Speaker Wire Developments in last 10 years? Need advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

a trusted reviewer in your neck of the woods...

---

If we are talking about the same person, I have family in that town now.

Ask him about the golf tournament that goes through the yards in the community..

followed of course, by a party.

jn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyfi

Hopefully you realized I was being sarcastic, but it is a good read for the all cable is the same crowd.

---

Uh, I do now. We need a sarcasm smilie for our more heated threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

None are designed for EMC issues.

---

I'm a pragmatist. The world is what it is. Cost controlled at every turn, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Why would you say that? All I said was, I got a red x in a box where you linked a picture.

---

Sorry, I thought it would be helpful to explain why you weren't getting the image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

I've duplicated the valhalla.

---

Matching three metrics, perhaps. I continue to disagree with the notion that is all that matters when used in real world systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

I did not say that lower effective dielectric coefficient, or faster prop velocity was better. Nor, worse. But different.

---

Ok. Generally speaking lower EDC creates fewer interactions and phase changes than those with higher values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

What were the numbers for both cables?

---

1.33 vs 1.10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Matching three metrics, perhaps. I continue to disagree with the notion that is all that matters when used in real world systems.

---

You'll eventually agree with me...I'm patient..:biggrin5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Ok. Generally speaking lower EDC creates fewer interactions and phase changes than those with higher values.

---

It does? Why is that?:frown2:

Seriously, The interaction between cable length, it's EDC, it's characteristic Z and R, all conspire with the load to modify the soundstage imaging placement accuracy. Saying such a monotonic statement as you have isn't accurate. It's unfortunately, a tad more complicated than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

1.33 vs 1.10.

---

Neat. What about the other numbers?

jn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

You'll eventually agree with me...I'm patient..:biggrin5:

---

Theory sure does look good on paper!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Seriously, The interaction between cable length, it's EDC, it's characteristic Z and R, all conspire with the load to modify the soundstage imaging placement accuracy.

---

How do you know those are the only factors. Which one(s) have you considered and ruled out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Saying such a monotonic statement as you have isn't accurate.

---

I think "generally speaking" is a sufficient qualifier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

It's unfortunately, a tad more complicated than that.

---

On that we most certainly agree!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Neat. What about the other numbers?

---

Length was the same at ten feet or so. Z value not published for both cables. Good question. Very similar. We're not comparing 24 gauge zip to 12 gauge zip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Theory sure does look good on paper!

---

It's even better when it describes a model which is an accurate predictor of an outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

How do you know those are the only factors. Which one(s) have you considered and ruled out?

---

The list is extensive. Color, height from floor, grain boundaries, 4 9's vs 7 9's, lots of really silly stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Length was the same at ten feet or so. Z value not published for both cables. Good question. Very similar. We're not comparing 24 gauge zip to 12 gauge zip.

---

How does one know effective dielectric constant without knowing the distributed L and C?? They conspire to create Z.

jn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Color, height from floor, grain boundaries, 4 9's vs 7 9's, lots of really silly stuff.

---

That is a list of silly stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

How does one know effective dielectric constant without knowing the distributed L and C?? They conspire to create Z.

---

It would appear that you are looking for the "characteristic impedance" as I have already provided the EDC. At least according to your definitions from five years ago.

Click here for them

I was referring to the use of "Z" to represent impedance in ohms. Aren't you with the plan? After all, resistance is the ONLY important factor to Roger Russell. :) In that case, the answers are 1.09 /.09 vs. 1.33 / .04

FWIW, the values for my JPS cable are 1.16 / .05.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

It would appear that you are looking for the "characteristic impedance" as I have already provided the EDC. At least according to your definitions from five years ago.

Click here for them

I was referring to the use of "Z" to represent impedance in ohms.

---

I know. What is L, C, and R for the cable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Aren't you with the plan? After all, resistance is the ONLY important factor to Roger Russell.

---

Luckily, I am not Roger Russel..

Which is why I asked for the numbers.

and yes, vprop =1/sqr(EDC)

Z =sqr(L/C)

cheers, jn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

I know.

---

But confused me by asking the wrong question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

What is L, C, and R for the cable?

---

9.2 pF / 0.15 mH / ??? vs. 11.8 pF / .096 mH / 2.6 ohms per 1000 ft.

Will it go round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

I've already told you I do not have the resistance spec for both cables! It must be too late in the day. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

But confused me by asking the wrong question.

---

That's a perk..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

9.2 pF / 0.15 mH / ??? vs. 11.8 pF / .096 mH / 2.6 ohms per 1000 ft.

---

So first cable EDC 1.33 and vprop 86.5%.

Second EDC 1.09 and 95.5%.

Now the unanswered question..What is the L, R, and C vs frequency?? And I know you don't have the infor, nor does the vendor. Sigh, this high end audio crew, nuttin but anarchy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Will it go round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

---

I've got a song, ain't got no melody..

I can't believe it. That's the first song on my playlist in the office...

jn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Now the unanswered question..What is the L, R, and C vs frequency??

---

I get the value of EDC and glad you concur with my math - theoretical goal of matching "perfect" dielectric of 1 to reduce time/phase distortion. What does the "characteristic impedance" tell you? Is .05 better than .09 or vice versa? Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

That's the first song on my playlist in the office...

---

Bonus! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

I get the value of EDC and glad you concur with my math - theoretical goal of matching "perfect" dielectric of 1 to reduce time/phase distortion. What does the "characteristic impedance" tell you? Is .05 better than .09 or vice versa? Why?

---

First cable 127 ohms, second 90 ohms, given the numbers you present.

When a cable is constructed with parallel insulated conductors in a wide form factor, the magnetic field path is increased, increasing reluctance. This lowers the inductance per unit foot, but introduces susceptibility to freuqncy based changes in inductance. Proximity effect will cause the outer conductors to begin "shying away" from carrying current, and as a result, the inductance will lower with frequency and the resistance of the cable will begin to increase.



What is .05 and .09?
jn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

First cable 127 ohms, second 90 ohms, given the numbers you present.

---

What is the significance, if any, between those values?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

What is .05 and .09?
jn

---

Operator error. First due to fumble fingers on calculator. Overall, I used mH as specified rather than nH. Difference in magnitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

What is the significance, if any, between those values?

---

For the base numbers, it determines the settling time for the cable/load system. Since we're dealing with loads which are orders of magnitude lower than what the cable impedance is, the number of reflections necessary to get to 80/90% of final value will change.

The caveat with the valhalla is what proximity effect on the cable width has on the cable Z vs frequency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Operator error. First due to fumble fingers on calculator. Overall, I used mH as specified rather than nH. Difference in magnitude.

---

Ah, ok. For numbers large enough to require me taking my shoes off, I try to repeat the calcs many times.. sometimes it works...

jn