Where does this information come from?

[E-Stat]

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]

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]

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]

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?

Inductance and ESLs

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The manufacturer has kindly done so.


Inductance and ESLs

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 * V². 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]

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]

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 * V². 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]

? 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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