How about this argument as to why cables sound different.

[dvjorge]

Buy a well designed speaker cable from Audioquest, Kimbler, or DH labs,etc, and you will know if you can hear a better sound or not. You dont need to spend $1000..... my system changed as night and day when I bought high quality cables. After spending $$$$$ in B&Ws, Paradigm Studio, Arcam Amplifier, Nad cd player, Sony reference SACD, my system was nothing. Cables have done a great job. I had to listen to all my cds again to enjoy a real hi-fi system.

[mtrycraft]

Buy a well designed speaker cable from Audioquest, Kimbler, or DH labs,etc, and you will know if you can hear a better sound or not. You dont need to spend $1000..... my system changed as night and day when I bought high quality cables. After spending $$$$$ in B&Ws, Paradigm Studio, Arcam Amplifier, Nad cd player, Sony reference SACD, my system was nothing. Cables have done a great job. I had to listen to all my cds again to enjoy a real hi-fi system.

Interesting. Cables do a great job alright. Try it without one

[jamie_the_dude]

Why spend money on cables to alter the sound of your stereo when you can do the same thing with much more control using an equalizer?

An equalizer can only boost or cut frequencies to balance sound levels within a room to adjust for its environment which naturally may cut or boost frequencies. You battle this by doing the opposite with an equalizer. Cables can chnage the sound, not...........It can add detail to highs, clean up lows, and add warmth to sound, etc. An equalizer cannot exactly do this.

And my take- I can tell cables in my sytem too- that is all I know. With a receiver and a couple bookshelf speakers like I had in college- I could not. Good cables simply do not "mess up" already good sounding equipment. But, they can tweak the sound a bit.

Byt he way- lets all start a post about the airplane at the speed of light turning on its headlights! SWEET!

[mtrycraft]

Cables can chnage the sound, not...........It can add detail to highs, clean up lows, and add warmth to sound, etc.




Where did you get this nonsense? If it is evidence based, please expand on this evidence.

And my take- I can tell cables in my sytem too- that is all I know.

And my take is that you perceive something. That is different from hearing things that are real.
How about imaginating all this nonsense? That is a real possibility too. You will never know what you really heard unless you conduct your comparison DBT. Simple.


Good cables simply do not "mess up" already good sounding equipment. But, they can tweak the sound a bit.


Yes, if you can hear .2dB -.5dB at 16kHz and above. Good luck. Your chances are zero though.

[Thomas_A]

Completely off-topic,

but here is some interesting stuff collected on one page.

http://www.physto.se/~vetfolk/links/index-en.html

BTW,

I've seen one person making a measurement of Monster M1 and 4 x Supra Classic 2.5 mm2 (equals about 4 x 13 AWG standard loudspeaker copper cable connected in parallell I think).The equipment was a high-quality amp, a tone generator, and cable length exactly 5 meters.

With a scope the voltage was set to exactly 5000 mV at the amps loudspeaker binding posts. The wires were terminated with an 8 ohm resistor. Then the voltage drop was measured on one branch of the cable. The result was the following using a square-waves:

10 kHz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 750 mV (loss)
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

1 kHz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 550 mV
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

100 Hz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 250 mV
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

Anybody that can confirm such a loss from the Monster M1?

T

[jneutron]

I've seen one person making a measurement of Monster M1 and 4 x Supra Classic 2.5 mm2 (equals about 4 x 13 AWG standard loudspeaker copper cable connected in parallell I think).The equipment was a high-quality amp, a tone generator, and cable length exactly 5 meters.

With a scope the voltage was set to exactly 5000 mV at the amps loudspeaker binding posts. The wires were terminated with an 8 ohm resistor. Then the voltage drop was measured on one branch of the cable. The result was the following using a square-waves:

10 kHz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 750 mV (loss)
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

1 kHz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 550 mV
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

100 Hz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 250 mV
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

Anybody that can confirm such a loss from the Monster M1?

T

I can't confirm the loss...

I can, however, confirm the horrible measurement errors caused by that ridiculous setup..

The way you describe it, the person that did it that way needs a refresher course in test methods and e/m theory..

Cheers, John

[Thomas_A]

I can't confirm the loss...

I can, however, confirm the horrible measurement errors caused by that ridiculous setup..

The way you describe it, the person that did it that way needs a refresher course in test methods and e/m theory..

Cheers, John

Can you elaborate?

regards,

T

[Richard Greene]

"I stand corrected. Math was never one of my strong suits. Come to think of it, I don't recall anyone ever pointing out to me exactly what my strong suits are."

RG
LAWSUITS, what elks?

[Beckman]

Completely off-topic,

but here is some interesting stuff collected on one page.

http://www.physto.se/~vetfolk/links/index-en.html

BTW,

I've seen one person making a measurement of Monster M1 and 4 x Supra Classic 2.5 mm2 (equals about 4 x 13 AWG standard loudspeaker copper cable connected in parallell I think).The equipment was a high-quality amp, a tone generator, and cable length exactly 5 meters.

With a scope the voltage was set to exactly 5000 mV at the amps loudspeaker binding posts. The wires were terminated with an 8 ohm resistor. Then the voltage drop was measured on one branch of the cable. The result was the following using a square-waves:

10 kHz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 750 mV (loss)
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

1 kHz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 550 mV
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

100 Hz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 250 mV
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

Anybody that can confirm such a loss from the Monster M1?

T

Can't confirm, but interesting results. Only problem is speakers have an 8-ohm impedance, not an 8-ohm resistance. It would be interesting to use a resistive and inductive load instead of just a resistor.

Actually, a square wave? Square waves contain harmonics that are well above the human range of hearing. The entire experiment was flawed. I am willing to bet that if a sine wave was used the results would be quite different.

[mtrycraft]

Completely off-topic,

but here is some interesting stuff collected on one page.

http://www.physto.se/~vetfolk/links/index-en.html

BTW,

I've seen one person making a measurement of Monster M1 and 4 x Supra Classic 2.5 mm2 (equals about 4 x 13 AWG standard loudspeaker copper cable connected in parallell I think).The equipment was a high-quality amp, a tone generator, and cable length exactly 5 meters.

With a scope the voltage was set to exactly 5000 mV at the amps loudspeaker binding posts. The wires were terminated with an 8 ohm resistor. Then the voltage drop was measured on one branch of the cable. The result was the following using a square-waves:

10 kHz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 750 mV (loss)
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

1 kHz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 550 mV
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

100 Hz square wave:

1. Monster M1: 250 mV
2. Supra 2.5: 25 mV

Anybody that can confirm such a loss from the Monster M1?

T

Great link, all in one place.

I am at a loss why they woul duse a square wave to test loss at audio frequencies?

4x 13ga = 7 ga, 1/4 of DC resistance of 13ga. Not sure what ga the M1. The Supra seems to be close as the resistance is about 1/2% of the 8 ohms. Maybe the M1 is about 16ga?

[Thomas_A]

Can't confirm, but interesting results. Only problem is speakers have an 8-ohm impedance, not an 8-ohm resistance. It would be interesting to use a resistive and inductive load instead of just a resistor.

Actually, a square wave? Square waves contain harmonics that are well above the human range of hearing. The entire experiment was flawed. I am willing to bet that if a sine wave was used the results would be quite different.

Well, it's not fair to say that the experiment was flawed if there was no technical problems. There was no other conclusions drawn except that there was difference between the cables using squarewaves. Audibility is a completely different matter than measurements. I think however that there is a suprising loss from the M1, indicating an inductance that is not ideal for a loudspeaker cable.

T

[Thomas_A]

Great link, all in one place.

I am at a loss why they woul duse a square wave to test loss at audio frequencies?

4x 13ga = 7 ga, 1/4 of DC resistance of 13ga. Not sure what ga the M1. The Supra seems to be close as the resistance is about 1/2% of the 8 ohms. Maybe the M1 is about 16ga?

mtry,

I don't know why he used a squarewave.

Regarding sizes AWG 13 equals 2.63 mm2 and AWG 14 equals 2.08 mm2. The Supra Catalogue claims a resistanse of 6.8 ohm/1000 meter and an inductance of 0.45 µH/meter for Supra 2.5.

T

[Beckman]

Byt he way- lets all start a post about the airplane at the speed of light turning on its headlights! SWEET!

Ok.
In a vacum only electromagnetic waves can travel the speed of light. If an airplane approached the speed of light and turned on its headlights to an observer in the airplane the light emmited by the headlights would be traveling at the speed of light and would appear the same as thought the airplanes was not moving. To an observer in a referance frame in which the airplane appears to be moving near the speed of light the airplane would actualy appear much shorter and the light emmitted from the headlights would be moving the speed of light. However, there would be a shift in the wavelength of light emmitted by the headlights. Just like there is a change in the frequency of the sound emmited by a train as it rolls past someone. This is known as the doppler effect. At the begining I noted that only electromagnetic waves can travel the speed of light in a vacum. Through air the apparent speed of light is actualy less, c/1.000029, through water c/1.5. This is not because the light is traveling slower, but actualy because it has to travel further due to the wave like charectristics of light and the molecules that the light is traveling through.

[mtrycraft]

mtry,

I don't know why he used a squarewave.

Regarding sizes AWG 13 equals 2.63 mm2 and AWG 14 equals 2.08 mm2. The Supra Catalogue claims a resistanse of 6.8 ohm/1000 meter and an inductance of 0.45 µH/meter for Supra 2.5.

T

Now you are confusing me about the resistance. You stated 4X 2.55mm2. I shtat 4 conductor of 13ga or what? 13ga has that equivalent resistance of 6.8 ohms at 1000meters.

The monster must have a higher inductance and most likely resistance too. But that 10kHz Sq wave has a very broad band, so its voltage drop is not meaningful in respect to audio band. The 2nd harmonic is already at 20kHz. The first odd harmonic is 30kHz, then 50kHz, on and on.
All we know what happened with the SQ wave signal, not much more, really.

[mtrycraft]

I think however that there is a suprising loss from the M1, indicating an inductance that is not ideal for a loudspeaker cable.

T

We cannot tell from this experiment using Sq wave what the loss is at 20kHz, can we?
That is the problem I see. That is the problem using Sq wave to try to imply something at 20kHz.

[Thomas_A]

Mtry,

the Supra is a basic loudspeaker cable (here connected as 4 x 13 AWG in parallell) which can be bought very cheap as no-name brands, as stated many times here.



What suprises me is the difference between the M1 and the Supra regarding frequency-dependent loss. According to Davis, that ordinary 12 AWG copper cable is more than ideal as loudpeaker cable, and here there was basically no loss observed for the Supra even for the square-waves. What can be done, if we get the RCL characteristics, simulate the loss of the M1 and compare it to ordinary 13 AWG loudspeaker cable (i.e. identical to the Supra Classic).

I am not sure what confuses you about resistance. 5 m 13 AWG will be around 34 mohm. 4 wires in parallell is 1/4≈8.5 mohm.

T

T

[mtrycraft]

Mtry,

the Supra is a basic loudspeaker cable (here connected as 4 x 13 AWG in parallell) which can be bought very cheap as no-name brands, as stated many times here.



What suprises me is the difference between the M1 and the Supra regarding frequency-dependent loss. According to Davis, that ordinary 12 AWG copper cable is more than ideal as loudpeaker cable, and here there was basically no loss observed for the Supra even for the square-waves. What can be done, if we get the RCL characteristics, simulate the loss of the M1 and compare it to ordinary 13 AWG loudspeaker cable (i.e. identical to the Supra Classic).

I am not sure what confuses you about resistance. 5 m 13 AWG will be around 34 mohm. 4 wires in parallell is 1/4≈8.5 mohm.

T

T

What confuesd me is how the 4 wire is hooke up, all 4 cable to 1 terminal, 2 cable to 1 terminal and the other 2 to the other terminal? If two cables are used, then it is 10ga., All 4 cables are 7 ga. So, what ga was tested? 13ga? 10ga? or 7 ga?
What ga is the Monster M1?
Oh, 5m one way, 5m the other way

[Thomas_A]

What confuesd me is how the 4 wire is hooke up, all 4 cable to 1 terminal, 2 cable to 1 terminal and the other 2 to the other terminal? If two cables are used, then it is 10ga., All 4 cables are 7 ga. So, what ga was tested? 13ga? 10ga? or 7 ga?
What ga is the Monster M1?
Oh, 5m one way, 5m the other way

4 cables to one terminal was used = AWG 7. I tried to look at the Mosnter homepage, but couldn't find any ga for the M1.

And yes, 5 meter is the other way as well.

I was confused with what the tester meant with "measured on one branch of the cable".

T

[jneutron]

Can you elaborate?

regards,

T

It takes good technique to measure hf currents. That is why coaxial shunts are used, to remove the mag storage field collapse from the resistive reading. If a CVR is used incorrectly, there is a rather large lagging error component, which will skew the measurement quite a bit..at low immpedances, it gets very bad, as the error component becomes large w/r to the signal being measured.

The test you detailed, has one measuring the current across one wire length (by measuring the voltage drop across it). To measure that, they created a very large inductive pickup loop with the test leads..So, what exactly was measured?

I can hook up a zip cord in that fashion, to a low z load, connect my test leads, run 10Khz, and while the test signal is going on, vary the measured results by simply rotating the zip. The setup is very susceptible to geometry, so anyone with a predisposition to do so, can easily skew the setup to produce desired results.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

Here is a CVR...it is 250 micro-ohms in resistance.

It has approximately the equivalent resistance of 4 #13 awg's in parallel.

If one measures the voltage across it by using simple test leads, then, at 20Khz and one ampere of current, you will measure 333 millivolts across it..

Leading one to assume that it is 333 milliohms, instead of the actual 250 microohms.

If you look carefully, you can see a teflon tube covered solid wire going into the plate structure. That wire has been carefully formed to travel the slot length in the center of the resistor, so that it picks up zero self induced magnetic field.. Now, this resistor reads 250 microvolts when a 1 ampere signal is put into it at 20Khz. Before that wire was used, it read incorrectly..

Cheers, John