Where does this information come from? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Where does this information come from?



Aric M L
02-03-2005, 10:35 PM
To those of you who come here with statements of how speaker wires dont matter to the point where 12 Gauge lamp cable would work as well as anything else, or evne to those who say that $500 interconnects can transfer signals with more accuracy.. Is there actually a source for this information? I'm looking into cables righ tnow and would like to make an educated decision as I'm sure you all can justify having done yourself. The problem is I can't find statistics either proving or disproving that spending $100 for interconnects could be worth my time. Any help would really help clear this fuzzy issue for me and probably a few other casual readers who want to know where these statements come from.

musicoverall
02-04-2005, 05:10 AM
To those of you who come here with statements of how speaker wires dont matter to the point where 12 Gauge lamp cable would work as well as anything else, or evne to those who say that $500 interconnects can transfer signals with more accuracy.. Is there actually a source for this information? I'm looking into cables righ tnow and would like to make an educated decision as I'm sure you all can justify having done yourself. The problem is I can't find statistics either proving or disproving that spending $100 for interconnects could be worth my time. Any help would really help clear this fuzzy issue for me and probably a few other casual readers who want to know where these statements come from.

As I understand it, there are no statistics that prove or disprove the existence of sonic differences among cables. If you want to know if there are cables that sound better than lamp cord, I'd advise that you audition some. If you want statistics and the scientific point of view, you might visit The Audio Lab forum on this site and read some of the top 3-4 posts. The scientific/objectivist crowd believes that the evidence against cable sonics is overwhelming while the subjectivist/observationalist crowd trusts their senses. It's up to you as to which argument is more convincing.

Rycher
02-04-2005, 06:41 AM
It's like visiting several churches of different religions. They will ALL try to sell you on their God. In the end you have to see which church is better for you based on what they do for you. Just try some out, talk to some freinds with similar systems. I believe there are differences.

kexodusc
02-04-2005, 06:59 AM
Be careful, this is one of the most intense and bitter debates in the audio world.
Yes, people fail 100% of the time to consistenly demonstrate that they can hear audible differences between cables.
Yes, these tests are not conclusive or all encompassing in determining that these differences don't exist, and are flawed in many ways.

I think the bigger point here is what is the most effective allocation of your financial resources. Pretty much everyone I know will put cables dead last when building a system...that should tell you something.

Rycher
02-04-2005, 07:30 AM
Be careful, this is one of the most intense and bitter debates in the audio world.

Next to religion. Even though you want to kill some people in the audio world, it's safe to say it only happens in the religious world. :(


Yes, people fail 100% of the time to consistenly demonstrate that they can hear audible differences between cables.

People also fail to prove there is a Diety.


Yes, these tests are not conclusive or all encompassing in determining that these differences don't exist, and are flawed in many ways.

So are peoples beliefs in their religion of choice.


I think the bigger point here is what is the most effective allocation of your financial resources.

Exactly. It's my money. If I want to buy an expensive cable, that's my call and I should'nt be chastised for it.


Pretty much everyone I know will put cables dead last when building a system...that should tell you something.


The people I know put just an importance on cables as anything else in their system. Maybe THAT should tell you something.





Anyway, that's just one guys opinion. :)

kexodusc
02-04-2005, 07:55 AM
Rycher, I put importance on cables too, my point is to not try buying a $500 cable to fix or supplement $500 speakers, unless you're sure that will sound better than any other use of $1000...it's just not effective...They don't by nature contribute as much to the sound, though shouldn't be neglected.

As for your comments about religion and dieties...not sure what blind faith has to do with a item we actually CAN physically touch, see, and hear and measure. I trust when people tell me they hear a difference, that they do in fact hear it, not that they blindly believe that difference exists and trick themselves into hearing it. If they then fail to demonstrate this, then there's either a flaw in the test (psychologist will argue this about DBT's) or the differences are perhaps very small and indistinguishable.
But there is a some validity when tests of other equipment in the chain DO present valid, consistent results. Why not cables? What's so special about them?

Rycher
02-04-2005, 08:24 AM
You are correct. My point about religion was to compare most people's "blind faith" in whether or not cables make a difference. People can't prove there is a God, yet they constantly swear that he makes a difference in their lives. Maybe there is an as of yet unfound "nugget" proving that God/cables do make a difference (I know it is totally and completely hilarious to compare audio cables to God, but it's more the "scientificly proven facts" I am relaying here). I really think there is a part of human hearing that is yet to be founded by scientific facts. Spending upwards of $100.00 in cables, IMO, IS a waste of money - none the less you should not neglect cables for the fact that there are no proven studies indicating they make no difference. There are, after all, a lot of people who do hear a difference. ;)

Resident Loser
02-04-2005, 09:49 AM
"...I can't find statistics either proving or disproving that spending $100 for interconnects could be worth my time."

Well, you probably won't...that is until jneutron reveals all, sometime in the future...

Insofar as "proof" is concerned, as it stands now, and to my best understanding, there is no real measurable or quantifiable, repeatable tests results that would indicate there is any difference between wires of similar length and gauge...there are however claims, unsolicited testimonials and a truckload of "hype" surrounding what is a relatively recent "cottage industry"...Everything from the color and/or composition of dielectric materials to the atomic structure of the particular choice of metal in the conductors is ripe for the ad copy...and my forever, all-time fave: some oblique reference to NASA and the space program.

That isn't to say there cannot be a difference between wires, but is that difference actually an "improvement" or simply a difference...That seems to be a determination best left to the individual who'll be payin' the freight. One probably can, through repeated trial and error, arrive at a combination of wires and active components that might deliver sonic Nirvana...however the results will be very specific and be dependent on how the gear interfaces electrically, the quality of the source material and the ears of listener who has done all the legwork...I might walk into someones listening room and decides it sounds like cr@p! I don't have your hardware, your software, your acoustic environment or most importatntly, your ears.

Wire distributors( I use that word because it seems few actually manufacture much of anything they sell) buy off-the-shelf wire and connectors in such quantity, the actual mfrs. will print those distributors names on the hardware, and it can be misleading to some; they don't provide real specs or measurements beyond what the mfr. specs them out as. And I apologize to those who might think otherwise, but providing resistance and capacitance numbers consisting of a decimal point followed by any number of zeros, per foot, is really quite meaningless...as is the fact that the signal travels at somewhere around the speed of light. Just more hype IMHO. These websites are the worst place for gleaning any real info.

Disproof? No one can disprove what someone else claims to hear...BUT...dare I say it out side the confines of the "lab"...there are test procedures currently in use that could, if administered properly, end the debate...The wire folks won't do it...no one wants to kill the "golden goose"...they can't afford to...The objectivists may try on occasion...but since most(if not all) end with null results, those tests are deemed inadequate or worse by some, no matter how compelling proponents may find them.

Some advice culled from the posts of the more reasonable among after-market advocates follows: ...you probably won't hear much of anything with less than SOTA gear...what you will hear will be subtle at best...price is no barometer of performance...DIY outperforms most hi-zoot wiring...if it makes everything sound good, there is something wrong...and... you will get better results from matching your equipment properly and paying attention to your listening environment than you will from any wire...


Back to your question about a source for info...here at AR is probably as good as any for a sort of balance of opinion...Audioholics tends to present more of the objective viewpoint and AA...well, what can one say about AA that hasn't already been said...suffice it to say they are ultra-subjectve...The informatinal links at each of these sites pretty much reflects that same degree of balance.

You can spend your time auditioning wires and components in an effort to get the nth degree of playback satisfaction or you can simply listen to the music...I prefer the latter.

So, unfortunately, you are pretty much left to your own devices...stick with decent OEM wire and/or reasonably priced, well-made, generic stuff or go for the more expensive stuff...If you are of a mind and ability to do so, try some of the DIY recipes...or not.

jimHJJ(...save your money, buy more music...)

musicoverall
02-04-2005, 11:58 AM
[QUOTE=Resident Loser
You can spend your time auditioning wires and components in an effort to get the nth degree of playback satisfaction or you can simply listen to the music...I prefer the latter. )[/QUOTE]

Or... you can do both. I prefer doing the former so I can appreciate more the latter. I do agree the differences are subtle. But I also feel they are musically significant.

Aric M L
02-04-2005, 05:09 PM
I get that people have beliefs about what their wires do or do not accomplish. And by the posts here, no one is really likely to give room on it. But so are there no actual sources to find the test data that "scientifically" more expensive cables can make a true difference in my audio system? I'm a graphs guy too, a graph or table would be nice too ;)

Pat D
02-04-2005, 06:13 PM
I get that people have beliefs about what their wires do or do not accomplish. And by the posts here, no one is really likely to give room on it. But so are there no actual sources to find the test data that "scientifically" more expensive cables can make a true difference in my audio system? I'm a graphs guy too, a graph or table would be nice too ;) Audioholics has measured some speaker cables. Here's a link to their cable section:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/cables.htm

They do not give any actual audibility data but one can compare it with information available on the ABX site. The ABX site shows the results of a few double blind tests. The first is for the matching criteria. If the difference is above the appropriate curves, then the differences should be audible under some circumstances. If they are below the curves, there is no guarantee that the difference is inaudible, and some maintain the curves are not stringent enough. However, appropriate cables are accurate enough to be well below the curves as shown on the ABX site..

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_crit.htm

The following link shows the results of some DBTs.

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm

E-Stat
02-05-2005, 07:33 AM
But so are there no actual sources to find the test data that "scientifically" more expensive cables can make a true difference in my audio system? I'm a graphs guy too, a graph or table would be nice too ;)
Nor will you find such available for any other audio component. Yes, you'll find tons of graphs, waterfall plots, square wave responses, etc., but none of those will directly translate to what you hear with any of them. There are quite a few amplifiers from Crown to Pass Labs with poorer distortion figures than their predecessors, yet sound better.

I quickly learned that the McIntosh clinic presentation of a distortion graph of my AR amplifier back in '72 was worthless.

rw

Pat D
02-05-2005, 09:58 AM
Nor will you find such available for any other audio component. Yes, you'll find tons of graphs, waterfall plots, square wave responses, etc., but none of those will directly translate to what you hear with any of them. There are quite a few amplifiers from Crown to Pass Labs with poorer distortion figures than their predecessors, yet sound better.

I quickly learned that the McIntosh clinic presentation of a distortion graph of my AR amplifier back in '72 was worthless.

rw
I'd like to see a waterfall plot for interconnects and speaker cables! I've seen them for speakers, of course.

I'll turn a superaudiophile type argument back on you: just because you can't get anything out of a good set of measurements doesn't mean nobody else can.

Aric M L
02-05-2005, 03:01 PM
Im going to have to agree, I understand seeing graphs is not hearing cables, but I think it would guide me to avoid the placebo effect. If cables had the exact same specifications, I'd be a bit skeptical as to whether or not I was actually hearing a difference, or just wanting to.

E-Stat
02-05-2005, 05:09 PM
I'd like to see a waterfall plot for interconnects and speaker cables! I've seen them for speakers, of course.

I'll turn a superaudiophile type argument back on you: just because you can't get anything out of a good set of measurements doesn't mean nobody else can.
What is your analysis of these plots for speaker "A" and speaker "B" ?

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/images/audio/plot1.jpg"><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/images/audio/plot2.jpg">

rw

Pat D
02-06-2005, 09:04 PM
What is your analysis of these plots for speaker "A" and speaker "B" ?

http://home.comcast.net/%7Eralphwallace/images/audio/plot1.jpghttp://home.comcast.net/%7Eralphwallace/images/audio/plot2.jpg

rw
Even the guy who makes these particular measurements doesn't usually say anything much about them in his reviews. As Atkinson says, the resonant decays don't usually cause much problem in most speakers. "However, loudspeakers with such audible resonant problems appear to be very rare these days."

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/100/index5.html

This measurement doesn't seem to work very well for electrostatic loudspeakers and other panel speakers, which seem to look pretty bad on it even though they actually sound pretty good..

In Stereophile, I look primarily at the impedance, sensitivity, frequency response and dispersion. Soundstage also measures distortion.

Speaker A seems to have a much more resonance in the midrange since the lines fall off considerably slower (lines are closer together). This may indicate there is some muddiness in the midrange--which doesn't look very flat anyway.

The peakiness between 16-17 kHz is high enough that it shouldn't be a problem.

Speaker B shows the midrange sound decays more rapidly, which is a plus. The chief thing is that it appears to have a much flatter frequency response, though, and that is better seen in other graphs.

My Stratus Minis beat both of them in this sort of measurement.;)

E-Stat
02-07-2005, 05:00 AM
Even the guy who makes these particular measurements doesn't usually say anything much about them in his reviews.
My point exactly.


This measurement doesn't seem to work very well for electrostatic loudspeakers and other panel speakers, which seem to look pretty bad on it even though they actually sound pretty good.
Yet another reason to disregard these measurements. BTW, the top trace is the Innersound Kaya and the lower trace the Polk Rti-4.

rw

Pat D
02-07-2005, 08:06 AM
My point exactly.


Yet another reason to disregard these measurements. BTW, the top trace is the Innersound Kaya and the lower trace the Polk Rti-4.

rw
Strange. If the measurements are good, you disregard them! Wouldn't you rather know that when they are good enough to not show a problem? Or do you only look for problems? But of course, those measurements CAN show problems, and Atkinson provides on as an example in the link I provided:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/100/index5.html

The Innersound Kaya seems to look much cleaner in the higher end than a number of electrostats, but this is probably partially because its frequency response is rather down in level above 2 kHz so some decay elements are below the graph. The Quad ESL-989 does quite well, too, but it looks worse because it does not have a reduced output above 2 kHz, so a lot of the decay elements are not below the graph. Probably more importantly, it has very good horizontal dispersion up to about 8 kHz as indicated in another graph.

I have never heard the Innersound products. It is quite possible I would like them. However, so far the only electrostats I have really liked are the Quads (for example, I heard some Acoustats years ago and didn't like them as well as my old Kefs), and they don't work well in a lot of rooms and for every application, as you well know. Hence, my very good forward radiating speakers.

The speaker measurements shown in consumer magazines are not complete enough to define the sound, even for experts, which I am not, but they can show a number of important things about the sound. They don't have to be comprehensive to be useful.

shokhead
02-07-2005, 08:44 AM
I think the most inportant thing in cables and wires is to get the right gauge speaker wire. After that i'm just look'n for some good solid cables.

E-Stat
02-07-2005, 09:20 AM
Strange. If the measurements are good, you disregard them! Wouldn't you rather know that when they are good enough to not show a problem? Or do you only look for problems?
I disregard them especially if they are good because they are unable to convey any useful information. Can I interest you in a great measuring (yet dreadful sounding) Crown IC-150 preamp? :)



But of course, those measurements CAN show problems, and Atkinson provides on as an example in the link I provided:
Which he said to be both rare and in this case easily audible with a high frequency edge. That's why I consider listening tests more important. There is a diference between information and knowledge.


The speaker measurements shown in consumer magazines are not complete enough to define the sound, even for experts, which I am not, but they can show a number of important things about the sound. They don't have to be comprehensive to be useful.
The only data I find useful is the impedance plot to help determine amplifier compatibility. Speakers with roller coaster curves need amps with low source impedance and don't mate well with tubes - so I avoid them.

rw

Lensman
02-07-2005, 10:31 AM
To those of you who come here with statements of how speaker wires dont matter to the point where 12 Gauge lamp cable would work as well as anything else, or evne to those who say that $500 interconnects can transfer signals with more accuracy.. Is there actually a source for this information? I'm looking into cables righ tnow and would like to make an educated decision as I'm sure you all can justify having done yourself. The problem is I can't find statistics either proving or disproving that spending $100 for interconnects could be worth my time. Any help would really help clear this fuzzy issue for me and probably a few other casual readers who want to know where these statements come from.

Here another link for consideration from the website of Roger Russell, former Director of Acoustic Research at McIntosh:

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

Pat D
02-07-2005, 10:41 AM
I disregard them especially if they are good because they are unable to convey any useful information. Can I interest you in a great measuring (yet dreadful sounding) Crown IC-150 preamp? :)



Which he said to be both rare and in this case easily audible with a high frequency edge. That's why I consider listening tests more important. There is a diference between information and knowledge.


The only data I find useful is the impedance plot to help determine amplifier compatibility. Speakers with roller coaster curves need amps with low source impedance and don't mate well with tubes - so I avoid them.

rw
Yes indeed, the impedance plot and the voltage sensitivity are useful to judge compatibility.

On the other hand, the frequency response plots and different horizontal and vertical angles are also very useful to me. These definitely can indicate differences in the sound.

The distortion plots done at the NRC for Soundstage are also useful, and of course, they do impedance and electrical phase plots as well as frequency response and horizontal dispersion, as in a rather less sophisticated fashion, Audio Ideas Guide.

If the Crown amp sounds dreadful, I have no doubt that the reasons will show up in measurements. BHK Labs for Soundstage or the Stereophile measurements would probably be sufficient.

Pat D
02-07-2005, 11:15 AM
I think the most inportant thing in cables and wires is to get the right gauge speaker wire. After that i'm just look'n for some good solid cables.
That's as close to proven as one is likely to get in this life. I prefer flexible cables to solid myself!:D

E-Stat
02-07-2005, 12:25 PM
Here another link for consideration from the website of Roger Russell, former Director of Acoustic Research at McIntosh:
Completely devoid, of course, of any testing substantiation. How were they tested? Using what equipment? Test tones or music? Who participated? Or making earthshattering claims like the 1983 Stereo Review Dares to Tell the Truth reference claiming 16 gauge lamp cord is better than 24 gauge lampcord. Indeed, if you are using 24 gauge lampcord, then high end cables are most definitely not for you. Most of references are quite dated, except for the 2001 Sound and Visions addition. I particularly enjoy that one's informative conclusion:

12 gauge should be heavy enough for any reasonable domestic application.

rw

Lensman
02-07-2005, 02:04 PM
Completely devoid, of course, of any testing substantiation. How were they tested? Using what equipment? Test tones or music? Who participated? Or making earthshattering claims like the 1983 Stereo Review Dares to Tell the Truth reference claiming 16 gauge lamp cord is better than 24 gauge lampcord. Indeed, if you are using 24 gauge lampcord, then high end cables are most definitely not for you. Most of references are quite dated, except for the 2001 Sound and Visions addition. I particularly enjoy that one's informative conclusion:

12 gauge should be heavy enough for any reasonable domestic application.

rw

I make no judgement call on the issue, but offer the link as another point of view from someone who can claim experience in the area. Like you, I could want for more specifics on the precise testing method employed and the individuals who participated. However, as one who has conducted group marketing studies, it is both believable and understandable that a company like McIntosh would have an interest in answering the question to their own satisfaction but not to anyone else's. It would not benefit them at all to polarize their potential customers for an against them. Thus the testing is likely done under less than controlled conditions and be subject to close scrutiny.

He does, however, make some statements that I think people on both sides of the issue would generally agree upon:

Reducing wire resistance is a critical factor in improving sound through wiring.

Oxygen-free wire has less resistance because the impurity, iron, is removed
in the process.

Silver wire has less resistance than copper wire.

Reducing the resistance "too low" does not diminish sound quality.

Cheap wire can increase resistance due to corrsion.

What places him with the scientific/objectivist crowd (aside from all the stuff at the end) is his statements that:

Lowering resistance of wire can done by increasing the gauge of cheap wire
instead of buying wire made from more expensive materials.

Beyond a certain amount of resistence reduction, there is no audible
difference in sound.

However, he appears to provide the subjectivist/observationalist crowd with some justification for their views with his points that:

The impedance of most speaker systems is not constant with frequency.

Systems with different impedance fluctuations require wire with different resistance.

High-end equipment can have impedance values that vary considerably from the
norm (such as the 4 ohm speaker he mentioned).

This, of course, excludes justifying people with low or mid-grade level equipment who claim advantage from expensive cabling, but I've seen many in the subjectivist/observationalist crowd that do that as well.

I'll be the first to state I'm no electrical engineer. So I may be way off base, but my interpretation of all this seems to indicate:

Most average systems would not gain benefits from expensive wiring because the amps and speakers run impedance ranges that lie within more standard norms for typical consumer electrical equipment. Though there may be impedance variances from component to component, none are sufficiently large that they could not be handled with typical zip cord of reasonable thickness.

High-end equipment has impedance values that may vary considerably from the norm, requiring wire with different resistance values. So it is conceivable that the electrical load on certain combinations of speakers and amps could be such that wire of unusually low resistance could be required to fully handle the impedance variances.

E-Stat
02-07-2005, 02:32 PM
What places him with the scientific/objectivist crowd (aside from all the stuff at the end) is his statements that:

Lowering resistance of wire can done by increasing the gauge of cheap wire
instead of buying wire made from more expensive materials.

Beyond a certain amount of resistence reduction, there is no audible
difference in sound.

However, he appears to provide the subjectivist/observationalist crowd with some justification for their views with his points that:

The impedance of most speaker systems is not constant with frequency.

Systems with different impedance fluctuations require wire with different resistance.

High-end equipment can have impedance values that vary considerably from the
norm (such as the 4 ohm speaker he mentioned).
Despite all this fuss about resistance, it completely ignores what is likely the more important of the three primary wire criteria: inductance. My cables have about one-sixth the inductance of 12 gauge zip.


Most average systems would not gain benefits from expensive wiring because the amps and speakers run impedance ranges that lie within more standard norms for typical consumer electrical equipment.
Agreed. Not to mention "average systems" are lower in resolution to warrant the effort. As with any piece of equipment, I believe it is all about matching electrical and performance capabilities.

rw

Lensman
02-07-2005, 04:18 PM
Despite all this fuss about resistance, it completely ignores what is likely the more important of the three primary wire criteria: inductance. My cables have about one-sixth the inductance of 12 gauge zip.
Certainly a valid consideration. It'd be interesting to ask Russell about that.


...Not to mention "average systems" are lower in resolution to warrant the effort. As with any piece of equipment, I believe it is all about matching electrical and performance capabilities.
Well said. I believe there'd be less arguing on the subject if everyone thought that way.

Pat D
02-07-2005, 06:50 PM
Despite all this fuss about resistance, it completely ignores what is likely the more important of the three primary wire criteria: inductance. My cables have about one-sixth the inductance of 12 gauge zip.


Agreed. Not to mention "average systems" are lower in resolution to warrant the effort. As with any piece of equipment, I believe it is all about matching electrical and performance capabilities.

rw
Have you measured you speaker wire? Has someone else measured it and published it? If not, how do you know how much inductance it has? As well, have you any idea how the frequency response of your system is affected by your cables? If not, how do you know how important the inductance is?

I believe your speakers get quite low in impedance at some point, which makes the resistance important.

E-Stat
02-08-2005, 09:06 AM
Has someone else measured it and published it?
The manufacturer has kindly done so.


As well, have you any idea how the frequency response of your system is affected by your cables?
<a href="http://www.innersound.net/icablewhitepap.html">Inductance and ESLs</a href>

Perhaps Stereophile should have used some lower inductance cables on the Kayas to tame the HF spike.


I believe your speakers get quite low in impedance at some point, which makes the resistance important.
While that is true (they drop below 4 ohms across about four octaves) I never said resistance was not important. What I said was inductance was the more important of the two with speaker wires. I may be hanging out on a limb here, but that is the assertion of both Roger Sanders and our own radio guy, Zapped.

rw

musicoverall
02-08-2005, 09:39 AM
While that is true (they drop below 4 ohms across about four octaves) I never said resistance was not important. What I said was inductance was the more important of the two with speaker wires. I may be hanging out on a limb here, but that is the assertion of both Roger Sanders and our own radio guy, Zapped. rw

As it happens, the speaker cable I recently purchased is considerably lower in resistance and inductance than the cable they replaced. They also sounded better. I leave it to the engineers to determine any causal relationship but I'll bet you can guess which attribute I found more compelling!

Aric M L
02-10-2005, 12:15 AM
Ok so I've always understood why resistance is important, and I get why capacitance is something to avoid in speakers. I have two more questions though, Larger wires would have more conductive mass in them and therefore have higher capacitance so would it be true that to a point, bigger is not always better? And I've heard talk of induction and while I understand what induction is, I can't understand why it would make a difference if you don't have the cables running near each other. Since wouldn't the inductance, being a product of the electrical current present in the wire, not interfere with the signal? Or am I completely wrong on this? Which I know may also be a good possibility

NoMSG
02-12-2005, 07:51 AM
To those of you who come here with statements of how speaker wires dont matter to the point where 12 Gauge lamp cable would work as well as anything else, or evne to those who say that $500 interconnects can transfer signals with more accuracy.. Is there actually a source for this information? I'm looking into cables righ tnow and would like to make an educated decision as I'm sure you all can justify having done yourself. The problem is I can't find statistics either proving or disproving that spending $100 for interconnects could be worth my time. Any help would really help clear this fuzzy issue for me and probably a few other casual readers who want to know where these statements come from.

Whether it's wires or tires, I don't buy the most expensive thing out there just because there are no tests to show that it ISN'T better--I think this is totally bass ackwards. If you have a limited budget, you try to spend your money where it makes the most appreciable difference. Let the salesman at the shop PROVE TO YOU that he should be getting an additional $200 of your money for those shiny wires.

Those who buy high priced wires will tell you that there is no way to definitively DISPROVE that (1) they personally can hear a difference, or (2) wires many times more expensive than 12-guage zip cord objective sound "better." I can't argue with that kind of logic or conclusions.

A few years ago, when I blew a driver in my Paradigm CC-350 center channel speaker, I took the driver out to mail it back to the dealer. I was chagrinned when I saw that all the wires connecting the woofer appeared to be only 18 gauge (or maybe even thinner). Not only that, the wire was connected to the driver not by solder, but by a simple tension clip--the kind you find on low-end automotive speakers. So any weak link in the signal that leaves your receiver/amp is in the internal connections/wiring of the actual speaker. Although my $350 speaker is not high end, I wouldn't be surprised if other high-buck speakers used similar internals.

Look, if you believe can hear a difference that is worth the additional money, then go for it. But, like anything else, don't buy based on blind faith.

Geoffcin
02-12-2005, 11:54 AM
A few years ago, when I blew a driver in my Paradigm CC-350 center channel speaker, I took the driver out to mail it back to the dealer. I was chagrinned when I saw that all the wires connecting the woofer appeared to be only 18 gauge (or maybe even thinner). Not only that, the wire was connected to the driver not by solder, but by a simple tension clip--the kind you find on low-end automotive speakers. So any weak link in the signal that leaves your receiver/amp is in the internal connections/wiring of the actual speaker. Although my $350 speaker is not high end, I wouldn't be surprised if other high-buck speakers used similar internals.

Look, if you believe can hear a difference that is worth the additional money, then go for it. But, like anything else, don't buy based on blind faith.

And there is a difference, at least with the B&W's my friend has. One of his vintage Matrix III's had a problem with cutting out because of a defective protection circuit. We took the crossover out and got a good look at the internals. I'm happy to report that the whole assembly was built like the proverbial "brick ****house" with 12ga wiring throughout, and quality hand soldering. B&W rebuilt his crossover free of charge, even though it was 10 years out of warrenttee! Sometimes you do get what you paid for.

Pat D
02-12-2005, 06:46 PM
The manufacturer has kindly done so.


Inductance and ESLs (http://www.innersound.net/icablewhitepap.html)

Perhaps Stereophile should have used some lower inductance cables on the Kayas to tame the HF spike.


While that is true (they drop below 4 ohms across about four octaves) I never said resistance was not important. What I said was inductance was the more important of the two with speaker wires. I may be hanging out on a limb here, but that is the assertion of both Roger Sanders and our own radio guy, Zapped.

rw
Completely devoid of any substantiation--sound familiar? Roger Sanders should know what he is talking about, of course, as should should Roger Russell. But Sanders doesn't say too much about the effects of inductance. What special thing does it do with electrostatic speakers?

What high frequency spike in the Kaya? Not in the FR. There seems to be a slow decay between 16 and 17 kHz, and I doubt inductance would have much to do with that.

E-Stat
02-12-2005, 08:00 PM
...of course, as should should Roger Russell.
And why is that?


But Sanders doesn't say too much about the effects of inductance. What special thing does it do with electrostatic speakers?
I'll help you out here.

An ESL is driven by a high-voltage, step-up transformer. This transformer is inside the speaker and converts the relatively low voltage of an amplifier to the several thousand volts needed to drive an ESL. Unfortunately, all transformers have leakage inductance. This inductance interacts with the capacitance of an ESL to form an L/C (inductance/capacitance) resonant circuit. This produces an undesirable, high-frequency peak in the frequency response of the ESL.

It is essential that this resonance be kept well above the audio spectrum to prevent the sound from being excessively "bright." Since the capacitance of the ESL is fixed, the only way to get the resonance high is to build a transformer with very low leakage inductance.

Inductance is a big problem with ESLs due to the L/C resonance described above. ESL manufacturers expend great effort to obtain transformers with low inductance. So it is vitally important that the cables have low inductance too. If the cables add a lot of inductance to the circuit, they can undo the transformer designer's best efforts

rw

jneutron
02-14-2005, 06:33 AM
Despite all this fuss about resistance, it completely ignores what is likely the more important of the three primary wire criteria: inductance. My cables have about one-sixth the inductance of 12 gauge zip.
rw

What is the inductance, capacitance, and resistance of your speaker wires, and what are the lengths?

Cheers, John

E-Stat
02-14-2005, 04:26 PM
What is the inductance, capacitance, and resistance of your speaker wires, and what are the lengths?
L - 0.06 uH / ft
C - 20 pf / ft
R - 2 ohms / 1000 ft

I use 8 ft runs.

rw

jneutron
02-15-2005, 06:46 AM
L - 0.06 uH / ft
C - 20 pf / ft
R - 2 ohms / 1000 ft
I use 8 ft runs.
rw

Thanks..

Those numbers are consistent with an effective dielectric of 1.16, so I am concerned with the accuracy of L, as that is the most difficult to measure correctly.

Were those numbers from the manufacturer, or did you measure them yourself?

What is the dielectric material?

Cheers, John

krabapple
02-15-2005, 10:13 AM
Have you measured you speaker wire? Has someone else measured it and published it? If not, how do you know how much inductance it has? As well, have you any idea how the frequency response of your system is affected by your cables? If not, how do you know how important the inductance is?

I believe your speakers get quite low in impedance at some point, which makes the resistance important.


Someone has measured speaker wires (not those particular ones) and how they interact with amps and speakers, and published it in a respectable scientific journal. And guess what he found? That for all but relatively unusual circumstances, plain old 12 AWG will do *just fine*


http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

but of course, if anyone want to verify that by listening tests, feel free. Just make *sure* you are using a bias-controlled, level-matched protocol, otherwise you *will* run a significant risk that your results are false. Controls for error are basic science; a pity they're so controversial in audiophile-land.

jneutron
02-15-2005, 10:36 AM
Someone has measured speaker wires (not those particular ones) and how they interact with amps and speakers, and published it in a respectable scientific journal. And guess what he found? That for all but relatively unusual circumstances, plain old 12 AWG will do *just fine*

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf


Alas, I read that last August, I had hoped it was not the same one...

That paper was very well done..There are two very "minor" flaws.

First, his text: (note, not posted by fred, but I don't know how to put quoted text into a box without attributing a post to him.

Higher cable capacitance will tend to reduce the combined reactive component of the cable, thus lowering cable impedance at high frequencies and improving the high frequency response. This effect is contrary to the belief that high frequencies will be attenuated more with higher cable capacitance..
Hmmmm...yes, it will lower the cable impedance..I do not know why he then states "improving the hf response". That is an incorrect statement.

The capacitance of the cable, for audio frequencies, is a storage mechanism, which retains energy, value 1/2* C * V<sup>2</sup>. It is a lag mechanism, so can only delay the hf information..this is also the same with the inductance of the wire..it too, is a lagging mechanism.. Together, both conspire to delay the audio information that is being presented to the speaker. And, when the cable impedance is equal to that of the load, that lagging energy storage is minimized.

And, then...after reading the whole paper...ummm, where is the test of the most significant parameter responsible for localization response in humans? You know, the soundstage development thingy????

He may choose to listen to a stereo with only one channel active at a time...I, even for the crappy system I have, choose to listen to two at a time..

It's not his fault, really...he did a bang up job..unfortunately, the human model of hearing is not sufficiently complex for him to come to any conclusion other than that which he published.

That will change, in time...

Cheers, John

E-Stat
02-15-2005, 03:14 PM
Thanks..

Those numbers are consistent with an effective dielectric of 1.16, so I am concerned with the accuracy of L, as that is the most difficult to measure correctly.

Were those numbers from the manufacturer, or did you measure them yourself?

What is the dielectric material?

Cheers, John
They are from the manufacturer, JPS Labs. Dialectric is proprietary.

http://www.jpslabs.com/design.shtml

rw

krabapple
02-23-2005, 04:25 PM
Alas, I read that last August, I had hoped it was not the same one...

That paper was very well done..There are two very "minor" flaws.

First, his text: (note, not posted by fred, but I don't know how to put quoted text into a box without attributing a post to him.

Hmmmm...yes, it will lower the cable impedance..I do not know why he then states "improving the hf response". That is an incorrect statement.

The capacitance of the cable, for audio frequencies, is a storage mechanism, which retains energy, value 1/2* C * V<sup>2</sup>. It is a lag mechanism, so can only delay the hf information..this is also the same with the inductance of the wire..it too, is a lagging mechanism.. Together, both conspire to delay the audio information that is being presented to the speaker. And, when the cable impedance is equal to that of the load, that lagging energy storage is minimized.

And, then...after reading the whole paper...ummm, where is the test of the most significant parameter responsible for localization response in humans? You know, the soundstage development thingy????

He may choose to listen to a stereo with only one channel active at a time...I, even for the crappy system I have, choose to listen to two at a time..

It's not his fault, really...he did a bang up job..unfortunately, the human model of hearing is not sufficiently complex for him to come to any conclusion other than that which he published.


? Or, maybe , his goal, in 1991, when this paper was published, was not to test audibility of differences directly, but rather to provide some much-needed hard data about cable/system interactions ... a factor that audiophiles still hand-wavingly refer to as accounting for the vast differences they hear between cables, even though Davis' data indicate this situation is likely to be rare. , if not indicative of outright poor component design.

Do you believe there's a parameter yet unknown or unmeasured in speaker cables, that would account for 'soundstage development thingy' differences heard between cables?

And hovering above all this is, if cables really do tend to *sound* obviously different the way audiophiles, high-end magazines, and certain manufacterers claim, why has it proven so difficult to verify in bias-controlled tests?

Btw, I think Davis is still around....might be contactable for answering questions.

jneutron
02-24-2005, 09:17 AM
? Or, maybe , his goal, in 1991, when this paper was published, was not to test audibility of differences directly, but rather to provide some much-needed hard data about cable/system interactions
I am confident you are correct in that.

Do you believe there's a parameter yet unknown or unmeasured in speaker cables, that would account for 'soundstage development thingy' differences heard between cables?
Yes. The generation of a soundstage requires ITD and IID information. IID is what Davis speaks on. Nowhere is there anything about ITD. ITD is probably the most important parameter for localization of sound..and yet, it isn't covered.

And hovering above all this is, if cables really do tend to *sound* obviously different the way audiophiles, high-end magazines, and certain manufacterers claim, why has it proven so difficult to verify in bias-controlled tests?
If a different set of cables truly changed the ITD content, then how long does it take for the human mind to re-aquire the imaging construct? If it takes several days for the mind to re-adjust to the different ITD configuration, then fast switching, consistent with standart DBT protocols, is useless.

Btw, I think Davis is still around....might be contactable for answering questions.
I would be more inclined to discuss this with him after I have developed an ITD/IID sensitivity model...otherwise, I'd be just handwaving...

Cheers, John

Mash
02-24-2005, 09:51 AM
OKaaayyyy

"The generation of a soundstage requires ITD and IID information. IID is what Davis speaks on. Nowhere is there anything about ITD. ITD is probably the most important parameter for localization of sound.."

And then we read:

"If a different set of cables truly changed the ITD content, then how long does it take for the human mind to re-aquire the imaging construct? If it takes several days for the mind to re-adjust to the different ITD configuration, then fast switching, consistent with standart DBT protocols, is useless. "

OK- I got lost by this elusive "IF" : " If it takes several days for the mind to re-adjust to the different ITD configuration...." combined with "...then fast switching, consistent with standart DBT protocols, is useless. " Huh? A speculative IF can dismiss the validity of DBT? I don't get it. DBT is ONLY intended to determine IF a difference can be perceived, or IF a difference CANNOT be perceived, between the paired items being tested. If the difference CANNOT be perceived, then why would you worry about any previously-presumed distinctions between those test items? Move on to distinctions that you demonstrate you CAN perceive......

Why are we worrying about whether the mind can re-adjust to a different ITD configuration...? Sounds waaayyyy too metaphysical to me.

jneutron
02-24-2005, 10:11 AM
OKaaayyyy

"The generation of a soundstage requires ITD and IID information. IID is what Davis speaks on. Nowhere is there anything about ITD. ITD is probably the most important parameter for localization of sound.."

And then we read:

"If a different set of cables truly changed the ITD content, then how long does it take for the human mind to re-aquire the imaging construct? If it takes several days for the mind to re-adjust to the different ITD configuration, then fast switching, consistent with standart DBT protocols, is useless. "

OK- I got lost by this elusive "IF" : " If it takes several days for the mind to re-adjust to the different ITD configuration...." combined with "...then fast switching, consistent with standart DBT protocols, is useless. " Huh? A speculative IF can dismiss the validity of DBT? I don't get it. DBT is ONLY intended to determine IF a difference can be perceived, or IF a difference CANNOT be perceived, between the paired items being tested. If the difference CANNOT be perceived, then why would you worry about any previously-presumed distinctions between those test items? Move on to distinctions that you demonstrate you CAN perceive......

Why are we worrying about whether the mind can re-adjust to a different ITD configuration...? Sounds waaayyyy too metaphysical to me.
The elusive "ifs".

First if..., I said IF the cables changed ITD content...because I have yet to provide actual data to that extent of their ability to make an AUDIBLE (key) change..I know they can change the ITD relations..but it is not known if we can hear it..

Second if.. best example I can think of is night vision..if you quickly leave a very bright room, into a moonless forest, and a candle if 1000 yards away, you will not be able to see it immediately, you're vision system has to re-adjust. It takes time..eventually, you will see it..

The imaging of a virtual soundstage requires the brain adjust itself to the bad data it is receiving...the terrible reproduction scenario RC speaks about..is certainly bad...it is an artificial aural stimulus...not a natural one..

So, how long does it take to "train" oneself to visualize the soundstage? I don't know, I have no hard data yet..it is in fact, one of the confounding variables I have considered in my testing..am I learning how to pinpoint the stimulus with time??

This is the problem I see when considering DBT for use in soundstage determination...the instrument being used is inexact. I would consider DBT only useful for monophonic discerning..and use caution for virtual imaging tests..

Cheers, John

Mash
02-24-2005, 10:45 AM
I think the night vision analogy is not good. Assuming the eyes are healthy and normal, their pupils must simply open to admit more light when the individual leaves the lighted room for the moonless forest. This is a well known response of the eye(s) to a change in ambient lighting.

The Stereopile Test CD (#3, I believe) has JA walking from the back of a church up toward a pair of stereo mikes located at the front pews as he hits a cow bell. The intended listener is "midway in the pews". If I play this cow bell test over a stereo pair of coned speakers, JA only becomes louder as he "supposedly walks", but he never seems to move toward me. If I play this cow bell test over my (stereo pair) of Futterman-driven Tympani, JA seems to move toward me as he becomes louder. Of course, if JA were to continue walking past the mikes at the front pews and toward the front of the church, I would probably perceive him as turning around and walking back to the far rear of the church. Now mind you, I use RS Gold I/C and 12 Ga zip speaker wires. Since I hear the spatial effect as JA apparently intended, it would seem that I have no need to buy exotic (read: expensive) wires. But I only get the spatial effect with the Tympani and not with the coned speakers I tried. I will have to try it with the Magnepans now in my bedroom, even tho they are powered with a Class A SS amp.

jneutron
02-24-2005, 11:15 AM
I think the night vision analogy is not good. Assuming the eyes are healthy and normal, their pupils must simply open to admit more light when the individual leaves the lighted room for the moonless forest. This is a well known response of the eye(s) to a change in ambient lighting.
No...it is not that simple. The pupils take time to open up..it can take many minutes, even hours, for the eye to fully adapt to the night..

In fact, it is also an age related thing. For example, 4 women, same family, ranging from mother to youngest daughter. My Kodak 6 megapixel camera has red eye reduction...it pre-flashes to fool the pupils to contract (reducing red-eye), then main flash goes off.. The oldest woman, through many group photo's, had no red eye..the youngest, always had it..the amount of redeye correlated exactly with the age of the woman...youngest having more..because her pupils dialated the fastest, opening up a lot before the second, main flash. BTW, it is a Kodak DX7630...excellent, user friendly...I recommend it..


The Stereopile Test CD (#3, I believe) has JA walking from the back of a church up toward a pair of stereo mikes located at the front pews as he hits a cow bell. The intended listener is "midway in the pews". If I play this cow bell test over a stereo pair of coned speakers, JA only becomes louder as he "supposedly walks", but he never seems to move toward me. If I play this cow bell test over my (stereo pair) of Futterman-driven Tympani, JA seems to move toward me as he becomes louder. Of course, if JA were to continue walking past the mikes at the front pews and toward the front of the church, I would probably perceive him as turning around and walking back to the far rear of the church. Now mind you, I use RS Gold I/C and 12 Ga zip speaker wires. Since I hear the spatial effect as JA apparently intended, it would seem that I have no need to buy exotic (read: expensive) wires. But I only get the spatial effect with the Tympani and not with the coned speakers I tried. I will have to try it with the Magnepans now in my bedroom, even tho they are powered with a Class A SS amp.
Interesting that he used a cow bell..that is exactly what I was thinking of using as a test stimulus..it is harmonic rich and very transient rich.
This certainly means that if your music has cow bells in it.......forget it, I'll resist....:-)

What you listened to is the interplay of IID, ITD, and the secondary reflections..and, my guess is that your cones aren't as solid in transient response as your F-T's.

If JA had done the test, but this time, moving to the side, and stating distance from center, that would be a better test of localization..

Three possibilities come to mind...your F-T's are phase coherent/simple loads to your amp, rendering them insensitive to wires....your cones are wildly reactive, and don't play nice with amp wire combo's, or it's just the quality of the speakers and it doesn't have a darned thing to do with wire mumbo jumbo..

Does he have any side to side stuff on that CD?

Cheers John..

Mash
02-24-2005, 11:43 AM
Yep. JA did 3 seperate "localization demos":
Left-rear to center front;
Center-rear to center front; and
Right-rear to center-front.

I would have to go look at the "instruction booklet" to be sure, but I believe he walked an "L" path for the first & last demos.

Yes, Magnepans are basically "resistive".

Cone drivers are intended to act as rigid pistons, and we know that nothing in the real world is truely rigid. Well... with one possible exception..... We also know that adding material to add stiffness means adding mass.

thepogue
02-24-2005, 05:06 PM
used of course...I just picked up a set of M 2.2's...they look like somfinn from NASA....they list for close to 700 clams when new...now the equivlent goes for over 1G...I got them for 300 bucks...they sound better then my home-grown Belden bi-wires...and they keep my wife outta the room cuz she hates snakes...no graphs, charts, or DBT's...just good ole common sense...buy low, sell high, keep the wife out...case closed.


Peace, Pogue

Mash
02-25-2005, 11:51 AM
Aric
I don't know if anyone ever really answered your question about where the information on speaker wire (and I/C, for all practical purposes) comes from........

EE's have done much work on these questions for the power industry, for the military, and so forth. There are innumerable EE handbooks available for you to read. Bookpool.com specializes in excellent reference books. Amazon.com also sells such books. Both provide reader book reviews, which include 'star' ratings between '1' and '5', with '5' being the very best.

My preference is to consult those who have no financial interests in my ultimate decision. Would you expect an unbiased answer from a Chevy dealer if you were to ask him whether you should buy a new Chevy or a new Toyota? I also consult those who do not have an abiding "ego investment" involved. If someone has spent big bucks on something, they are unlikely to admit that their purchase was foolish or unnecessary.... aren't they?

Here is an easy read to get you started:
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

E-Stat
02-25-2005, 01:52 PM
My preference is to consult those who have no financial interests in my ultimate decision. Would you expect an unbiased answer from a Chevy dealer if you were to ask him whether you should buy a new Chevy or a new Toyota?
Agreed. I find that I get a far more informative analysis by automotive reviewers such as those found in Car & Driver, Road & Track, and Automobile. These guys have had the opportunity to drive everything from a Yugo to a Ferrari Enzo and understand the differences from an experiential standpoint. No theory required. An unlike their audio counterparts at The Absolute Sound and Stereophile, they are not criticized for their impressions. I don't understand the difference.



Here is an easy read to get you started:
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
Easy to read but dated and focused on comparisons between Yugos and Toyotas (24 gauge zip vs 12 gauge zip).

rw

Mash
02-25-2005, 06:00 PM
Ah, Mr. E-Stat
It is so nice to merit your attention.

I would like to thank theaudiohobby for bringing “The Art of Electronics” by Horowitz and Hill to our attention. I ordered my copy yesterday. The readers’ reviews on both Amazon and Bookpool were very, very favorable.

But really, Mr. E-Stat, I am a wee bit curious about your motivations. Did you really wish to spread truth and light? Or are you spreading something else?

First, Car & Driver, Road & Track, and Automobile are rather inane publications. I am confident you will learn nothing from reading them, although they may offer you vicarious life experiences. The notion that “These guys have had the opportunity to drive everything from a Yugo to a Ferrari Enzo and understand the differences from an experiential standpoint.” has bearing on what? Nothing that seems important to me. And what about your comment “No theory required.” Are you anti-education, Mr. E-Stat? Theory is the basis of education and learning, Mr. E-Stat.

The real plum is your denigrating Mr. Russell’s site with “Easy to read but dated and focused on comparisons between Yugos and Toyotas (24 gauge zip vs 12 gauge zip).” You would seem to imply Toyotas are semi-crap while you lust after a Ferrari, Mr. E-Stat? Perhaps you could stand to learn a few things?

Toyota Motors is able to control manufacturing processes tightly enough to produce very fine assembly fits that other manufacturers can only dream about. The result is that Toyota eliminates pounding wear. Also when a process does begin to come out of tolerance at Toyota, Toyota can stop that process before any parts are made that would not meet their full quality standards. You see, Shift Happens! in any on-going process. So while the Ferrari engine must be rebuilt after 40,000 miles, any reasonably maintained Toyota engine is capable of being operated 300,000 miles or more. The interesting detail is that the Ferrari costs 28X what the Toyota costs- not an impressive cost-benefit result!

And yes, Mr. E-Stat, I am qualified to comment on statistical tolerance control of assemblies and so forth. It was one of my sidelines, and thousands of designers and engineers today use the 1-D statistical program I had spearheaded. It is too bad that I did not have the time to complete the 3-D UG-based statistical assembly program I was spearheading. I had to let someone else lead that because I had two major projects going, a simple-cycle plant with up to 50% efficiency that could be built in 4 months and I also had to support a combined cycle plant offering 60% efficiency. The first of these babies was running in a $1.7 billion plant. I had no time to fantasize with Car & Driver, Road & Track, and Automobile.

Why do you read Mr. Russell's information as a comparison of 24AWG to 12AWG? If you would be kind enough to go back and carefully REread the information, you might discover that Mr. Russell was testing 24AWG to prove his theory about how one selects wire size based on the required wire length and the particular speaker’s impedance.

Besides, why should WE consider Mr. Russell’s information dated? What EE theories do you use for declaring that information dated? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot- you would seem to hold “Theory” in contempt.

E-Stat
02-25-2005, 07:08 PM
The notion that “These guys have had the opportunity to drive everything from a Yugo to a Ferrari Enzo and understand the differences from an experiential standpoint.” has bearing on what?
Understanding that which transcends simple numeric analysis. That's why F1 engineers tune their 4 G cars based upon driver feedback given their basic design work only carries them so far.


You would seem to imply Toyotas are semi-crap while you lust after a Ferrari, Mr. E-Stat? Perhaps you could stand to learn a few things?
If you equate the performance of a Corolla with a Modena, then there is nothing I can teach you. My S2000, however, does a fair job of duplicating the F360's handling. Basic cornering and acceleration numbers are similar.


Toyota Motors is able to control manufacturing processes...
Do you have a point relevant to performance?


Why do you read Mr. Russell's information as a comparison of 24AWG to 12AWG?
Because there were quite a few folks here and elsewhere who thought these "tests" offered proof concerning all audio cables. Obviously, their limited scope does not.


...you would seem to hold “Theory” in contempt.
Theory is a great place to start.

rw

Mash
02-25-2005, 09:21 PM
Mr. E-Stat
Your posts simply mystify me.

Why is it you seem to have the crushing need to always introduce automotive themes into these discussions, such as when you use Yugos and Toyotas to represent 24AWG versus 12 AWG wires? Why then do you balk when someone responds in keeping with what you have started? This does not seem logical to me.

You suggest you might be able to teach me something (about cars? ) because your "S2000, however, does a fair job of duplicating the F360's handling" Well, so what? Dude, I modded a Mazda RX4 Wagon years ago to be a Mazda RX4 NQS (Not Quite Stock) and I routinly shut down BMW's with it. You see, I could drive a rubber-tired bike on the ice & snow without falling, so a 4-wheeled auto was a piece of cake. None of the BMW drivers were all that good- a bunch of Walter Mittys, as it were. Tell me not how fantastic your car is supposed to be, but rather, how fantastic you are.

My suggestion is that If you would be kind enough to go back and carefully REread the information in http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm, you might discover that Mr. Russell was testing 24AWG to prove his theory about how one selects wire size based on the required wire length and the particular speaker's impedance. Really, do try that.

E-Stat
02-26-2005, 06:38 AM
Why is it you seem to have the crushing need to always introduce automotive themes into these discussions
Actually, you introduced the theme at post #50 and I replied in kind.


Tell me not how fantastic your car is supposed to be, but rather, how fantastic you are.
My driving acumen is irrelevant to the discussion of the comparative performance between a Corolla and a Modena. I trust your wagon was superior to a Corolla.


...go back and carefully REread the information...
Ok fine.


you might discover that Mr. Russell was testing 24AWG to prove his theory about how one selects wire size based on the required wire length and the particular speaker's impedance. Really, do try that.

There are no tests conducted by Russell "supporting his theories" found on that link. All one finds of his is a chart based solely on DC resistance measurements not varying by more than 5% and commentary. He used a calculator.

The tests referenced were conducted by Gordon Gow, Edgar Villchur, Lawrence Greenhill, R.A. Greiner. et.al. I refer to the gripping 1983 test entitled Stereo Review Dares to Tell the Truth. Here, Greenhill compared 24 gauge zip to 12 and 16 gauge zip. After 50 hours of listening (what a glutton for punishment), the conclusion was you could hear the difference between either the 12 or 16 gauge zip vs. 24 gauge zip. Yawn.

Naturally, there is zero discussion whatsoever of any kind concerning the test conditions, equipment used, nor content.

rw

Mash
02-27-2005, 06:04 AM
Mr. E-Stat

I really had to ponder this portion of your response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mash
Toyota Motors is able to control manufacturing processes...

E-Stat’s question: “Do you have a point relevant to performance?”

I was shocked, Mr. E-Stat! I was simply shocked about how this response is so very much at odds the sophisticated and knowledgeable E-Stat online persona.

But because I am a wonderful person, I will endeavor to enlighten you:

1. The only “point relevant to performance” is how do you confirm the performance actually offered by the specific production unit that YOU have bought?

2. Variation occurs naturally in our world and variation is inherent in any manufacturing process. Variation is inversely related to the Sigma level the manufacturer can maintain in any particular manufacturing process. The Sigma Level describes how well the various “opportunities for defects” have been controlled.

3. The specific automobile, for example, that your buddies at Car & Driver, Road & Track, or Automobile happen to have tested is “representative” of the specific unit you “might” purchase, but the auto you really purchase depends on how tightly the manufacturer is able to control his unit to unit production variation in his manufacturing process, and this is defined as the process Sigma level that the manufacturer can maintain.

4. If, say, an auto manufacturer has a 2.5 Sigma process and you actually get a unit with –5 Sigma traits in your personal CTQ’s [that is “Critical to Quality”, Dude], you are NOT getting a unit that has CTQ’s equivalent to those in the auto your buddies at Car & Driver, Road & Track, or Automobile happen to have actually tested.

5. If you don’t really have the ability to operate the auto in question “as required” to verify the actual quality of your CTQ’s, you will never know what automobile you really bought anyway, will you? Hence, in this case, your “driving acumen” becomes key to determining the actual performance of the auto that YOU have bought.

6. Now, your sophisticated and knowledgeable online persona suggests that you are seeking to optimize audible, but quite subtle, wire traits in your meticulous wire quests.

7. But you seem quite unaware how the variation in a wire manufacturer’s processes could cause two specimens of supposedly identical speaker wires, or I/C, to actually be audibly different in your sophisticated listening tests.

8. You as a Sophisticated Audiophile have many areas of concern when evaluating a wire, such as the dielectric performance and the purity of the wire’s metal where opportunities would be characterized on a per-inch or per-cm basis.

9. The design philosophy of the wire might be considered as a constant among individual wire samples, but one must also be vigilant for variation in how the design philosophy was actually completed in each specimen.

10. In fact, you have likely never thought to audition each new wire sample separately. You probably blindly test them as a pair…. Well, not blindly, since you seem to abhor DBT.

11. Therefore, ‘new’ wire A-left could be “better” than ‘your old’ wire B-left when evaluated in the left channel comparison, while ‘new’ wire A-right could be worse than ‘your old’ wire B-right when evaluated in the right channel comparison.

12. In other words, to optimize these quite subtle wire traits in your system to satisfy your meticulous wire quest, you might have to replace your old wire B-left in the left channel with new wire A-left, while you would retain your old wire B-right in the right channel and return to the dealer the new wire A-right that was an unsatisfactory replacement in the right channel. Whew! You are going to have some long days, Dude.


I have no ill feelings whatsoever toward people who purchase products they lack the ability to really utilize. They pay the depreciation and then I get something nice at a very favorable price:

1. I bought a big-block-powered boat from a gentleman who did not use the power trim when we went out for a sea trial and he did not know the steering wheel was adjustable similar to the steering wheels one finds on better autos.

2. He never went over 40, and the boat was very under-propped.

3. He had skis in the ski locker, but I have no idea how someone could ski behind those open pipes.

4. The stump-pulling under-propping would pose a real risk to any skier’s arms.

5. I did conclude that his wife did NOT like that boat. So I got a really nice used boat with really low hours.

6. A little engine work including adding Captain’s Call, and changing to higher-pitched offshore propping, gave us a nice large-lake rocket.

7. My wife claims I like it because it takes me back to my flying days. She is right.

thepogue
02-27-2005, 06:27 AM
how exhilarating....

I think this thread has to be nominated for the most BS in a single post for '05 (so far)...

let me know when it's time to cast me vote...I'll be first in line!!

whew...(what a hobby) :rolleyes:

Peace-Out, Pogue

E-Stat
02-27-2005, 08:19 AM
I really had to ponder this portion of your response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mash
Toyota Motors is able to control manufacturing processes...

E-Stat's question: "Do you have a point relevant to performance?"
You're still pondering post #53? :)


But because I am a wonderful person, I will endeavor to enlighten you:

yada, yada, yada, yada.

I feel rather confident that any Modena, despite manufacturing variations, can outperform any Corolla. What do you think? BTW, I like well built vehicles, too. I have purchased Honda products exclusively for over twenty years. Today, I have three - two cars and a motorcycle.



I have no ill feelings whatsoever toward people who purchase products they lack the ability to really utilize.
Good for you. If you're referring to my wife's S2000 with the boat story, here's how the buying process went:

1. Needed replacement for wife's Prelude
2. Preludes are no longer being made
3. Wife knows I'm a Honda guy
4. Buy S2000

Subsequently, we both discover that we like having a convertible. Especially in Georgia where the weather is fair a wide range of the year. Regarding the horsepower, here's a funny story. Wife's comments in quotes.

"What does it mean to redline an engine?"

It means you run the engine RPM beyond its designed speed. With most passenger cars, it is primarily for the engine driven accessories. Why do you ask?

"Well, a Lotus tried to jump me at a light and I didn't let him. Before shifting into second, the engine hesitated for just a moment."

That was the fuel cutout kicking in around 9200 RPM. Shift a bit earlier next time, Honey. You've got all the power available at 8500.


rw