Interesting Findings on Speaker Cables

On another post I was trying to figure out some issues with a pair of Swift speakers. In trying to resolve things I started swapping equipment out and found some interesting things about speaker cables.

Let me start by saying that I always thought that speaker cables had their own character, but that it was not really possible to determine one was better than another (now I'm not so sure). I should also add that I'm cheap and spending $500 for a pair of cables is beyond excessive in my book (so for the $5K speaker cable owners, may wish to ignore this post). I swapped three 10' cables, two amps, and two preamps, keeping the speakers and source identical:

Cables:
- Home Depo zip cord 16 Ga, terminated with Dayton Bananas (~$30)
- Radio Shack 14 Ga in-wall speaker cable, terminated with Monster Bananas (~$80)
- Kimber Kable 4PR terminated with BFA Banana Plugs (~$120)

Amps:
- HK PA2200 - 100W (~$160 used)
- PS Audio HCA-2 - 150W (~$750)

Preamps:
- Adcom GTP450 (~$120 used)
- Plinus CD-LAD (~$1200 used)

Not only was there a clear difference between the cables, with the zip cord coming in at a distant 3rd, but I also found that the differences were more pronounced with the higher end equipment. I know this would seem self evident, but this would go a long way to explain why some people on this forum hear more of a difference than others.

I discovered long ago that wires and cables sound different. I too found that the better your equipment the easier it was to hear differences. I know that the differences are not measurable. I don't care. If something sounds better it is. Don't let the objectivists know about your findings. They will consider them to be anecdotal without graphs test signals and double blind testing. Your ears are the best test devices ever created/evolved but that's another subject.:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightflier

Not only was there a clear difference between the cables, with the zip cord coming in at a distant 3rd, but I also found that the differences were more pronounced with the higher end equipment.

---

You will no doubt get some responses attempting to explain why your conclusions are simply the result of bias or wishful thinking.

My original bias was that there should be no differences based upon the written literature. Then, like you, I tried out a few different cables in my own system. The really fun part is listening to your musical collection anew. :D

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightflier

Not only was there a clear difference between the cables, with the zip cord coming in at a distant 3rd, but I also found that the differences were more pronounced with the higher end equipment.

---

With these type of cable testing, there are too many variables (mostly human factor) that can alter the results. To achieve better results, “human memory” variable have to be eliminated since there is no reference point where memory can refer to instantaneously. The time laps between cable changes can color the previous reference (from memory) when trying to evaluate two cables.

The best method for testing cables would be to use an instantaneous switching method between cables. In this method of cable testing, memory factor is eliminated and there is an instantaneous reference point where one can judge a cable against.

An easier alternative would be to let some one else change the cables brand (without your knowledge) while you listen. Although this method is not as accurate as above (since memory factor is still involve), but it will be more accurate than when you know which cable is installed.

Are there descriptions of any tests like this online?

There is lots of methadology concerning double blind testing. There are those who have problems with the concept of double blind testing. Most of the time double blind testing is used to reinforce the objectivists contention that there is no difference between cables electronics or any thing else. If anyone hears a difference in wires or cables the onus is not on them to prove it. It is up to those who disbelieve to disprove it. Some of the differences I hear are only audible over long term listening. If I am wishfully thinking so be it. It is my money and my ears that I have to satisfy. If it sounds better to me then it is. If it is my imagination I don't care. As an engineer I have been taught that there should be no difference in wires and I used to think that. I did not want to believe that wires can sound different. Over the years my ears have convinced me that there is a difference. I can't explain it or measure it but I hear differences.:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeE SP9

There is lots of methadology concerning double blind testing. There are those who have problems with the concept of double blind testing. Most of the time double blind testing is used to reinforce the objectivists contention that there is no difference between cables electronics or any thing else. If anyone hears a difference in wires or cables the onus is not on them to prove it. It is up to those who disbelieve to disprove it. Some of the differences I hear are only audible over long term listening. If I am wishfully thinking so be it. It is my money and my ears that I have to satisfy. If it sounds better to me then it is. If it is my imagination I don't care. As an engineer I have been taught that there should be no difference in wires and I used to think that. I did not want to believe that wires can sound different. Over the years my ears have convinced me that there is a difference. I can't explain it or measure it but I hear differences.:cool:

---

Amen to that.:6:

I hear what I hear and no graph or test will convince me otherwise.
Trust your ears.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

With these type of cable testing, there are too many variables (mostly human factor) that can alter the results. To achieve better results, “human memory” variable have to be eliminated since there is no reference point where memory can refer to instantaneously. The time laps between cable changes can color the previous reference (from memory) when trying to evaluate two cables.

The best method for testing cables would be to use an instantaneous switching method between cables. In this method of cable testing, memory factor is eliminated and there is an instantaneous reference point where one can judge a cable against.

An easier alternative would be to let some one else change the cables brand (without your knowledge) while you listen. Although this method is not as accurate as above (since memory factor is still involve), but it will be more accurate than when you know which cable is installed.

---

Word Smoke. Sighted listening tests are useless as are tests that have a extended non listening period between switching wires. Our auditory memory is VERY short, and it is my belief that if you want to hear a difference, you will especially in sighted tests.

I am sure there is a difference sonically between speaker cables. Some cables damage the sound worst than others. However many cable manufacturers are designing sonic differences in their cables just to distinguish their cables from another manufacturers cable.
If the cable was doing its job properly, there would be no sonic differences between cables.

I have participated in several double blind test where in sighted testing a person claimed they heard a difference, but once blind testing took place could not identify a difference accurately continuously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

With these type of cable testing, there are too many variables (mostly human factor) that can alter the results. To achieve better results, “human memory” variable have to be eliminated since there is no reference point where memory can refer to instantaneously. The time laps between cable changes can color the previous reference (from memory) when trying to evaluate two cables.

The best method for testing cables would be to use an instantaneous switching method between cables. In this method of cable testing, memory factor is eliminated and there is an instantaneous reference point where one can judge a cable against.

An easier alternative would be to let some one else change the cables brand (without your knowledge) while you listen. Although this method is not as accurate as above (since memory factor is still involve), but it will be more accurate than when you know which cable is installed.

---

DBT testing is excellent for the comparison of entities which can be discerned in an absolute reference.

It is entirely useless for testing comparisons of relative entities.

Distortion, amplitude, frequency response are all entities which are detected within an absolute framework.

Identification of soundstage changes as a result of system modifications cannot be done using current DBT tests, as the stimulus changes are too fast, and the human re-aquisition necessary for image reconstruction is too slow.

DBT's are useless for relative entities.

Cheers, John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

DBT testing is excellent for the comparison of entities which can be discerned in an absolute reference.

It is entirely useless for testing comparisons of relative entities.

Distortion, amplitude, frequency response are all entities which are detected within an absolute framework.

Identification of soundstage changes as a result of system modifications cannot be done using current DBT tests, as the stimulus changes are too fast, and the human re-aquisition necessary for image reconstruction is too slow.

DBT's are useless for relative entities.

Cheers, John

---

John,

As your comments go against the grain of everything I've read about DBT (not that I'm saying you're incorrect - just... well... revolutionary!), would you care to comment further on this? Much appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

DBT testing is excellent for the comparison of entities which can be discerned in an absolute reference.

It is entirely useless for testing comparisons of relative entities.

Distortion, amplitude, frequency response are all entities which are detected within an absolute framework.

Identification of soundstage changes as a result of system modifications cannot be done using current DBT tests, as the stimulus changes are too fast, and the human re-aquisition necessary for image reconstruction is too slow.

DBT's are useless for relative entities.

Cheers, John

---

Thank you jneutron,
I will run my own tests with my ears to see if soundstage changes are what I'm really hearing when I hear differences in cables. I hadn't thought of them being mostly if not completely, changes in the soundstage. Is this the reason that the most profound differences I hear are only audible over a period of time measured in days and not minutes?
In any case I will try to pay more attention to soundstage differences. Could the fact that most modern recordings are multiple mono be responsible for so many not hearing what I and others hear? All those multiple mono recordings have no soundstage. The lack of a soundstage in most modern recordings has been a running complaint of mine. Panning and eq'ing can't recreate the sound of real musicians playing in a real space. You can't recreate what was never there. We lose enough through the recording process itself without adding more layers of separation between the music and the ear.
I believe you are correct. I just want to confirm it so I can point it out to all the unbelievers. I have a heavy task before me. I have to spend time listening to the 5% to 10% of my recordings that have been recorded with an ear for preserving a soundstage.
I suppose the next question is what causes cables to do this when there is a soundstage present. Got any ideas?:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

John,

As your comments go against the grain of everything I've read about DBT (not that I'm saying you're incorrect - just... well... revolutionary!), would you care to comment further on this? Much appreciated.

---

A source 100 inches in front, and 20 inches to the right...the sound gets to the right ear 80 uSec before the left (ITD), and it is .1dB louder in the right ear(IID). (assumption of point source spherical expansion).

With eyes closed, we can generally point to the direction of the source, some better than others.

Now, move the source 6 inches to the right. ITD has changed approximately 6 uSec, and IID has changed approximately .006 dB.

With eyes closed, we can still generally point in the direction of the source.

But, can we detect the absolute change, if we try one source, then a minute later, the other? Chances are, no.

Now, try to simulate these two using two speakers. First, you need to put your head in a vice... (end of discussion)

However, if you use two different point sources, say two bells of different frequency, now you need only tell which is to the right of the other. This is differential localization. If we try to locate absolute, each bell, the distribution envelope of our locating (which will be a gaussian distribution) will overlap severly. But differentially, with both at the same time, the problem becomes much easier.

It does of course, require us to hear differentially to the levels approximately at the 6 uSec and, more interestingly, down at the .006 dB differential..

No measurement of differential localization has ever been published, to the best of my knowledge, I seem to be the creator of this discipline..

DBT: an optical analogy. (hang in there, I'm tryin to keep it brief..

I have three pairs of reading glasses, all same mag. first pair, perfect. Second pair, lenses rotated cw a few degrees. (try it, you'll notice the left-right images spit vertically for a moment, then slowly coalesce.) Third lens set rotated ccw a few degrees.

Put on one pair, focus on an image. Swap to another, images shifted, come back within half a second. Swap to the third, again, you compensate..

Do it back and forth, swap, swap, swap. Every time, your brain reacts to correct what you see. It does it via the eye muscles..

After a minute or two, which set is correct???.. You can't tell. For me, it would take either a reference pair to compare to, or give me an hour or two, the good ones won't give me a splittin headache.

The test is constantly changing the relationship of the stimulus, but my brain is providing a short but non zero reaction to this stimulus shift.

Now, listening tests....what in the name of sam hill will you use for the stimulus??? A pan pot alters the IID, or intensity difference, between channels (ears). Where in nature does that stimulus exist???? Both ears get the info at the same time, but one ear gets it louder?

This condition does not exist in nature. So, what do we expect the brain to do?? Answer, it compensates.

Make a change to a cable set, that causes a specific entitiy within the soundfield to shift 6 usec and .006 dB...you STILL are providing the brain with a set of stimulus that DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE!!!..but it's different. So, does the brain decide it's the same stimulus, a different one..if it compensates, how long does it take...is that bell moved with respect to the other?? Don't know, first I gotta re-interpret the artificially produced, never seen in nature, stimulus.

DBT testing in this case, is more like "here, check this outOOPS, too late...what'd ya think?

Sorry for the length..

Cheers, John

Apparently, audio science isn't a stagnating, "can't, won't" discipline! Hurrah! Thanks for sharing this. It is quite revolutionary thinking, no? I'd be curious what the JJ's, Kruegers and Aczel's of the world think about your research. I'm only sorry that I can't ask scientifically competent questions. Perhaps RL or some of the other scientific folk can chime in.

I have no doubt cables can create sonic differences. I have some reservations about DBT's being used to prove it. Using objective methods to explain subjective experiences is tricky at best. Scientifcally explain to me why people like some music or stories better than others...

That said, I find measurements do tell the story for me most of the time when it comes to audio. I'm also a bit skeptical about people who would sell a product without an explanation as to how it works or why it sounds better.

If someone makes a claim, the onus is on them to back it up.

I think both sides need in the great cable debate need to start all over again, perhaps thinking of other ways to test/measure cable differences.

Hi John,

Just a thought on your optical analogy.
In my experience the eye is much easier fooled then the ear. As you said the eye compensates with focus etc., something the ear can't do.

Peace

Bernd::idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

Apparently, audio science isn't a stagnating, "can't, won't" discipline! Hurrah! Thanks for sharing this. It is quite revolutionary thinking, no? I'd be curious what the JJ's, Kruegers and Aczel's of the world think about your research. I'm only sorry that I can't ask scientifically competent questions. Perhaps RL or some of the other scientific folk can chime in.

---

...short and sweet...I agree with all that John has posted to this thread...

I'd go beyond that and say I agree with him 100% in all he's ever posted, but I don't know if he has ever said anything about the flavor of mustard when it's applied in a clockwise pattern...

jimHJJ(...when everyone knows counter-clockwise enhances the grain spread ratio...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...short and sweet...I agree with all that John has posted to this thread...

I'd go beyond that and say I agree with him 100% in all he's ever posted, but I don't know if he has ever said anything about the flavor of mustard when it's applied in a clockwise pattern...

jimHJJ(...when everyone knows counter-clockwise enhances the grain spread ratio...)

---

...still a fly ph@rt on a windy day... or however you so eloquently put it on another recent thread? :)

Wow!!! Great stuff!

I wish you all the best and success in your continued work on this! If you ever need a lab rat, just let me know!!!

I have never before been presented with the obvious relationship between time our ears receive the info and sound pressure level.

The pan just shifts the volume from left to right as I understand it. There's no "delay" from left to right.
Of course, in reality, each ear is receiving the signal from each speaker at slightly different times, that is, my right ear hears my left speaker, too. It's just drowned out by the right speaker and that Haas effect thingy, no? Wouldn't it be fair to see that we're receiving 2 simultaneous stimuli to recreate the a sound that would naturally be made by one stimulus?

Wow...good luck with all that, my head hurts already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

...still a fly ph@rt on a windy day... or however you so eloquently put it on another recent thread? :)

---

...insinuating I travel as driven by the prevailing thread-winds...It's hard to tell whether I should be insulted or not...

jimHJJ(...it was flea-ph@rt...and there was no wind involved, other than provided by said flea...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...insinuating I travel as driven by the prevailing thread-winds...It's hard to tell whether I should be insulted or not...

jimHJJ(...it was flea-ph@rt...and there was no wind involved, other than provided by said flea...)

---

I was confirming that while you agree with Jneutron, whatever may cause differences in cables, those differences will still be a "flea-ph@rt" in the atmosphere of audio. I guess I added the windy day part myself. :)

Smoke & TtT,

I should probably clarify how I did my testing.

- I used mono sources when I could find them (I have two LP's) and then I switched to a test CD that has some good selections for auditioning speakers.

- I placed two equipment racks next to each other one with the Adcom/HK setup and the other with the Plinius/PSA setup.

- I used a radio-shack A/V distribution amp to split the source signal between the two racks.

- I placed four speakers directly in front of the equipment racks right next to each other and connected different cables to each pair of speakers.

- Aside from the speaker cables, all cables were the same make & model.

- I connected the left output from the sources into source-input 1 on the preamps & the right output into source-input 2. I did this on both racks.

- This allowed me to switch between L & R speakers by switching inputs with the preamp's remote. Hence, this switches between the two speaker cables.

- I used preamp muting on the respective remotes to switch sound between the two racks.

- I ran three tests (one for each source) to compare the HomeDepot/PartsExpress and RadioShack/Monster cable and another three tests with the two better cables.

Of course these tests don't permit me to listen for stereo imaging and sounstaging, while speaker distances & other factors play a role I'm sure, but I really don't have enough resources to set up a more scientific lab. Nonetheless, I was able to switch between equipment and cables with a few clicks of the remotes, so I don't think audio-memory or psychology played much of a role. More importantly, the differences were clearly audible at each progressive step. Even my wife noticed the differences and she had no idea which setup was mid-fi / hi-fi or what cables were being tested at each stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

The pan just shifts the volume from left to right as I understand it. There's no "delay" from left to right. .

---

Yes. Unfortunately, it forces an un-natural stimuli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

Of course, in reality, each ear is receiving the signal from each speaker at slightly different times, that is, my right ear hears my left speaker, too. It's just drowned out by the right speaker and that Haas effect thingy, no? Wouldn't it be fair to see that we're receiving 2 simultaneous stimuli to recreate the a sound that would naturally be made by one stimulus?.

---

Exactly. I didn't mention this as I wanted to keep it simple. The Haas effect, within reason, allows us to ignore the other three images that present..the right speaker image, the left speaker, and the lower intensity image that is behind the first, mirrored about the symmetry line..

Leaving us to figure out how to provide the correct ITD/IID stimulus. The correct math function for this of course, depends on the distance and angle of the speakers in the listening room..another confounding thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

Wow...good luck with all that, my head hurts already.

---

Mine too...think I need to kill those brain cells that are causing the pain..martini time..

Cheers, John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Identification of soundstage changes as a result of system modifications cannot be done using current DBT tests, as the stimulus changes are too fast, and the human re-aquisition necessary for image reconstruction is too slow.

DBT's are useless for relative entities.

---

Interesting stuff John. So what would you say be the best method to evaluate cables?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

I am sure there is a difference sonically between speaker cables. Some cables damage the sound worst than others. However many cable manufacturers are designing sonic differences in their cables just to distinguish their cables from another manufacturers cable.
If the cable was doing its job properly, there would be no sonic differences.

---

Your statement worth repeating http://ghettobaby.net/Emoticons/forg...net/coffee.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightflier

I should probably clarify how I did my testing.

- I placed two equipment racks next to each other one with the Adcom/HK setup and the other with the Plinius/PSA setup.

- I used a radio-shack A/V distribution amp to split the source signal between the two racks.

- I placed four speakers directly in front of the equipment racks right next to each other and connected different cables to each pair of speakers.

- Aside from the speaker cables, all cables were the same make & model.

- I connected the left output from the sources into source-input 1 on the preamps & the right output into source-input 2. I did this on both racks.

---

Thanks Nightflier for doing this test. With slight modifications to your set up, I think you will achive the results you are looking for.

You said you use two set up. Adcom/HK and Plinius/PSA setup. I would go with one setup only. You don't want to chanage any thing in the signal chain except the cables (which mean the same source, preamp, amp and speakers). One setup will also allow you to use stereo feed and eliminate radio-shack A/V distribution amp altogether.

Speaker also have to be at same exact location, angle etc... which mean using one pair only. Placing four speakers directly in front of the equipment racks right next to each other cause each pair to have different tonality since they are not at same exact location.

Hopefully with these modifications, a clearer picture of each cable will emerge.

Good luck :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Interesting stuff John. So what would you say be the best method to evaluate cables?

---

Right now, the proper stimulus does not exist in any recordings.

Leaving the need to produce artificially, test signals..which are real boring. But certainly attainable.

It will be necessary to create translation functions to get the correct signals. I've been working on the matrices involved.

Think of it as signal processing blocks. Two "signals", x and y (distance from human) go into a block, out comes ITD and IID.

Then that data goes into a block, and out comes the signals which have to be at the speakers. These "data" are not the same as what we hear, but will be some function that requires the speaker/listener angle and distance, the type of driver (line, point, planar).

It's kind of like using that two mike setup to record in a hall, yes they pickup exactly what ears at those locations would. But, simply putting that information into a set of speakers is not correct, that signal pair is only perfect for headphones. There is translational math required to get to the speakers.

That math is not easy. And, it will be frequency dependent, as we are.

Much testing of our capability will be required to set that up.

This is really fertile ground. I enjoy that. Boring is not fun at all.

Cheers, John

Smokey,

I wasn't trying to be too scientific. My reason for using two systems was to see if the difference between the speakers was more audible on a nicer setup; which it was. I agree with the other posts that there are a lot of variables but I just don't have the resources to do this right.

I've always been of the camp that thought that cables mattered very little but in this case they mattered a bit more than I had expected. I also would not have thought that a better system would reveal more differences. So this was reavealing in itself. You always hear people say this on forums like this one, but how many of us can find this out for themselves.

My test is not definitive I know, but it was just an interesting finding. The systems are very different and while I know that the Plinius/PSA setup is not super high-end, I do consider it a notch above its price point. Likewise, I may have hobbled the Adcom a bit by finding a really inexpensive and a bit dark sounding amp to couple it with. I could probably have found something of even lower caliber in an older receiver to do a third test, but I'll leave that to someone else.

If others who have two very different systems could also run a test or two, I would be very curious to find out what they find.