the apparent sounstage dramatically, extending it well beyond the loudspeaker's normal dispersion pattern. In mono, lotsa' stuff was cancelled out so it didn't sound too good at all.

Do some aftermarket wires futz with phase relationships? Given the fact that plain ol' vanilla wiring is older than the hobby, I'm comfortable with the contention that wire is wire and anything that skews the final product in some manner, while pleasing to the individual taste of the listener, isn't the highest of fi.

Another thing to consider is bandwidth...high-order harmonics may or may not play a part in the perception of air and space and...???

After playing around with some small 2-way loudspeakers, I have found enclosure positioning AND little bits of strategically-placed felt and other sound absorbing materials to provide what I consider dramatic changes, not only to the apparent bass output, but also into what is termed depth and soundstage. Using smaller systems as nearfield radiators simplifies things to a great degree, as the smaller environment tends to eliminate certain room-sized/distance problems from the equation.

One thing I have difficulty accepting, is that by most accounts some seemingly unrelated sonic changes can ocurr as though the upscale wiring seems to have the uncanny ability to pick and choose the parts of the frequency spectrum (which I percieve as a root of most the hubbub) it will affect.

Given ( what I see as fact) that wire is passive, the only thing it can do to make bass richer and/or overall sound warmer, is to start rolling-off the higher frequencies, usually in a rather logical, progressive fashion...which flies in the face of comments re: soundstage and depth, two qualities which seem to diminish to a degree (at least in my experience) when either electronic OR mechanical means are used to control them.

If there is something to measure, neither side seems to be champing at the bit to do so...one could care less and considers it all so much folly and the other side has a vested interest and may consider it suicidal.

Again, whatever information we need to provide any "environmentals" or "details" simply must be in the source material...nothing, not the most expensive or esoteric cart/tone-arm, CD transport or DAC, amplification chain, wiring or loudspeaker system will provide these qualities. If they do, they are an artifice...a distortion, far from the ideal of straight wire with gain.

jimHJJ(...and that's my story and I'm stickin' to it...)

musicoverall
01-30-2006, 01:19 PM
...somewhere in the deep, dark, past...I recall an album (that's what we used to call them) which may have been Dave Mason's "Alone Together"...notable mostly for it's packaging and the marbled, multi-hued vinyl it was pressed on...not that the content was shabby mind you. I say may have, because thirty-six years is long ago and far away, and much was listened to through a smokey haze, but be that as it may, there was one track on the album that, according to the liner notes, was not compatable with monophonic playback. It certainly wasn't, smoke notwithstanding.

The inclusion of out-of-phase information on this track, expanded the apparent sounstage dramatically, extending it well beyond the loudspeaker's normal dispersion pattern. In mono, lotsa' stuff was cancelled out so it didn't sound too good at all.

Do some aftermarket wires futz with phase relationships? Given the fact that plain ol' vanilla wiring is older than the hobby, I'm comfortable with the contention that wire is wire and anything that skews the final product in some manner, while pleasing to the individual taste of the listener, isn't the highest of fi.

Another thing to consider is bandwidth...high-order harmonics may or may not play a part in the perception of air and space and...???

After playing around with some small 2-way loudspeakers, I have found enclosure positioning AND little bits of strategically-placed felt and other sound absorbing materials to provide what I consider dramatic changes, not only to the apparent bass output, but also into what is termed depth and soundstage. Using smaller systems as nearfield radiators simplifies things to a great degree, as the smaller environment tends to eliminate certain room-sized/distance problems from the equation.

One thing I have difficulty accepting, is that by most accounts some seemingly unrelated sonic changes can ocurr as though the upscale wiring seems to have the uncanny ability to pick and choose the parts of the frequency spectrum (which I percieve as a root of most the hubbub) it will affect.

Given ( what I see as fact) that wire is passive, the only thing it can do to make bass richer and/or overall sound warmer, is to start rolling-off the higher frequencies, usually in a rather logical, progressive fashion...which flies in the face of comments re: soundstage and depth, two qualities which seem to diminish to a degree (at least in my experience) when either electronic OR mechanical means are used to control them.

If there is something to measure, neither side seems to be champing at the bit to do so...one could care less and considers it all so much folly and the other side has a vested interest and may consider it suicidal.

Again, whatever information we need to provide any "environmentals" or "details" simply must be in the source material...nothing, not the most expensive or esoteric cart/tone-arm, CD transport or DAC, amplification chain, wiring or loudspeaker system will provide these qualities. If they do, they are an artifice...a distortion, far from the ideal of straight wire with gain.

jimHJJ(...and that's my story and I'm stickin' to it...)

...and your post was very much so, hence I'm quoting it in its entirety.

All I can say is that my POV is that high definition cables simply pass more information from the recording. It's certainly already there but zip cord "futzes" with it and doesn't let it all pass. But I'm perfectly willing to accept your contention as a possibility. So far all I know is that different wires (and electronics, etc) sound different. I also know that the components I've chosen not only do a better job of recreating my idea of the live experience, they also make excellent recordings sound better and poor recordings sound worse... which would at least hint at high fidelity. While I can still enjoy music through a much more modest system, it isn't ideal.

But because of the hullabaloo among the science types, yours may be the more rational approach. As you say, it likely won't be proven either way any time soon, although jneutron has hinted that he may be looking into this at some point.

ruadmaa
01-30-2006, 03:10 PM
...and your post was very much so, hence I'm quoting it in its entirety.

All I can say is that my POV is that high definition cables simply pass more information from the recording. It's certainly already there but zip cord "futzes" with it and doesn't let it all pass. But I'm perfectly willing to accept your contention as a possibility. So far all I know is that different wires (and electronics, etc) sound different. I also know that the components I've chosen not only do a better job of recreating my idea of the live experience, they also make excellent recordings sound better and poor recordings sound worse... which would at least hint at high fidelity. While I can still enjoy music through a much more modest system, it isn't ideal.

But because of the hullabaloo among the science types, yours may be the more rational approach. As you say, it likely won't be proven either way any time soon, although jneutron has hinted that he may be looking into this at some point.

"It's certainly already there but zip cord "futzes" with it and doesn't let it all pass"

Exactly what frequencies doesn't zip cord let pass??? I am certainly interested to hear your answer on this one.

Esoteric cables would, if anything, act as a tone control restricting higher frequencies rather than pass more information.

musicoverall
01-31-2006, 05:55 AM
"It's certainly already there but zip cord "futzes" with it and doesn't let it all pass"

Exactly what frequencies doesn't zip cord let pass??? I am certainly interested to hear your answer on this one.

Esoteric cables would, if anything, act as a tone control restricting higher frequencies rather than pass more information.

First of all, I didn't say anything about "frequencies" - I said "information"... in the case of my cables vs zip cord, the latter doesn't pass all the soundstaging or imaging information.

My cables also do not restrict HF, nor did I notice zip cord doing so. In fact, I did not hear any FR anomalies with either cable during my listening tests. I made no claims about FR, either here recently or during my listening tests. If soundstaging and imaging are about FR, then I stand corrected but I'm afraid I don't know what frequencies are affected with zipcord. At this point, it's doubtful anyone does. That's the basis of my contention that we aren't measuring all we could be with cables. LCR parameters as they stand obviously aren't sufficient.

Florian
01-31-2006, 06:36 AM
Wow, you guys are still talking? I went to three concerts in the meantime, build a new wall in my listening room and compared two speaker cables which measure the same but soud different.Well at least you guys are dedicated to something.!

FLZapped
01-31-2006, 07:01 AM
Wow, you guys are still talking? I went to three concerts in the meantime, build a new wall in my listening room and compared two speaker cables which measure the same but soud different.Well at least you guys are dedicated to something.!


Well, that is certainly nice, however, I believe there are a few questions that are begging an answer from you.

-Bruce

FLZapped
01-31-2006, 07:07 AM
First of all, I didn't say anything about "frequencies" - I said "information"... in the case of my cables vs zip cord, the latter doesn't pass all the soundstaging or imaging information.

My cables also do not restrict HF, nor did I notice zip cord doing so. In fact, I did not hear any FR anomalies with either cable during my listening tests. I made no claims about FR, either here recently or during my listening tests. If soundstaging and imaging are about FR, then I stand corrected but I'm afraid I don't know what frequencies are affected with zipcord. At this point, it's doubtful anyone does. That's the basis of my contention that we aren't measuring all we could be with cables. LCR parameters as they stand obviously aren't sufficient.

Okay, if there is no "restriction" of frequencies, either wholesale, or selectively(which is impossible without added circuitry) please explain how they could possible exclude any information. When you sweep a cable to check frequency response and find it flat out to whatever, it HAS to pass all information within that passband.

There are 2 parameters that have the largest effect in speaker cables, series resistance and series inductance. Series resistance has equal effect over frequency. Series inductance will cause the cable to behave like a low-pass filter. In addition, it will introduce small phase shifts, or group delays into the signal, HOWEVER, they are tiny compared with the amount speakers exhibit in this regard. Unless you have a very high inductance cable, you are not going to be able to hear the minute differences between cables that are similar and by the time you work your way down to the frequencies we are most sensitive to in terms of spatial location, cables exhibit almost no influence in this regard.

-Bruce

ruadmaa
01-31-2006, 07:13 AM
First of all, I didn't say anything about "frequencies" - I said "information"... in the case of my cables vs zip cord, the latter doesn't pass all the soundstaging or imaging information.

My cables also do not restrict HF, nor did I notice zip cord doing so. In fact, I did not hear any FR anomalies with either cable during my listening tests. I made no claims about FR, either here recently or during my listening tests. If soundstaging and imaging are about FR, then I stand corrected but I'm afraid I don't know what frequencies are affected with zipcord. At this point, it's doubtful anyone does. That's the basis of my contention that we aren't measuring all we could be with cables. LCR parameters as they stand obviously aren't sufficient.

in the case of my cables vs zip cord, the latter doesn't pass all the soundstaging or imaging information.

Information passed by ANY cable is simply electrical. Zip cord will pass any and all information that your receiver/amplifier is capable of producing. I suggest Mr. Musicoverall that you are into “Psychoaccoustics”. You statements have no basis in fact whatsoever.

Florian
01-31-2006, 07:37 AM
Well, that is certainly nice, however, I believe there are a few questions that are begging an answer from you.

-Bruce
Oh i will solve that easily, i invite all doubters to my home for some good homebrew bavarian beer and a listening session to a true state of the art transducer. Bring along Zip chords, fat cables, thin cables, capacitors and DACS. All is fine with me, my system will show any and all differences even if the DAC is on stone or wood.

-Flo

musicoverall
01-31-2006, 07:41 AM
in the case of my cables vs zip cord, the latter doesn't pass all the soundstaging or imaging information.

Information passed by ANY cable is simply electrical. Zip cord will pass any and all information that your receiver/amplifier is capable of producing. I suggest Mr. Musicoverall that you are into “Psychoaccoustics”. You statements have no basis in fact whatsoever.

But the "basis in fact" is listening, both sighted and blind. Zip cord was compared to Cardas Neutral Reference and found lacking. Whether or not it was the Cardas that added information not included on the recording is the question. However, it is extremely low in LCR parameters so it appears the measurements have failed.

musicoverall
01-31-2006, 07:47 AM
Okay, if there is no "restriction" of frequencies, either wholesale, or selectively(which is impossible without added circuitry) please explain how they could possible exclude any information. When you sweep a cable to check frequency response and find it flat out to whatever, it HAS to pass all information within that passband.

There are 2 parameters that have the largest effect in speaker cables, series resistance and series inductance. Series resistance has equal effect over frequency. Series inductance will cause the cable to behave like a low-pass filter. In addition, it will introduce small phase shifts, or group delays into the signal, HOWEVER, they are tiny compared with the amount speakers exhibit in this regard. Unless you have a very high inductance cable, you are not going to be able to hear the minute differences between cables that are similar and by the time you work your way down to the frequencies we are most sensitive to in terms of spatial location, cables exhibit almost no influence in this regard.

-Bruce

...if you're looking for a scientific explanation. My explanation is that the music did not sound as focused, did not image properly and had a collapsed soundstage with the zipcord. In other words, information was missing. The scientists will have to give you the numbers behind it. I'm only qualified to listen.

musicoverall
01-31-2006, 07:50 AM
Oh i will solve that easily, i invite all doubters to my home for some good homebrew bavarian beer and a listening session to a true state of the art transducer. Bring along Zip chords, fat cables, thin cables, capacitors and DACS. All is fine with me, my system will show any and all differences even if the DAC is on stone or wood.

-Flo

Um... are non-doubters allowed? Tell you what - the stone vs wood thing is a new one on me so maybe I still qualify! :)

Florian
01-31-2006, 07:59 AM
Um... are non-doubters allowed? Tell you what - the stone vs wood thing is a new one on me so maybe I still qualify! :)
Hey sure, non-doubters are even more welcome and get the good beer since they actually listen instead of reading stupid magazines :)

Resident Loser
01-31-2006, 08:48 AM
...they actually listen instead of reading stupid magazines :)

...on this logic...unless we have read a scientific explanation for lightning, we are doomed to shudder in our respective caves watching what we believe to be the wrath of God...

jimHJJ(...I believe...I believe...I believe...)

jneutron
01-31-2006, 09:25 AM
I could ask jneutron - good advice - but I don't know if he could answer.
Or maybe it IS all about psycho-acoustics....Oh well, lurk time is over..you guys are killin me. Yes, I can answer.

Localization: The ability to determine the direction and the distance to an object creating a sound. In an anechoic environment (which is what I will limit this initial discussion to), this is determined entirely by two things. ITD, or the delay in arrival time from one ear to the other..and 2, IID, the difference in intensity between the right and left ear.

ITD is determined entirely by the time of flight to each ear. IID is determined by the way the energy is expanding...a point source expands on a sphere, a line source expands on a cylinder, a planar source has no IID in the near field.

This discussion disregards the confounding influence of the sideband images presented by a speaker pair..this are the point source images you would "see" if only one speaker at a time were energized, these images are ignored by the brain (fooled is a better word).

For a point source 120 inches in front of the listener and 20 inches to one side, the ITD is about 75 uSec, and the IID is about .08 dBspl. 75 uSec is trivial to measure, .08dB is not. .08 dB difference is also very difficult for humans to discern, this leads to an uncertainty area in two-d space. This uncertainty in IID sensitivity combined with the ITD sensitivity lead to a zone in two-d space where humans will have a gaussian distribution of placement error.

Note the previous also requires the head be in a vice, to discern absolute placement.. I consider the use of simple localization parametrics to be foolhardy....I also note that the frontrunners in high end audio DO NOT UNDERSTAND this simplistic level of localization theory.

The REAL issue for speaker wire and it's affect on image is not simple localization, but rather, DIFFERENTIAL localization...one step in complexity beyond the simple level they do not understand..

Differential localization is our ability to distinguish TWO point sources in space RELATIVE to each other..

This is where the meat is..this is how we image the FOCUS of the image.

Same location, but now add a second one, 10 inches farther off axis. Note that this no longer requires the head in a vice, one restriction that has erroneously applied to differential localization.

ITD from 20 inches off axis to 30: at 20 inches moving towards 30, ITD changes 1 uSec per quarter inch, or 4 uSec per inch. If one source signal has a flutter variation of 4 uSec total, the image will appear to be 1 inch wide vs the point source. At 30 inches, the ITD is 100 uSec, or a difference of 25 uSec. In other words, a 25 uSec variance will cause a 10 inch side blurring of the image. The IID changes .0008 dB per inch at that point, a total difference of about .04dB to produce 10 inches of blur..

I have kept this very simple, and describe the blurring only along one axis..in reality, it is a two dimensional blur zone, but nobody is ready for that complexity. But I note that in depth, a 20 inch shift of source produces approximately 10 to 15 uSec of ITD.

There are several confounding factors which play into the measurement of human sensitivity here..

1. Humans have a frequency and amplitude based sensitivity to both differential ITD and IID. This means that if one channel of a program is delayed or level shifted, the various spectral components of an image WILL NOT TRACK.. This can be heard easily by listening to the output of a cheap DAC which multiplexes the output, this delays one channel with respect to the other, and using level shifting to center the image messes the image up.

2. Driver displacement can be a significant error source, as the speed of sound is about 13k inches per second, low level ITD's on an ear to ear basis will depend on the bass content of the channels, if the differ, ITD will be bolluxed.

3. We never listen with a septum in place, so there is extra image information presented to the incorrect ears, this the brain must ignore for correct imaging.

This analysis is presented using IDEAL reception and discrimination of imaging. As such, ideally, the system parameters required to confine an image to about a 1 foot side blurring is:

ITD variations below 25 uSec, IID variations below .04 dB. (Note that both of these parameters are not static system numbers, but dynamic ones. In other words, the capability to measure both does not exist..) As an example, can anyone measure the complex damping factor of an amp in 4 quadrant operation?

Depth blurring is considerably worse, I'll leave that alone for now.

Work to achieve system capabilities to these numbers assumes we can differentially localize to 10 inches when a source is 10 feet away, and assumes frequency invariance..

Both of these confounding entities will degrade our actual abilities, and must be measured in a controlled scientific fashion..

Unfortunately, it first requires the researchers understand what I have just explained, and sadly, that is not yet the case. (to the best of my knowledge)

There is a very steep learning curve here, and if they start now, it'll take at least two years to get where they need to be in order to start developing the equipment and techniques to actually measure what is needed.

I apologize for dumbing this explanation down..but this is not the lab forum, but a cable one..

Cheers, John

ps..be careful what you wish for..;)

pps..I am amazed at the rudimentary analysis Heil presented..wow, but an interesting read.

musicoverall
01-31-2006, 09:39 AM
Oh well, lurk time is over..you guys are killin me. Yes, I can answer.

Localization: The ability to determine the direction and the distance to an object creating a sound. In an anechoic environment (which is what I will limit this initial discussion to), this is determined entirely by two things. ITD, or the delay in arrival time from one ear to the other..and 2, IID, the difference in intensity between the right and left ear.

ITD is determined entirely by the time of flight to each ear. IID is determined by the way the energy is expanding...a point source expands on a sphere, a line source expands on a cylinder, a planar source has no IID in the near field.

This discussion disregards the confounding influence of the sideband images presented by a speaker pair..this are the point source images you would "see" if only one speaker at a time were energized, these images are ignored by the brain (fooled is a better word).

For a point source 120 inches in front of the listener and 20 inches to one side, the ITD is about 75 uSec, and the IID is about .08 dBspl. 75 uSec is trivial to measure, .08dB is not. .08 dB difference is also very difficult for humans to discern, this leads to an uncertainty area in two-d space. This uncertainty in IID sensitivity combined with the ITD sensitivity lead to a zone in two-d space where humans will have a gaussian distribution of placement error.

Note the previous also requires the head be in a vice, to discern absolute placement.. I consider the use of simple localization parametrics to be foolhardy....I also note that the frontrunners in high end audio DO NOT UNDERSTAND this simplistic level of localization theory.

The REAL issue for speaker wire and it's affect on image is not simple localization, but rather, DIFFERENTIAL localization...one step in complexity beyond the simple level they do not understand..

Differential localization is our ability to distinguish TWO point sources in space RELATIVE to each other..

This is where the meat is..this is how we image the FOCUS of the image.

Same location, but now add a second one, 10 inches farther off axis. Note that this no longer requires the head in a vice, one restriction that has erroneously applied to differential localization.

ITD from 20 inches off axis to 30: at 20 inches moving towards 30, ITD changes 1 uSec per quarter inch, or 4 uSec per inch. If one source signal has a flutter variation of 4 uSec total, the image will appear to be 1 inch wide vs the point source. At 30 inches, the ITD is 100 uSec, or a difference of 25 uSec. In other words, a 25 uSec variance will cause a 10 inch side blurring of the image. The IID changes .0008 dB per inch at that point, a total difference of about .04dB to produce 10 inches of blur..

I have kept this very simple, and describe the blurring only along one axis..in reality, it is a two dimensional blur zone, but nobody is ready for that complexity. But I note that in depth, a 20 inch shift of source produces approximately 10 to 15 uSec of ITD.

There are several confounding factors which play into the measurement of human sensitivity here..

1. Humans have a frequency and amplitude based sensitivity to both differential ITD and IID. This means that if one channel of a program is delayed or level shifted, the various spectral components of an image WILL NOT TRACK.. This can be heard easily by listening to the output of a cheap DAC which multiplexes the output, this delays one channel with respect to the other, and using level shifting to center the image messes the image up.

2. Driver displacement can be a significant error source, as the speed of sound is about 13k inches per second, low level ITD's on an ear to ear basis will depend on the bass content of the channels, if the differ, ITD will be bolluxed.

3. We never listen with a septum in place, so there is extra image information presented to the incorrect ears, this the brain must ignore for correct imaging.

This analysis is presented using IDEAL reception and discrimination of imaging. As such, ideally, the system parameters required to confine an image to about a 1 foot side blurring is:

ITD variations below 25 uSec, IID variations below .04 dB. (Note that both of these parameters are not static system numbers, but dynamic ones. In other words, the capability to measure both does not exist..) As an example, can anyone measure the complex damping factor of an amp in 4 quadrant operation?

Depth blurring is considerably worse, I'll leave that alone for now.

Work to achieve system capabilities to these numbers assumes we can differentially localize to 10 inches when a source is 10 feet away, and assumes frequency invariance..

Both of these confounding entities will degrade our actual abilities, and must be measured in a controlled scientific fashion..

Unfortunately, it first requires the researchers understand what I have just explained, and sadly, that is not yet the case.

There is a very steep learning curve here, and if they start now, it'll take at least two years to get where they need to be in order to start developing the equipment and techniques to actually measure what is needed.

I apologize for dumbing this explanation down..but this is not the lab forum, but a cable one..

Cheers, John

ps..be careful what you wish for..;)

pps..I am amazed at the rudimentary analysis Heil presented..wow, but an interesting read.

Uh... it don't dumb down no fu'tha, do it? :) Actually, I don't feel too bad if the researchers don't understand it. But I think I know someone who might. Thanks for the info. Meantime, I'll see what our resident scientific whizbangers think about this.

I try to always be careful what I wish for but I am clearly in over my head on this. :) That doesn't mean I can't learn, however. Thanks again.

Florian
01-31-2006, 09:42 AM
Well i get parts of it, but not all. Thanks for sharing tough!
I still stand by my offer tough, anyone on the area?

Resident Loser
01-31-2006, 09:50 AM
...I also know that the components I've chosen not only do a better job of recreating my idea of the live experience, they also make excellent recordings sound better and poor recordings sound worse...

...Pandora's can of worms...'round and 'round she goes...

How do you know re-creating a live experience is the intent?

Unless you listen to strictly audiophile releases...well, even that can be misleading...Just what qualifies a recording as "audiophile"-grade. Is it the performance? Is it timbral balance? Is it imaging? soundstage? depth? Is it half-speed mastering? Direct-to-disc? Limited edition? I've listened to a number of these disks that all claim to be audiophile pressings, simply because one facet of the previously mentioned criteria is exhibited...particularly in the case many DtD, it's surely not performance OR the performers...

I've mentioned this one before...Charlie Byrd on a 45RPM, virgin white vinyl, DtD from Crystal Clear. Old...the review appeared in the late, lamented AUDIO magazine, mucho years ago...Really a nice recording...on a cut or two, the hornist (flugel, I believe) is rock solid just off center, a bit stage-left...sounds so realistic, a true you-are-there moment...unfortunately the drummer's rim-shots(only) splay across the entire soundstage. Now, you might say, well Jim it's your loudspeakers fault, exceptin' one thing...the reviewer also noted this problem and mentioned it...I might add it was a part of the "Auricle" column and the review was primarily on some high-end gear (some Krell stuff if memory serves)...

Take another tack...The Beatles? Three-tracks. Mass-produced, mass-market pop. Certainly no sound stage per se...voices...instruments...left...right...center. ..no attempt whatsoever to replicate much of anything...if you listen closely you can hear pots open up and mics go live, you can get that, maybe a certain amount of air or what-have-you, but it's all localized...nothing is going to undo any of that...certainly not wires...

Then there's everything else in between...over, under, sideways, down...backwards, forward... yada, yada, yada...

Anywho, all this twaddle is simply to support the question: how do we know what we are listening for? Is the endless quest simply chasing rainbows? Is replicating our particular POV re: live performance a valid endeavor?

I've said this before, the intent, quality of execution and other inummerable circumstances keep "it" (whatever it is) a moving target...we may be happy with things now, given a familiar, possibly small, sampling of software, but throw something new into the mix and all bets are off.

Then again, maybe it's based in string theory...once in a while all the strings vibrate sympathetically and harmoniously in our little audio universe and things just click...

jimHJJ(...I'm here for the music...)

Florian
01-31-2006, 09:57 AM
Bring it on Looser..... We are not afraid!

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

musicoverall
01-31-2006, 10:49 AM
I would agree - to an extent, at least - that we're chasing rainbows. I would also agree with your final comment... which makes the rainbow chasing worth the effort!

That said, I'm not chasing rainbows continuously. I've made 2 non-speaker upgrades in the past 5 years. I have no plans to upgrade anything else at this time. Over the same 5 year period, I've introduced about 500 new pieces of software. My CD/LP investment is easily 10x my investment in hardware. And I haven't looked at a Stereophile or TAS (or any other) review in years. Equipment is a means to an end. The end is the rainbow I'm chasing.

True story (and not altogether related)... I was in New York last year and became part of a CD by being in the audience where the live recording was taking place. Small venue - NYC. GREAT sound. The CD comes out and has this annoying upper midrange screech that makes it almost unlistenable. I would have noticed it at the live show because it hurt my ears! Apparently the live experience is NOT what the recording or mastering engineer was going for!

Resident Loser
01-31-2006, 11:45 AM
...The REAL issue for speaker wire and it's affect on image is not simple localization, but rather, DIFFERENTIAL localization...one step in complexity beyond the simple level they do not understand....

...Ok, OK, OK...tell me sumphin' I don't already know...First, we must assume the required localization cues are in place in the software, via the recording process. We then are obviously fooled into perceiving the resulting complex spatial relationships by means of a simple two-channel array and it is feasible to (through seemingly-endless and interdependent mathematical equations) measure, plot and document the time and phase parameters that they are the result of...This interaction of our ear/brain link in concert with that of the loudspeaker/room interface, for the most part seems (at least on at least some elemental level) to be a mechanical one. While not entirely simple, it isn't beyond understanding...however, what could possibly be happening in wire, a purely electron-transferring playpen for signal transmission, that would approach that level of complexity required by the listening process, so as to somehow skew, distort or yes, even clarify it's outcome.

What difference that would not be measureable by conventional means could there be between zip, twisted pair, woven CAT-5 or esoteric wiring (including those with Zobel networks) that would account for a difference if any exists?

If we both had two apples and I gave you one, how many would we both have?

jimHJJ(...jus' wunnerin'...)

Resident Loser
01-31-2006, 12:01 PM
Bring it on Looser..... We are not afraid!

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

...when the adults are talking...

jimHJJ(...anyone have a Life-Saver...für das Kind...)

jneutron
01-31-2006, 12:49 PM
...Ok, OK, OK...tell me sumphin' I don't already know...The efficiency of a nail up radiant heat system is not affected by the coupling coefficient between the radiant heat tubing and the bulk of the floor..The transfer constant and resulting time constant of the system certainly are, but the overall efficiency is independent of this. So, if you don't need quick response time, you can forgo the 1200 dollars of aluminum extrusion.

Hey, you said "sumptin I don't already know":p

Another gem...you would not believe how much the muscles ache after 6 hours of nailing into the underside of a subfloor between 12 inch on center TJI's.



...First, we must assume the required localization cues are in place in the software, via the recording process. We then are obviously fooled into perceiving the resulting complex spatial relationships by means of a simple two-channel array and it is feasible to (through seemingly-endless and interdependent mathematical equations) measure, plot and document the time and phase parameters that they are the result of...This interaction of our ear/brain link in concert with that of the loudspeaker/room interface, for the most part seems (at least on at least some elemental level) to be a mechanical one. While not entirely simple, it isn't beyond understanding...however, what could possibly be happening in wire, a purely electron-transferring playpen for signal transmission, that would approach that level of complexity required by the listening process, so as to somehow skew, distort or yes, even clarify it's outcome.First problem is indeed the software. I believe the pan pot should be banned from all mixing studios. The shift of IID without any semblance of ITD is entirely artificial.

Also, the A/D's and D/A's...anyone who mux's input or output without a s/h comp delay should be shot..;) You've no idea how much I have massaged my computer sound card out to fix the imaging..I don't have a delay line for 11 uSec fix.

It SHOULD be feasable to measure this stuff. However, I do not know anyone, nor have I read of anyone, who can do 4 to 8 ohm loop impedance measurements accurately to the tune of 1 to 2 uSec or .05 dB out to 20Khz.. Lost in space, they are..nevermind those silly Dale 250 NI boats, or the caddock ceramics which need coaxial pickup or be forever inaccurate..

Wires..no magic, mainly bulk parameters..but nobot's lookin at ITD/IID..

Minimum storage is when cable Z equals load Z, meaning for 8 ohms, 10 nH per foot, 280 pf per foot....not something that is easily doable with simple zip..(oops, forgot...both the inductance and the capacitance of the wire are a lagging mechanism, so minimization of lag can only be accomplished by selecting the dielectric first, then making the cable Z match the load)...a trivial exercise..

Lumped elements...don't worry, I'm not off the deep end...no grain boundary stuff, no piezo, no sillyness.



...What difference that would not be measureable by conventional means could there be between zip, twisted pair, woven CAT-5 or esoteric wiring (including those with Zobel networks) that would account for a difference if any exists?I believe I quoted the relevant parameters, the relevant levels..it will not be easy to model the interaction to the levels I specified, nevermind how the system responds with a real amp and real load, one which is reactive..Anyone who just attaches a scope probe to the load...I will shoot...or at least, tar and feather..


...If we both had two apples and I gave you one, how many would we both have?
jimHJJ(...jus' wunnerin'...) One, especially if it is a golden delicious, as they have a half life of about 10 seconds near me....lunchtime...

Cheers, John

ruadmaa
02-01-2006, 05:20 AM
The Bottom Line (this is directed at ineutron). Will plain copper wire (of sufficient guage) convey any and all audio information (electrical signals) as well as any esoteric wire??? This is a serious question. Please don't muddy it up. A few sentences will do. Keep in mind I am only asking about AUDIO signals only, not video.

jneutron
02-01-2006, 07:30 AM
The Bottom Line (this is directed at ineutron). Will plain copper wire (of sufficient guage) convey any and all audio information (electrical signals) as well as any esoteric wire??? This is a serious question. Please don't muddy it up. A few sentences will do. Keep in mind I am only asking about AUDIO signals only, not video.Please don't muddy it up???? Geeze, it's been clear as day...;)

I'll colorize the highlights.

My point is, the old method of defining audio information does not include localization information, so the old definition does not address imaging of a stereo playback, one of the main concerns with high end audio.

Without the research base which is required to adopt what I have stated, (which I have stated will require at least two years of valid research by the specialists), there is ZERO information available to contradict that which guys like flzapped, resident loser, mtry, have been stating all along. Eventually, that will change. Stating they are correct is in agreement with current technology, however, I am involved in changing that technology first by teaching new concepts and understandings. Stating that they are incorrect is NOT supported by anything measured to date.

The bottom line, which is not yet supported by measureable evidence, is this...

Use the absolute lowest resistance possible, with the total loop resistance below 50 milliohms. This forces some rather large guages, most of which are very impractical.

Use the closest cable impedance to the load with the lowest dielectric coefficient..that means roughly 10 nH per foot, 280 pf per foot, for an 8 ohm load. this is not possible with a parallel wire pair of any size, this requires geometry configurations like parallel ribbons, multiple conductor pairs, coaxial configurations. It also means no magnetic materials, no banana plugs, and eliminates most binding posts.. Solder joints must also be well designed to keep the loop resistance low, although the solder material is of no consequence.

Sorry to be so wordy, nature of the (geek) beast..

Cheers, John

Resident Loser
02-01-2006, 08:41 AM
The efficiency of a nail up radiant heat system is not affected by the coupling coefficient between the radiant heat tubing and the bulk of the floor..The transfer constant and resulting time constant of the system certainly are, but the overall efficiency is independent of this. So, if you don't need quick response time, you can forgo the 1200 dollars of aluminum extrusion.

...I did not know that...watching Norm and the boys @TOH, I always got the impression that both elements were required, particularly when installed below the subfloor.

...Another gem...you would not believe how much the muscles ache after 6 hours of nailing into the underside of a subfloor between 12 inch on center TJI's.

Those wooden I-beams certainly seem to be the wave of the future. 12" OC? Is that SOP or dependent on load? Musta' been a b!tch. Pneumatic assist or conventional? Either way, dem muscles will ache...I think next time I do that sort of protracted stuff, I'll have to bite the bullet, free the moths from my wallet and visit AtoZ or Abbey...Gettin' too old for it...I still have a bad case of carpenter's elbow from the porch and deck I built years ago and the roofing this past fall...not a chronic constant, but every once in a while...Shazaam!


First problem is indeed the software. I believe the pan pot should be banned from all mixing studios.

Hooray! Someone else who is not entirely gruntled with the products of panning! Given the fact that most signals that fall victim to the practice are invariably close-miked or direct box-ed into the board, I'm always getting involved with those who see it as OK...my argument being, that's not the way the ear hears live, un-amplified music...or even minimally "plugged" music...Take a dry instrument, put it into an effects loop and then arbitrarily(more or less) plop it into position in a non-existent, digitized reverberant environment and voila!...and yet that's what's considered a soundstage...go figure.


...Minimum storage is when cable Z equals load Z, meaning for 8 ohms, 10 nH per foot, 280 pf per foot....not something that is easily doable with simple zip..(oops, forgot...both the inductance and the capacitance of the wire are a lagging mechanism, so minimization of lag can only be accomplished by selecting the dielectric first, then making the cable Z match the load)...a trivial exercise...

Now, you'll pardon this son of a dental-floss farmer and his dumb questions...nano-Henries and pico-farads ain't me forte'...those figures are cumulative? If so, I'm guessing such a cable would then be required to be of a specific length for an optimum match. And since we're dealing with an idealized, non-reactive load does that mean in a real world situation that the cable parameters should have to vary somehow comensurate with those changes? Or, like a "nominal" 8 Ohm speaker, are those figures close enough for government work? Like I said dumb...with a capital umb! Dielectric? What will we do when they ban the key ingredient of Teflon?

Me, Granny Smiff's, from the lands of the Southern Cross are my faves...I prefer them tart and tangy...

jimHJJ(...always a pleasure...)

jneutron
02-01-2006, 09:23 AM
...I did not know that...watching Norm and the boys @TOH, I always got the impression that both elements were required, particularly when installed below the subfloor. It makes a difference only if the supply of hot water goes directly to the tubing, then there will be a slight tradeoff as a result of increased losses outside of the flooring system. Since I spliced it into an existing baseboard system, the source water is 180 to 220 F (according to the simple guage on the exit pipe, don't know if it's properly calibrated). Because I use a tempering valve for mixdown, the water temp to the tubing is constant, and settable. If the winter gets too cold (perhaps next year?), and the insulation of the house is not good (brand new, 6 inch walls), then it could be possible for the load requirements to exceed the transfer capability..But, we've no idea how many btu's per sq foot per hour for any temp at the moment..time and the weather will tell.



Those wooden I-beams certainly seem to be the wave of the future. 12" OC? Is that SOP or dependent on load? Musta' been a b!tch. Pneumatic assist or conventional? Either way, dem muscles will ache...I think next time I do that sort of protracted stuff, I'll have to bite the bullet, free the moths from my wallet and visit AtoZ or Abbey...Gettin' too old for it...I still have a bad case of carpenter's elbow from the porch and deck I built years ago and the roofing this past fall...not a chronic constant, but every once in a while...Shazaam!Architech (sp?) had it at 16 OC, but in discussion with the builder, he felt it better to drop to 12.

The Tile Council of America has a standard formula for measuring the maximum deflection of the floor allowed when ceramic tile is bonded on it. It is called L-360, which specifies a live load of 40 lbs per sq foot, and a maximum deflection allowed. If you divide the floor joist span by 360, you get the maximum deflection..for a 15 foot span, that is 1/2 inch.. For soft stones like limestone or light marble, you have to use 720 as the divisor.

So, the GC did what any self respecting GC did..he decided to make the floor stiffer cause he figgered it would work better for the 18 inch sq porclean tiles I'm puttin down. Oh, I'm also dropping an uncoupling membrane down, stuff called Ditra.



Hooray! Someone else who is not entirely gruntled with the products of panning! Given the fact that most signals that fall victim to the practice are invariably close-miked or direct box-ed into the board, I'm always getting involved with those who see it as OK...my argument being, that's not the way the ear hears live, un-amplified music...or even minimally "plugged" music...Take a dry instrument, put it into an effects loop and then arbitrarily(more or less) plop it into position in a non-existent, digitized reverberant environment and voila!...and yet that's what's considered a soundstage...go figure.Gruntled..never heard that before..I like it..:)
The pan pot is designed to shift apparent source by means of intensity only change. THERE ARE NO CASES IN HUMAN EXISTANCE where a source shifts in position and the ITD does not change. The pan pot by definition, provides us something which does not exist in nature, yet our brain has to interpret it??? What is everyone thinking (well, aside from you, you obviously know better..) we got our work cut out for us, don't we kemosabe??




Now, you'll pardon this son of a dental-floss farmer and his dumb questions...nano-Henries and pico-farads ain't me forte'...those figures are cumulative? If so, I'm guessing such a cable would then be required to be of a specific length for an optimum match. And since we're dealing with an idealized, non-reactive load does that mean in a real world situation that the cable parameters should have to vary somehow comensurate with those changes? Or, like a "nominal" 8 Ohm speaker, are those figures close enough for government work? Like I said dumb...with a capital umb! Dielectric? What will we do when they ban the key ingredient of Teflon?

jimHJJ(...always a pleasure...) Those numbers are per foot. 10 feet cable means 100 nanohenries and 2800 pf. Separate wires, regardless of insulation thickness, can't do much better than 200 nH per foot, but much lower capacitance.

Yah, nominal...sheesh...getting close enough is ok, it doesn't have to be exact..driver impedance, transfer function, reactance, crossover goop, there's no way to pin down one best, just tryin to get into the same stadium..

Cheers, John

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 09:43 AM
First problem is indeed the software. I believe the pan pot should be banned from all mixing studios. The shift of IID without any semblance of ITD is entirely artificial.

What about ye ole tone controls..... they introduce their own set of phase anomolies to the source, which, of course, is broadband.....say, isn't this measurement you're talking of done as a single tone, or at best limited to a bark?



It SHOULD be feasable to measure this stuff. However, I do not know anyone, nor have I read of anyone, who can do 4 to 8 ohm loop impedance measurements accurately to the tune of 1 to 2 uSec or .05 dB out to 20Khz.. Lost in space, they are..nevermind those silly Dale 250 NI boats, or the caddock ceramics which need coaxial pickup or be forever inaccurate..

Measure, maybe not directly, but it should certainly be possible indirectly.(a calculated result)



Wires..no magic, mainly bulk parameters..but nobot's lookin at ITD/IID..

Minimum storage is when cable Z equals load Z, meaning for 8 ohms, 10 nH per foot, 280 pf per foot....not something that is easily doable with simple zip..(oops, forgot...both the inductance and the capacitance of the wire are a lagging mechanism, so minimization of lag can only be accomplished by selecting the dielectric first, then making the cable Z match the load)...a trivial exercise..

Well, if it were, it would have been done already, ala rf. I suppose you could compensate by using a a matching network, but it would only be accurate for a given length of cable and load.


.Anyone who just attaches a scope probe to the load...I will shoot...or at least, tar and feather..

You're no fun at all.

-Bruce
(but then, does it matter, no one I know listens in an anechoic environment anyway....)

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 09:45 AM
Oh i will solve that easily, i invite all doubters to my home for some good homebrew bavarian beer and a listening session to a true state of the art transducer. Bring along Zip chords, fat cables, thin cables, capacitors and DACS. All is fine with me, my system will show any and all differences even if the DAC is on stone or wood.

-Flo

Sorry, but this will not answer the questions asked, I'm afraid the party will have to wait.

-Bruce

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 10:12 AM
...if you're looking for a scientific explanation. My explanation is that the music did not sound as focused, did not image properly and had a collapsed soundstage with the zipcord. In other words, information was missing. The scientists will have to give you the numbers behind it. I'm only qualified to listen.

What makes you qualified? Take a course? Under what conditions?

-Bruce

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 10:12 AM
But the "basis in fact" is listening, both sighted and blind. Zip cord was compared to Cardas Neutral Reference and found lacking. Whether or not it was the Cardas that added information not included on the recording is the question. However, it is extremely low in LCR parameters so it appears the measurements have failed.


Listening how? -Bruce

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 10:14 AM
LCR parameters as they stand obviously aren't sufficient.


How do you know this? -Bruce

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 10:17 AM
But the "basis in fact" is listening, both sighted and blind. Zip cord was compared to Cardas Neutral Reference and found lacking. Whether or not it was the Cardas that added information not included on the recording is the question. However, it is extremely low in LCR parameters so it appears the measurements have failed.

And what makes you qualified to come to that conclusion? -Bruce

musicoverall
02-01-2006, 10:24 AM
What makes you qualified? Take a course? Under what conditions?

-Bruce

By virtue of possessing two ears, one brain, 6000 pieces of software, a stereo system and a room in which to play music.

musicoverall
02-01-2006, 10:25 AM
How do you know this? -Bruce

Two cables, an identical set up measurements, two different sonic presentations.

musicoverall
02-01-2006, 10:26 AM
And what makes you qualified to come to that conclusion? -Bruce

See above

musicoverall
02-01-2006, 10:27 AM
Listening how? -Bruce

See above

musicoverall
02-01-2006, 10:29 AM
Two cables, an identical set up measurements, two different sonic presentations.

Should be "...an identical set OF measurements..." In other words, two cables measured the same and sounded different. Happens fairly often.

Resident Loser
02-01-2006, 10:30 AM
Oh, I'm also dropping an uncoupling membrane down, stuff called Ditra.

...Stuff sounds interesting...I'm sure you did some homework, but...FYI:

http://www.floorheating.ltd.uk/schluter.php

http://www.schluter.co.uk/produkt.aspx?doc=6-1-ditra.xml&pg=material

http://www.warmboard.com/whitepaper-tile.html

And it's true, there's a forum for nearly everything:

http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=31611

jimHJJ(...tongue-and-groove...glued and screwed...)

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 10:44 AM
By virtue of possessing two ears, one brain, 6000 pieces of software, a stereo system and a room in which to play music.

In otherwords, this is just your opinion. -Bruce

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 10:52 AM
Should be "...an identical set OF measurements..." In other words, two cables measured the same and sounded different. Happens fairly often.


Who did the measurements? And who did the testing and what were the controls? -Bruce

jneutron
02-01-2006, 11:04 AM
...Stuff sounds interesting...I'm sure you did some homework, but...FYI:

http://www.floorheating.ltd.uk/schluter.php

http://www.schluter.co.uk/produkt.aspx?doc=6-1-ditra.xml&pg=material

http://www.warmboard.com/whitepaper-tile.html

And it's true, there's a forum for nearly everything:

http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=31611

jimHJJ(...tongue-and-groove...glued and screwed...)Boy, there is a forum for everything...geeze.

Thanks for the link, that is most appreciated. If I had not done my homework, your links would have saved my butt. Thanks for thinkin of me..

I earlier mentioned Ditra, and schluter is indeed the manu of the membrane.

I learned all I needed to know from the Sept 2005 issue of fine Homebuilding...No 173, pp74-79. also, the site you linked to. This internet thingy is so cooooool...I have quite a few pdf's on radiant and tiling membranes..

Cheers, John

jneutron
02-01-2006, 11:38 AM
What about ye ole tone controls..... they introduce their own set of phase anomolies to the source, which, of course, is broadband.....say, isn't this measurement you're talking of done as a single tone, or at best limited to a bark? While I personally use tone controls and equilizers, I will not pretend that they maintain all aspects of ITD and IID. I do not have the time in my life to just sit and listen, life's wayy too hectic.


Measure, maybe not directly, but it should certainly be possible indirectly.(a calculated result)
For a load resistor, high current slews will couple to the scope probe/ground loop. The higher the slew, the bigger the error voltage, and the less the load reacts properly to the current change...however, the scope probe pickup compensates for the lack of current pull of the load....it sees an error voltage which conspires with the resistor, to make it look like the current is correct...but it ain't..



Well, if it were, it would have been done already, ala rf. I suppose you could compensate by using a a matching network, but it would only be accurate for a given length of cable and load.
You are talking about transmission line reflection stuff...that is not what I am speaking of..



You're no fun at all.Get in line, many people already accuse me of that..:p

-
Bruce
(but then, does it matter, no one I know listens in an anechoic environment anyway....)
My discussion is not about listening within an anechoic enviro. It is about learning what is actually going on with respect to localization cues. What happens in a room is only going to reduce the ability to localize...it is indeed important, but fruitless to consider until the correct information has been presented to the speakers.

Cheers, John

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 11:53 AM
While I personally use tone controls and equilizers, I will not pretend that they maintain all aspects of ITD and IID. I do not have the time in my life to just sit and listen, life's wayy too hectic.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.



For a load resistor, high current slews will couple to the scope probe/ground loop. The higher the slew, the bigger the error voltage, and the less the load reacts properly to the current change...however, the scope probe pickup compensates for the lack of current pull of the load....it sees an error voltage which conspires with the resistor, to make it look like the current is correct...but it ain't..

There are ways around this.




You are talking about transmission line reflection stuff...that is not what I am speaking of..


no, i am not, you're talking about impedance matching the feed to the speaker, my point is, if it were easy to do at audio, we would have seen such products simiar to what is available at rf.



-
My discussion is not about listening within an anechoic enviro. It is about learning what is actually going on with respect to localization cues. What happens in a room is only going to reduce the ability to localize...it is indeed important, but fruitless to consider until the correct information has been presented to the speakers.

Cheers, John

Then the possibility is that something is being chased that is not audible in a normal listening environment. Plus the fact, as you say, recording techinques currently are only capable of volumetric changes to produce the illusion of instrument placement where instruments are close miced. Funny thing is, it does work, at least for large scale changes.

It might be more worthwhile eliminating the erroneous reports that come from uncontrolled casual listening being reported as fact.

BTW - where are you gettting all your IID/ILD info from? the reason I am asking, is I find the dB numbers particularly interesting. how were they derived? Artificial head/ears? I calculated out some of the ITD numbers and they assume a totally linear approach, when in fact, the sound has to smear(propagate) around the side of the head to get to the far ear. Even if this makes a meaningless adjustment in time, it could make a more significant difference in level due to shadowing.

-Bruce

PS - anyone want to get to sleep early tonight can read this:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/21/12307

PPS -
ITD: Interaural Time Difference.
ILD/IID: Interaural Level/Intensity Difference

musicoverall
02-01-2006, 12:37 PM
In otherwords, this is just your opinion. -Bruce

Yes - one that I would think most people have of themselves. If there are qualification requirements to listen to music, I'm not aware of them and I doubt I'd find them very compelling.

musicoverall
02-01-2006, 12:39 PM
Who did the measurements? And who did the testing and what were the controls? -Bruce

This is all in the Audio Lab under my blind listening post.

Would you like to make a point? I'm listening. Of course, it's only my opinion that I'm qualified to listen. :)

jneutron
02-01-2006, 01:27 PM
Sounds like a personal problem to me.One of many..




There are ways around this.(meaning, the measure of high slew rate currents accurately.)

No, there are very few ways. The best is to design the load to have zero external magnetic field, to eliminate probe pickup. Very few companies know how to do this correctly, and none of them do anything with audio.



no, i am not, you're talking about impedance matching the feed to the speaker, my point is, if it were easy to do at audio, we would have seen such products simiar to what is available at rf.Impedance matching is not the correct term, although I admit this topic is confusing.
The impedance of a cable is defined as the ratio of voltage to current which results in the energy stored within the cable inductance being equal to the energy stored within the capacitance. When this condition is met, the energy stored within the cable while driving a load will be minimized. For RF, if this condition is not met, there will be a discontinuity which causes a reflection..that is not what is going on at audio frequencies.


Then the possibility is that something is being chased that is not audible in a normal listening environment.No. It is important to understand that while the derivations show such relationships in localization, they do not show the sensitivity of humans to such small changes. It is important to first understand the nature of the relationship, and then test it. As you see, the paper you linked to below does not address what I am speaking of..entirely artificial stimuli?..they do not understand.



Plus the fact, as you say, recording techinques currently are only capable of volumetric changes to produce the illusion of instrument placement where instruments are close miced. Funny thing is, it does work, at least for large scale changes.
No..recording techniques are different. I was referring to mixdown at the studio, using pan pots to artifically produce a R-L shift. While certainly effective, they do not reproduce the enviro we normally listen to, but rather, an artificial one.


It might be more worthwhile eliminating the erroneous reports that come from uncontrolled casual listening being reported as fact.It is also conceivable that those uncontrolled reports have some semblance of fact, unfortunately, it is not possible to determine this given the lack of scientific rigor.


BTW - where are you gettting all your IID/ILD info from? the reason I am asking, is I find the dB numbers particularly interesting. how were they derived? Artificial head/ears? I calculated out some of the ITD numbers and they assume a totally linear approach, when in fact, the sound has to smear(propagate) around the side of the head to get to the far ear. Even if this makes a meaningless adjustment in time, it could make a more significant difference in level due to shadowing..
You are absolutely correct. Head issues are to be considered eventually.

My numbers are a simple two receiver setup, 6 inches apart, infinite bw, and entirely linear. This is the case of the sound just before it begins to interact with the proximity of the head, where it then starts to alter it's wavefront characteristics. That effect, of course, will occur during the reproduction aspect of listening, so it must be understood and simulated exactly, exactly up to the point where the two wavefronts are about to interact with the head. Consideration of the proximity effects of the head, while of academic interest, will only affect our sensitivity to the stimulus..research into the ITD and IID issues of the reproduction chain are invarient to head effects.




-Bruce

PS - anyone want to get to sleep early tonight can read this:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/21/12307
Ah geeze..I was a perfect candidate for that study...""We measured discrimination<SUP> </SUP>thresholds of 13 to 32 naive listeners""...THAT"S meeeee!!:D

Read the study carefully..they used either ITD, or IID..they did not use both..

What results can be garnered from an audibility test that determines the response of a human, to a stimulus that does not occur in nature??

While their results are certainly of academic interest, they are not in any way a measure of how humans localize.

Cheers, John

E-Stat
02-01-2006, 05:10 PM
But the "basis in fact" is listening, both sighted and blind. Zip cord was compared to Cardas Neutral Reference and found lacking. Whether or not it was the Cardas that added information not included on the recording is the question. However, it is extremely low in LCR parameters so it appears the measurements have failed.
Give it up. The labcoats who do not trust their own senses will never buy this. I'm rather enjoying, however, another (more open minded) labcoat pointing out to them the holes in the conventional thinking.

My guess is that neither of the doubters has ever heard the Cardas, Nordost, or JPS Labs, etc. cables in their own systems. To such a point they would respond "What difference does that make?" They do not share our experiential point of reference and would rather spend their time speculating as to how such could be. Maybe at some time in the future when the research catches up with the reality, they will begin to better enjoy the musical experience, IMHO. :)

rw

musicoverall
02-01-2006, 06:45 PM
Give it up. The labcoats who do not trust their own senses will never buy this. I'm rather enjoying, however, another (more open minded) labcoat pointing out to them the holes in the conventional thinking.

My guess is that neither of the doubters has ever heard the Cardas, Nordost, or JPS Labs, etc. cables in their own systems. To such a point they would respond "What difference does that make?" They do not share our experiential point of reference and would rather spend their time speculating as to how such could be. Maybe at some time in the future when the research catches up with the reality, they will begin to better enjoy the musical experience, IMHO. :)

rw

Jneutron should be applauded for having the cojones, as well as the knowledge (as far as MY little mind can tell!) to post his research on this site. I certainly don't understand it all and neither do the two labcoat compadres of mine but they're trying...and they've been helpful to me in this regard. I'm very interested in this topic, if only because it's hard for me to believe that zipcord is as good as it gets, based on my own experiences.

Since you mention the Nordost, I should say that my experiences with the Valhalla leave the Cardas wanting. But no way was I going to shell out that kind of cash. A pair of their speaker cables and two pairs of IC's goes for half my system price! Sadly, I couldn't get the Valhalla sound with their less pricey spreads. Valhalla seems to be in a world of its own.

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 06:58 PM
Read the study carefully..they used either ITD, or IID..they did not use both..

What results can be garnered from an audibility test that determines the response of a human, to a stimulus that does not occur in nature??

While their results are certainly of academic interest, they are not in any way a measure of how humans localize.

Cheers, John

Sorry John, but you're wrong this time.

Look at who did the study. They are very much the right people do be doing this, their field is in trying to understand the functioning of the auditory system in order to better treat those who have profound hearing deficincies.

They have actually gone to the extreme of seperating the two functions out.

While in nature, we may nomally depend on both ITD and ILD, there is nothing that says you can't measure each capability seperately. Perhaps in the world of medicine, when trying to make a prosthetic, one method of emulation would be better than the other as opposed to implementing both. As you noted ILD show minimal differences compared to ITD for the same change.

-Bruce

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 07:01 PM
This is all in the Audio Lab under my blind listening post.



So how about providing the link to it then.

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 07:19 PM
Give it up. The labcoats

How about knocking off the condescending bovine scat.



who do not trust their own senses will never buy this.
I'm rather enjoying, however, another (more open minded) labcoat pointing out to them the holes in the conventional thinking.

Obviously your enjoying what you think is so, becaue you appear to not have a clue what is really going on, either in terms of psychoacoustics, nor what it means to have a real discourse in ideas. Although, by now, as much as you have been exposed to it, you would, but that would mean you were paying attention. (I can be condescending too.)



My guess is that neither of the doubters has ever heard the Cardas, Nordost, or JPS Labs, etc. cables in their own systems. To such a point they would respond "What difference does that make?" They do not share our experiential point of reference

Sheer speculation on your part.



and would rather spend their time speculating as to how such could be.

See above, as explained before, regading what it means to have a real discourse of ideas.



Maybe at some time in the future when the research catches up with the reality, they will begin to better enjoy the musical experience, IMHO. :)

rw

Ah yes, continuing with the condescending manure that you know has absolutely no basis in fact, much less contribute anything useful to the topic; Much like the boombox fantasy you spread around about Mtrycrafts. Your back-handed method of ad hominem attacks, if you can neither understand or refute the message, won't work.

-Bruce

musicoverall
02-01-2006, 07:20 PM
So how about providing the link to it then.

I'm finally able to use the comment/excuse I get from so many naysayers when I ask questions about the theory they post:

Do Your Own Research!

I believe I got this from someone on this very thread! Sheesh, Bruce, I can't play wetnurse to you people all the time! I'm sure a search on the Audio Lab will get you what you need. Do your own research! LOL!

Gosh, that was enjoyable! I see now why you cats use this on us all the time! :)

FLZapped
02-01-2006, 07:25 PM
I'm finally able to use the comment/excuse I get from so many naysayers when I ask questions about the theory they post:

Do Your Own Research!




IF YOU WANT ME TO READ YOUR RESEARCH PROVIDE THE LINK - ITS CALLED COMMON COURTESY.

Bernd
02-02-2006, 12:46 AM
By virtue of possessing two ears, one brain, 6000 pieces of software, a stereo system and a room in which to play music.

That's the one.Well put.

theaudiohobby
02-02-2006, 01:24 AM
I'm finally able to use the comment/excuse I get from so many naysayers when I ask questions about the theory they post:

Do Your Own Research!

I believe I got this from someone on this very thread! Sheesh, Bruce, I can't play wetnurse to you people all the time! I'm sure a search on the Audio Lab will get you what you need. Do your own research! LOL!

Gosh, that was enjoyable! I see now why you cats use this on us all the time! :)

Most of the useful information that you are asking for unsurprisingly cost good money, visit aes.org (http://www.aes.org) and do some searches on the abstracts.

E-Stat
02-02-2006, 04:51 AM
IF YOU WANT ME TO READ YOUR RESEARCH PROVIDE THE LINK - ITS CALLED COMMON COURTESY.
Here Bruce, I took the ten seconds.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=77788&postcount=1

rw

E-Stat
02-02-2006, 04:56 AM
Obviously your enjoying what you think is so, becaue you appear to not have a clue what is really going on...
When theory does not support observation, something is obviously lacking. I seriously doubt that Michael Schumacher has any idea how the pneumatic valves in his Ferrari engine work. And your point is?

Your approach is to theorize about what you have not directly experienced. Tell me all about the experience of walking in space while you're at it.


Much like the boombox fantasy you spread around about Mtrycrafts.
Fantasy? Let Mtry speak for himself.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=38451&postcount=14

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=38451&postcount=14

I even got him to talk about it once. His is a JVC.

rw

jneutron
02-02-2006, 05:57 AM
Sorry John, but you're wrong this time.Ah, one of many...;)
I was talking about testing by altering both, not independently. Using one while fixing the other doesn't help localization of image in stereo systems, but certainly meets their need.

We have to be vary careful about how the study information is used. Attempting to use their study results in the application of simulation of stereo soundfield generation is inaccurate.


Look at who did the study. They are very much the right people do be doing this, their field is in trying to understand the functioning of the auditory system in order to better treat those who have profound hearing deficincies. Agreed as you point out. However, other than myself, who's hearing deficiency is between the ears, ;) , the methods do not directly or indirectly apply to image generation using both ITD and IID. (or ILD).


They have actually gone to the extreme of seperating the two functions out. Which is my point.


While in nature, we may nomally depend on both ITD and ILD, there is nothing that says you can't measure each capability seperately. Perhaps in the world of medicine, when trying to make a prosthetic, one method of emulation would be better than the other as opposed to implementing both. As you noted ILD show minimal differences compared to ITD for the same change.

-Bruce Yup. And since the dawn of time itself, we've used only ILD to locate a sound during mixdown..horribly incorrect method for image placement, but historically speaking, the only method which was viable at the time.

Cheers, John

musicoverall
02-02-2006, 08:23 AM
IF YOU WANT ME TO READ YOUR RESEARCH PROVIDE THE LINK - ITS CALLED COMMON COURTESY.

When I've asked, I've gotten nothing but grief. It always makes me wonder what your side of the debate is trying to hide. Are the rest of the naysayer brethren taking note?

At any rate, I did not ask you to read my "research". You asked how I drew certain conclusions and I told you. Reading my research is up to you (actually, it's a simple listening test). Apparently E-Stat possesses the common courtesy that I and most of the naysayers lack. :)

Resident Loser
02-02-2006, 08:51 AM
...started out so peacefully...

jimHJJ(...yep...)

musicoverall
02-02-2006, 09:35 AM
...started out so peacefully...

jimHJJ(...yep...)

...and I guess I started it this time. But I will admit I got a great deal of satisfaction at turning the tables. On the other hand, one smart ass (several, actually) comment doesn't HAVE to deserve another. It was just too much for me to resist this time. I'll try to do better. I'm not in favor of sending those that don't share my point of view to "Siberia" but I do wish we could argue the points and not the players. Why people are so threatened by experiences that differ from their theory is beyond me.

musicoverall
02-02-2006, 09:40 AM
Most of the useful information that you are asking for unsurprisingly cost good money, visit aes.org (http://www.aes.org) and do some searches on the abstracts.

There are two ways to answer a question for information that costs money, isn't easy to find or something of that nature:

1) Don't waste my time - do your own research

2) I'd love to help you out but I can't provide you with a link because that article costs money (or whatever). Here's where to go to find the abstract and you can order a copy of the article there.

In other words, the two ways are their way and your way. I prefer yours. It seems Bruce does as well. I was simply making a point with my smart ass response. Thanks for the info you provided - very helpful.

Resident Loser
02-02-2006, 11:21 AM
...P*I*T*A, but I'm fairly certain mtry (somewhere along the line) provided that link to the AES and some others, over his rather, shall we say tempestuous residence here...unfortunately his seemingly confrontational persona, coupled with the "bad press" resulting, in part, from ill-considered and equally annoying comments from some(and they know who they are), caused many to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

While I didn't quite agree with the constant harangue he provided, I understood why he did it and likewise the reasoning behind his disassociation with any particular equipment beyond the oft mentioned boombox.

jimHJJ(...oh, and BTW...wire is wire...;-p)

jneutron
02-02-2006, 12:05 PM
oh, and BTW...wire is wire...;-p)
I HEARD THAT!!!:mad:











Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean I'm not watching you..:eek:

Cheers, John

Resident Loser
02-02-2006, 01:10 PM
I HEARD THAT!!!:mad:

...all right, all right...let's turn that frown upside down...we all know what I meant was:

Since there is, at this time, no objective, conclusive and repeatable evidence provided by currently applied and accepted test methodology and within commensurate parameters germaine to the subject under test to the contrary, further augmented by analysis of subjective evaluation produced under strict controls and protocols, there simply is no proof, other than that provided as anecdotal evidence (which is subject to a vast array of potential biases) that there is any significant audible difference in wire of a similar type, length and gauge.;-p

jimHJJ(...send that up to legal and see if anyone salutes...)

jneutron
02-02-2006, 01:52 PM
...all right, all right...let's turn that frown upside down...we all know what I meant was:

Since there is, at this time, no objective, conclusive and repeatable evidence provided by currently applied and accepted test methodology and within commensurate parameters germaine to the subject under test to the contrary, further augmented by analysis of subjective evaluation produced under strict controls and protocols, there simply is no proof, other than that provided as anecdotal evidence (which is subject to a vast array of potential biases) that there is any significant audible difference in wire of a similar type, length and gauge.;-p

jimHJJ(...send that up to legal and see if anyone salutes...)
I can't even joke anymore??? (I think I said what you said coupla posts ago, but I can't be sure:confused: )

sheesh..

Tonight is off night.. it is time to kick back and drown a few olives..no radiant, no baseboard, no ac ductwork, no snakin wires, no sheetrock or spackle, no power miter, no air nailer...no solder, no flux, no romex...no moulding, primer..

Boy, there's a lot to do when remoddin a house..think I needs a drink...oh yah, already planned that..

Cheers, John

Resident Loser
02-03-2006, 08:54 AM
I can't even joke anymore??? (I think I said what you said coupla posts ago, but I can't be sure:confused: )

...it's like a regular O Henry story...we a-both make-a the joke, bravo...bravissimo...

I just want it known, far and wide, that when I say wire is wire, the other much more long-winded qualifying thing is what I mean...just making sure we're both on the same page in that respect...those emoticons sometimes tend to confound my basic Luddite sensibilities.

OT...Just curious, what miter saw do you use? I scored a good deal last year on a 10" Hitachi...now I'm lookin' to get either their workstation for it or a Trac-rac T3...

jimHJJ(...next time you indulge in some premeditated mayhem on the fruit of the olea europaea whack a few for me...)

jneutron
02-06-2006, 06:06 AM
I just want it known, far and wide, that when I say wire is wire, the other much more long-winded qualifying thing is what I mean...just making sure we're both on the same page in that respect...those emoticons sometimes tend to confound my basic Luddite sensibilities.Already knew that..btw, what's an emoticon:confused: (just kiddin)


OT...Just curious, what miter saw do you use? I scored a good deal last year on a 10" Hitachi...now I'm lookin' to get either their workstation for it or a Trac-rac T3...
jimHJJ(...next time you indulge in some premeditated mayhem on the fruit of the olea europaea whack a few for me...) It was a B'day present..a 10 incher to replace my little 8 incher..more accurate, easier to use, but not a slide. Forgot the brand, I'll look tonight. Workstation or trac-rac? Your way beyond me there, I'm only a weekend warrior so far. Eventually I'll have a woodwork setup.

Cheers, John

realsound
02-13-2006, 02:08 PM
I have noticed that speaker makers rarely, if ever, use high dollar speaker wire inside the speaker (perhaps I am wrong on that). Let alone the crossovers, that can be quite diverse in parts and design. How do the yeah sayers explain spending a lot of money on speaker cables when all of that signal has to go through the inner works of the speaker before you hear the sound anyway? I am on the fense on this one and would like to see the responses.

Okay, the actual answer to the question is length and quality of materials. Wires inside the speaker can be small because they have a much shorter length to run. Also, the tweeter, midrange if it applies, and woofers all have seperate wires running to all of them, not just one.

The reason why speaker cables from your receiver must be larger is that they are usually much longer than the ones your speakers. They also must carry full bandwidth. Higher end speaker cables normally have an insulator running through the middle of the wire to prevent what is called the "Skin effect" in which high freqency current at high current levels will actually ride on only the outside of the wire, thus choking them out alittle.

Higher end cables also are made with better wire, not just for better continuity, but for longevity. Cheap wire corodes......turns a blackish brown color and looses continuity, especially the ends that are exposed to the air. Plus more expensive wire has thinner strands for nothing more than making the wire more flexable for easier installation and placement.

Lastly about the thinkness is that bass freqencies need room in high current situations as most people know. Now will expensive speaker wire make a crappy system sound amazing? Certainly not. Its one of those things that just sqeeze that last bit out of your system, and primarily at high volume levels. Plus if you don't wanna replace your wire EVER, get the more expensive stuff. Also, I have seen people way over do it on thinckness. If you're running six foot of wire, you don't need anything thicker than 16 to 12 guage unless you have a DJ amp that puts out insane amounts of power, and if thats the case DJ amps aren't known for quality sound anyway. Sorry for being so long winded.....I have first hand experience. :D

RobotCzar
02-13-2006, 07:27 PM
Okay, the actual answer to the question is length and quality of materials. Wires inside the speaker can be small because they have a much shorter length to run. Also, the tweeter, midrange if it applies, and woofers all have seperate wires running to all of them, not just one.

You sound so sure that I'm convinced...not. A little knowledge is dangerous. What exactly is a short run? That is, a run short enough to make no audible difference? 100 feet or more for 12 gauge? Please specify what run is long enough. Also, speakers do not have separate wires until after the crossovers--and why do seperate wires to the speakers matter? A you suggesting I can simply hook up more cheap wire outside the speaker an get the benefits of expensive cable?

"The reason why speaker cables from your receiver must be larger is that they are usually much longer than the ones your speakers."
Whoops. Most typical speakers have much much longer runs of wire inside the drivers themselves than external to the speaker (and very thin in the tweeters).

"They also must carry full bandwidth. Higher end speaker cables normally have an insulator running through the middle of the wire to prevent what is called the "Skin effect" in which high freqency current at high current levels will actually ride on only the outside of the wire, thus choking them out alittle. "

Did you get this from a high end web site? Please explain how skin effect affects electrical signals typical of audio systems and be sure to say how much of an effect is required to make an audbile difference at the speaker. Good luck. Why would riding on the outside of a wire "choke current levels"? (Don't take that as a request for an explanation.)

"Higher end cables also are made with better wire, not just for better continuity, but for longevity. Cheap wire corodes......turns a blackish brown color and looses continuity, especially the ends that are exposed to the air. Plus more expensive wire has thinner strands for nothing more than making the wire more flexable for easier installation and placement.:"

While you are finally getting to some real reasons to prefer quality (as opposed to expensive) cable, you really need to point out that there is no real guarantee that high end cables will corode less, or that coroding is a problem over the lifetime of most home audio systems. Flexibility is nice.

"Lastly about the thinkness is that bass freqencies need room in high current situations as most people know."

And that has some connection to cables because...? Come to think of it I am not aware that bass frequencies need more room in any situations (or high frequencies for that matter). Those darn frequencies just don't need any room.

"Now will expensive speaker wire make a crappy system sound amazing? Certainly not." You've got that right. But, the real question is will expensive wire do anything more that reasonably priced wire. Of course, there is no reason or evidence to assume that expensive wire squeezes out anything except extra dollars from your bank account.

I like your enthusiasm, but please back it up with a bit more study before attempt to help others understand the issues.

emaidel
02-14-2006, 09:03 AM
When I spotted this thread, I glanced through the responses and saw just what I had expected to see: an argument from those supporting totally contradictory viewpoints, which will never, never end. Naturally, I'd like to offer my own viewpoints on this issue, so here goes:

I have to admit that in the "battle" over whether or not speaker cables (or interconnects) make a difference, I am very much a believer. In my own experience with both, I've always noticed a difference (sometimes rather subtle, but still very real) whenever I switched from one set to another of speaker wires and/or interconnects on my system. The two aspects that, to me, are of most importance are, 1.) price; and 2.), the quality of the rest of the associated equipment.

When I first replaced my 12 guage zip cord with "regular" Monster Cable, back in the mid 80's, I was astonished at the improvement in sound. Everything sounded better: deeper bass, clearer, more delineated mids and decidedly sweeter highs. So, I became the "believer" that I am today.

Just as important is that not all cables, regardless of price, offer a sonic improvment. I replaced my "ordinary" Monster Cable with a rather costly (to me, at least at $600 for a 12' run) set of Audioquest "Crystal" speaker cables. Aside from being terribly unwieldy and all but impossible to connect either to my amp, or to the speakers themselves, the Crystal cable resulted in the following: much louder sound, but much, much harsher sound too. after a few weeks of burn-in, the harshness softened a bit, but I sincerely regretted having given away the Monster Cable I'd been using beforehand.

Then, only a few years ago, I replaced these cables with a set of even more expensive "Z-Series" cables from Monster. These have gold-plated, threaded ends onto which I connected Monster's gold-plated banana plugs. This black covered cable is considerably more flexible, and offered the same sonic improvments over the Crystal cable that the original Monster Cable offered over my 12-guage zip cord, only to a far greater extreme. And, they sounded good right from the start , without a three-week (or longer) wait for "burn-in."

So, yes, speaker cables make a difference, but where does one stop in terms of cost? The highest price I'd previously heard of for 12' of speaker cable was an astonishing $17,000 for two, but only this morning, I learned (from a posting on a thread of mine here at AR) that HP from TAS is using $60K worth of speaker cables. To me, that goes way beyond any normal level of "performance per dollar" and is just plain ludicrous. How many people anywhere in the entire world can afford $60K for speaker wire?

As to my second point, I've found that if the rest of the equipment in one's system isn't of a commensurate performance level, then spending lots of money (hundreds, not thousands of dollars) on cables and speaker wires isn't going to make much of a difference. As I've improved the rest of the equipment in my system over the years, I've noticed the subtle differences in different cables all the more.

But I won't refinance my house to pay for them.

Resident Loser
02-14-2006, 09:24 AM
...your first impression was probably correct and the only thing that got broken-in was you...There has never been any conclusive evidence (save for electrolysis or other corrosion factor) that wire, being passive entity that it is, has any component that can change over time...

Just for the record, the term burn-in has as it's definition: the continuous operation of a device as a test for defects or failure prior to putting it to use.

So I'd guess all those folks "burning-in" must be documenting failure rates?...The other confusing bit is, why do folks cryo-treat items they will then "burn-in"?

It has become part of the audiopile lexicon of psuedo-factoids by being co-opted and misused as an equally interchangeable substitute for break-in. It isn't.

jimHJJ(...my wife saw that coming, and she's not even here...)

E-Stat
02-14-2006, 09:28 AM
I learned (from a posting on a thread of mine here at AR) that HP from TAS is using $60K worth of speaker cables.
Sorry if I misled you. That is the sum of all cables - interconnects, speaker cables, and power cords in the system. Something like ten power cords, two sets of speaker cables, and a gaggle of ICs. The speaker cables represent about one-fifth that amount.

rw

emaidel
02-14-2006, 09:46 AM
... the only thing that got broken-in was you...

Now, now, you're supposed to play NICE here...

realsound
02-14-2006, 11:14 AM
You sound so sure that I'm convinced...not. A little knowledge is dangerous. What exactly is a short run? That is, a run short enough to make no audible difference? 100 feet or more for 12 gauge? Please specify what run is long enough. Also, speakers do not have separate wires until after the crossovers--and why do seperate wires to the speakers matter? A you suggesting I can simply hook up more cheap wire outside the speaker an get the benefits of expensive cable?

"The reason why speaker cables from your receiver must be larger is that they are usually much longer than the ones your speakers."
Whoops. Most typical speakers have much much longer runs of wire inside the drivers themselves than external to the speaker (and very thin in the tweeters).

"They also must carry full bandwidth. Higher end speaker cables normally have an insulator running through the middle of the wire to prevent what is called the "Skin effect" in which high freqency current at high current levels will actually ride on only the outside of the wire, thus choking them out alittle. "

Did you get this from a high end web site? Please explain how skin effect affects electrical signals typical of audio systems and be sure to say how much of an effect is required to make an audbile difference at the speaker. Good luck. Why would riding on the outside of a wire "choke current levels"? (Don't take that as a request for an explanation.)

"Higher end cables also are made with better wire, not just for better continuity, but for longevity. Cheap wire corodes......turns a blackish brown color and looses continuity, especially the ends that are exposed to the air. Plus more expensive wire has thinner strands for nothing more than making the wire more flexable for easier installation and placement.:"

While you are finally getting to some real reasons to prefer quality (as opposed to expensive) cable, you really need to point out that there is no real guarantee that high end cables will corode less, or that coroding is a problem over the lifetime of most home audio systems. Flexibility is nice.

"Lastly about the thinkness is that bass freqencies need room in high current situations as most people know."

And that has some connection to cables because...? Come to think of it I am not aware that bass frequencies need more room in any situations (or high frequencies for that matter). Those darn frequencies just don't need any room.

"Now will expensive speaker wire make a crappy system sound amazing? Certainly not." You've got that right. But, the real question is will expensive wire do anything more that reasonably priced wire. Of course, there is no reason or evidence to assume that expensive wire squeezes out anything except extra dollars from your bank account.

I like your enthusiasm, but please back it up with a bit more study before attempt to help others understand the issues.
go to Google and type in "what is the skin effect" and tell me how many high end websites they list you. Then look for the definition of the skin effect. I assure you that you will find the definition and not BS websites. Yes, the skin effect actually does happen. Further more, my post was based upon actual electical theory, and my expereince is based upon using the cheap crap, and the more expensive. I have had cheaper components and cheaper speakers that cost under a hundred bucks and have speakers and componets costing over 600 bucks. I have had the cheap crappy wire that sucks out low bass, smooth mids, and glass shattering highs like crap, hums like crap, and fails like crap. I have wire now that sounds good, doesn't fail, and is not subject tiny electromagnetic interference that causes loud humming. But I'm sure you've done a great deal of research since all your wire for all I know is equivalent to wire used to make cloths hangers. Wire is wire right? AC current just travels through wire and creates no magnetic fields, and makes no difference wether the wire is as think as thin as a needle or as thick as a number 2 pencil. Certainly it matters not the frequency of electricity or the number of freuquencies traveling through the wire. It doesn't matter how long the wire is. You can run a 5 inch wire to your speakers or a 50 ft wire to it and experience no current loss. It doesn't matter what the wire is made of becuase even alluminum wire conducts just as good.....heck maybe better because its cheaper than copper or gold. Whoa, I'm starting to sound like you.....see how stupid you sound? Learn how electronic components work, and then maybe you won't believe all of those false sarcastic assumptions I just made are true. In other words, you don't know JACK! You're an audiophile wannabe. You slam other people because you think you know all that there is to know about sound and electronics becuase you think about it alot. While I and a whole lot of other people on this forum aren't just thinking about it but doing it and are true students to the art. Most of us are not happy until we have gotten the best that is within our reach and will face the challenges of getting there. You're happy after you hook up the 70 dollar open box deal that an idot at Best Buy told that was good and high quality. Heck, you probably own a nice Bose lifestyle system because it makes you look 30 percent cooler than all your friends that have to look at their large speakers. Whatever the case, you don't belong on this forum. :D

Resident Loser
02-14-2006, 11:54 AM
...cr@p Dmax...

Can the mods please do an IP check?

A wire's "thinkness"? Based on "electical" theory? Bass frequencies need room? After-market wires are easier to work with?

jimHJJ(...not if they use Teflon as dielectric...)

Robb
02-14-2006, 12:31 PM
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/skineeffectaudiocables.php

There are quite a few more articles at Audioholics.com - perhaps you guys have already seen this.

On the anecdotal side, I starting replacing cheap cables in my system about a year ago. For years, I had used plain old lamp cord from Home Depot for the speakers. Yep, that's right - the stuff you use to make a power cord for your table lamp; and, on top of that, they were who knows how many years old. I replaced those with entry level Kimber Kable, and was amazed at how the sound on a familiar recording seemed to jump out of the speakers with all kinds of previously unknown clarity and nuance. Now, I can't hear that anymore. I guess I got used to it. Sigh...

realsound
02-14-2006, 12:54 PM
...cr@p Dmax...

Can the mods please do an IP check?

A wire's "thinkness"? Based on "electical" theory? Bass frequencies need room? After-market wires are easier to work with?

jimHJJ(...not if they use Teflon as dielectric...)
I apologize for using the word "room" and "thickness" as another way of saying larger diameter wire or guage. And to after-market wires being easier to work with......the original question if anyone remembers that besides me, was about speaker wire. Tell me smart guy, which wire is more likely hold shape? Solid wire, or stranded wire? Why is any wire in strans instead of being solid? Why does more expensive wire boast more strans? Does in conduct better than solid? Technicaly solid wire has less air space and more wire? Or maybe air is a better conductor than metal....man I'm all confused now.
Electical theory. The theory of the atom and their little valence electrons that alow electron flow. The theory that better conductors such as gold and copper have more valence electrons to alow more electron flow. Yeah, they call it AC/DC THEORY. Why THEORY? Becuase it's proven that it works, but it has never been seen. We only see the effects of electricity, but haven't actually seen the electrons move from atom to atom.
So with all that being said, copper and gold are good conductors. The LOWER NUMBER GUAGE you have, the more conductor is present which means you have more valence electrons availible for electron flow. More voltage, more current, more conductor needed. Sorry, I fought not to use the word room or thinkness there for the benifit of your understanding.

jneutron
02-14-2006, 01:17 PM
Electical theory. The theory of the atom and their little valence electrons that alow electron flow. The theory that better conductors such as gold and copper have more valence electrons to alow more electron flow. Yeah, they call it AC/DC THEORY. Why THEORY? Becuase it's proven that it works, but it has never been seen. We only see the effects of electricity, but haven't actually seen the electrons move from atom to atom.
So with all that being said, copper and gold are good conductors. The LOWER NUMBER GUAGE you have, the more conductor is present which means you have more valence electrons availible for electron flow. More voltage, more current, more conductor needed. Sorry, I fought not to use the word room or thinkness there for the benifit of your understanding.
Interesting..the "room" you speak of is simply the conductivity of the material, the resistance simply the inverse. Ohms law..

They have indeed begun to visualize individual electrons as they move through a conductor. And, they are happy to note that it still validates ohms law.

Your posts on skin theory are incorrect. The assertion that an insulator is put between the wires to mitigate skinning is incorrect. The assertion that skinning plays a significant role in the sound of a wire via shunting of current density is incorrect, as the initial assumption of skin being a simple inverse function of frequency is incorrect.

Google all you want, you will not find an accurate portrayal of skin effect on a web site. Forget the manufacturer white papers, they all make the same starting asumptions, which do not apply to cylindrical conductors..sheesh..

Cheers, John

realsound
02-14-2006, 01:40 PM
Interesting..the "room" you speak of is simply the conductivity of the material, the resistance simply the inverse. Ohms law..

They have indeed begun to visualize individual electrons as they move through a conductor. And, they are happy to note that it still validates ohms law.

Your posts on skin theory are incorrect. The assertion that an insulator is put between the wires to mitigate skinning is incorrect. The assertion that skinning plays a significant role in the sound of a wire via shunting of current density is incorrect, as the initial assumption of skin being a simple inverse function of frequency is incorrect.

Google all you want, you will not find an accurate portrayal of skin effect on a web site. Forget the manufacturer white papers, they all make the same starting asumptions, which do not apply to cylindrical conductors..sheesh..

Cheers, John

Oh, I see, I'm sorry.....I didn't know that Ohms law and AC and DC theory were the same thing. I better go back to school and brush up. I should also believe what YOU say is true because.......well, you said so. Forgive me. No, really. please.

jneutron
02-14-2006, 01:56 PM
Oh, I see, I'm sorry.....I didn't know that Ohms law and AC and DC theory were the same thing. I better go back to school and brush up. I should also believe what YOU say is true because.......well, you said so. Forgive me. No, really. please.Ohms law simply defines the ratio of the current within a conductive material and the voltage at the end terminals..

More exactly, it is derived from the collision loss of an electron as it is accelerating in a uniform voltage gradient, it is the energy loss of the collision of an electron which has achieved a velocity v as a result of a constant acceleration within the field of the conductor. The kinetic energy lost in the collision is equal to 1/2 m v <SUP>2</SUP>., this also shows the loss of energy as a result of the voltage, which is of course proportional to the voltage squared. The rate of collisions are of course, related to the mean free path within the lattice of the conductor, as well as to the current.

It would be plausible for you to go back to school to learn about skin theory...alas, you will find that you would be taught the incorrect theory of skinning as it relates to a wire.

You would be taught that the skin depth is defined by the impingement of a TEM wave normal to the conductive surface. You would be taught that the skin depth is related to 1/f. You would be taught that there can be several inversions in the voltage vector axial to the conductor.

All of that applies to a flat, planar surface, normal to the direction of propagation of the wave..that does not directly apply to the carrying of current within a wire.

You have been taught a simplification of the process. This simplification is given to undergraduates because they cannot understand nor correctly derive, the relevant bessels to develop the correct current density profile.

You do not have to believe what I say..if you wish, I can direct you to several sources that correctly discuss the skin effect, they also describe the limitations imposed by using the simplistic assumptions you have been taught in undergrad.

Or, take what I have written, and take them to any professor, any scientist, any physicist, ask them if what I say is correct.

They will. If any of them do not, have them contact me, and I will explain it to them..

You do not have to believe me..it is of no concern to me.. If, however, you wish to learn, I will be happy to explain.

Your condescending flair does not suit you well, as your understanding of skin effect is rather rudimentary..I cannot blame you the lack of knowledge, I blame the undergraduate programs for overly simplifying the issue. But perhaps you should check the attitude at the door?

Cheers, John

Geoffcin
02-14-2006, 03:20 PM
Ohms law simply defines the ratio of the current within a conductive material and the voltage at the end terminals..

More exactly, it is derived from the collision loss of an electron as it is accelerating in a uniform voltage gradient, it is the energy loss of the collision of an electron which has achieved a velocity v as a result of a constant acceleration within the field of the conductor. The kinetic energy lost in the collision is equal to 1/2 m v <SUP>2</SUP>., this also shows the loss of energy as a result of the voltage, which is of course proportional to the voltage squared. The rate of collisions are of course, related to the mean free path within the lattice of the conductor, as well as to the current.

It would be plausible for you to go back to school to learn about skin theory...alas, you will find that you would be taught the incorrect theory of skinning as it relates to a wire.

You would be taught that the skin depth is defined by the impingement of a TEM wave normal to the conductive surface. You would be taught that the skin depth is related to 1/f. You would be taught that there can be several inversions in the voltage vector axial to the conductor.

All of that applies to a flat, planar surface, normal to the direction of propagation of the wave..that does not directly apply to the carrying of current within a wire.

You have been taught a simplification of the process. This simplification is given to undergraduates because they cannot understand nor correctly derive, the relevant bessels to develop the correct current density profile.

You do not have to believe what I say..if you wish, I can direct you to several sources that correctly discuss the skin effect, they also describe the limitations imposed by using the simplistic assumptions you have been taught in undergrad.

Or, take what I have written, and take them to any professor, any scientist, any physicist, ask them if what I say is correct.

They will. If any of them do not, have them contact me, and I will explain it to them..

You do not have to believe me..it is of no concern to me.. If, however, you wish to learn, I will be happy to explain.

Your condescending flair does not suit you well, as your understanding of skin effect is rather rudimentary..I cannot blame you the lack of knowledge, I blame the undergraduate programs for overly simplifying the issue. But perhaps you should check the attitude at the door?

Cheers, John

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate skin effect with one of those coin crusher machines. Perhaps even invite us over to play with your Tesla coil?

http://www.lod.org/LightningLab/wingate2.jpg

realsound
02-14-2006, 03:33 PM
I can't believe I joined this stupid and useless forum full of people that are the same. These AV forums haven't changed one bit from 10 years ago. I'm not sure how many in this forum are the self worshiping people who haven't a clue what they're talking about, but I'm thinking its the majority judging by how fast people post replys. I feel sorry for the people who thought they could come to this forum with legitimate questions and have some jerkoff tell them how stupid they are for asking. I feel sorry for people who don't want to think about all the stuff audiophiles think about, they just want great sound, and a vast majority of you don't have the knowledge or consideration to give them even the basics. So they're thrown to the idiots at Best Buy and Circuit City to get their help. Really, it doesn't matter, because thats what most of all of you are equivalent to. I apologize to anyone who may be the real deal on this forum. I've had enough. Someone asks a question on this site, and it just starts a stupid argument every single time becuase you all have to be right in your not really sort of way. Never have I seen anyone agree with anyone on any of these forums. Most of you think the stuff you buy is what makes a good system. Most of you couldn't take good components and speakers and make them sound remotely good, as where good audiophiles can take what they have to work with and make it sound its best, maybe better than some of you who have the best stuff money can buy but still sounds like ass because you know nothing about placement or dampening. Enjoy comparing your speaker sizes to each other.......because its all you morons have. If any of you guys are that good....why buy someone else stuff? Go out and make your own stuff and see if the public wants to buy it since you're all engineers who only know what you've read in magazines. I eat, sleep, and breathe audio, but to see the community I have to share it with makes me wish I was deaf.

emaidel
02-14-2006, 03:46 PM
I can't believe I joined this stupid and useless forum full of people that are the same. These AV forums haven't changed one bit from 10 years ago. I'm not sure how many in this forum are the self worshiping people who haven't a clue what they're talking about, but I'm thinking its the majority judging by how fast people post replys. I feel sorry for the people who thought they could come to this forum with legitimate questions and have some jerkoff tell them how stupid they are for asking. I feel sorry for people who don't want to think about all the stuff audiophiles think about, they just want great sound, and a vast majority of you don't have the knowledge or consideration to give them even the basics. So they're thrown to the idiots at Best Buy and Circuit City to get their help. Really, it doesn't matter, because thats what most of all of you are equivalent to. I apologize to anyone who may be the real deal on this forum. I've had enough. Someone asks a question on this site, and it just starts a stupid argument every single time becuase you all have to be right in your not really sort of way. Never have I seen anyone agree with anyone on any of these forums. Most of you think the stuff you buy is what makes a good system. Most of you couldn't take good components and speakers and make them sound remotely good, as where good audiophiles can take what they have to work with and make it sound its best, maybe better than some of you who have the best stuff money can buy but still sounds like ass because you know nothing about placement or dampening. Enjoy comparing your speaker sizes to each other.......because its all you morons have. If any of you guys are that good....why buy someone else stuff? Go out and make your own stuff and see if the public wants to buy it since you're all engineers who only know what you've read in magazines. I eat, sleep, and breathe audio, but to see the community I have to share it with makes me wish I was deaf.


Now, if you'd please say what you really feel....

Geoffcin
02-14-2006, 04:08 PM
I can't believe I joined this stupid and useless forum full of people that are the same.

I wrote you about using abusive language in the forums and you did not listen.
Your first suspension lasts a day. Any repeat of this will see you banned permanently.

Enjoy reading the forums.

Resident Loser
02-15-2006, 07:02 AM
Ohms...et cetera...door? Cheers, John

...you're good!!!

jimHJJ(...I like the way you handle yourself in a crowd...)