|   BEST CABLES? | cvc
Nov 30, 2001 5:56 AM | | what are the best cables for under $2.00 a foot?..and is bi-wiring actually better?..and is there a good place on the net to purchase them?..i bought some new Monitor 9i's and center 12 speakers and they sound great with some cheap Monster cable..but i want them to "sing" with some better cable..thanks guys..(gals?)..lol.. |
| re: BEST CABLES? | Resident Loser
Nov 30, 2001 6:41 AM | | ...How does one equate what is "best"? Price? Performance? Color? Snob-appeal? For cost effectiveness, generic 12ga. is a readily available contender(Radio Shack, Home Depot, Parts Express et al).
Given the fact you recently obtained new speakers, you would do yourself a dis-service if you didn't experiment with placement and/or room treatment aimed at realizing their full potential, before embarking on a quest for wires that will make them "sing" or dance or do any of the things aftermarket wires are reputed to do. Keep in mind, if it's not in your source, wires will make absolutely no difference, generally speaking.
FWIW, bi-wiring is a hotly debated topic 'round these parts with positions ranging from "useless" to "nirvana". The only arbiter of its' worth is your impression, in your system and in your listening space, with your choice of program material. Again, work with your new acquisitions before you take the plunge. If you decide to do some auditioning, find dealers with try-out periods or liberal return privileges; it can be an expensive proposition otherwise. Also if you are of a mind to do so, there are DIY alternatives posted on the net you might want to investigate.
jimHJJ(...of course there are opinions of an extreme nature on both sides of the coin, use some common sense to weed them out to arrive at what seems to work for you...) |
| re: BEST CABLES? | Musika
Nov 30, 2001 9:36 AM | | "FWIW, bi-wiring is a hotly debated topic 'round these parts with positions ranging from "useless" to "nirvana". The only arbiter of its' worth is your impression, in your system and in your listening space, with your choice of program material. Again, work with your new acquisitions before you take the plunge. If you decide to do some auditioning, find dealers with try-out periods or liberal return privileges; it can be an expensive proposition otherwise."
This, along with your final bit of feedback, is probably the most objective and fair statement I've ever read from someone who, from what I can tell, doesn't believe that cables make an audible difference. How absolutely refreshing!
This is the type of post that I admire, respect and appreciate. It may not cause much of a stir, but it represents what I expected and hoped to see here from the start.
Thanks, R.L., for your open-minded and serious response to what I believe was an equally serious request for advice. |
| Thank you for your kind words...(nt) | Resident Loser
Nov 30, 2001 11:13 AM | | |
| you pathetic joke -- stop corning Adam | Foucault
Nov 30, 2001 4:28 PM | | |
| re: BEST CABLES? | eV
Nov 30, 2001 6:15 PM | | Yes, RL is a class act. I really enjoy reading his responses.
eV |
| re: BEST CABLES? | Delmar
Nov 30, 2001 7:07 AM | | I recently replaced my speakers and bi-wired using monster 12ga for the low end and 16ga for the high end. I am very pleased with the sound. I'm not sure I can tell if bi-wiring makes a difference but the cost was minimal so why not? |
| If you are expecting an epiphany ,... | Markw*
Nov 30, 2001 7:13 AM | | ...then you will be sorely disappointed. Even the most (truthful) die hard cable fanatics will admit that audiable differences between different are subtle at best. Playibng around with speaker placment in your room is a better way to go. Even subtle positioning changes can have more effect than expensive cables.
Unfortunatly, the hype surrounds cables and interconnects is so blown out of proportion many believe it. And, there ain't no laws against carefully worded "puffery" in ads where there is no scientific proof required to make subjective claims.
If you want proof of this, score some cheapo 12 gauge speaker cable (.$30/ft or so) from Home Depot or somewhere similar and compare it's sound with your Monsters. In fact, get twice as much and see if bi wiring makes a difference on your system. Many are disappointed.
Or else try (with a money back guarantee) some locally available expensive stuff and see if the change is as dramatic as you wish. |
| re: BEST CABLES? | FLZapped
Nov 30, 2001 9:07 AM | | Well, what type of cables? Speaker or interconnect?
By the rest of your posting, I would guess you mean speaker. Your local hardware or electrical supply house has what you need. Monster is overpriced regular wire.
As for bi-wiring, it's a crap shoot. While you could construct a simple static model that would show an improvement, in the real world, there are a ton of variables, and the modeled solution would also require a signal generator for each driver in your speaker system besides the one for your amp.
If you really want a more consistent hope at improvement, consider bi-amping at some point instead.
However, long before that, look at the placement of your speakers and anything you might do to your listening room to make it better acoustically. Your money woulkd be far better spent there first.
-Bruce |
| re: BEST CABLES? | eV
Nov 30, 2001 6:34 PM | | If you are at all handy, and don't mind taking a little time, try the DIY route. Very cheap to do, and there is alot of pride in making some quality cables. There are some available on the web. Jon Risch, who posts here, has a web site with directions on making cables.
As far as bi-wiring... Some say it makes a difference, others say it doesn't. See if you can find a high end dealer that will let you bring some cables home to try out before you make a purchase. Make the decision for yourself.
I believe that cables make a subtle difference. I believe that bi-wiring also makes a subtle difference. Much better results from bi-amping. Don't forget to play with your speaker position for improvements in sound also. This is free. Don't let the word subtle discourage you either. If you make a number of subtle improvements to your system, the difference is no longer subtle.
You will need to weed through all the "tweaks" though. There are some, that are truely hilarious. Just use some common sense.
eV |
| re: BEST CABLES? | mtrycrafts
Nov 30, 2001 9:24 PM | | "Very cheap to do, "
How cheap? I think Jon's is several $$/ft.
"Make the decision for yourself. "
With no caution about the nature and effects of bias in a sigthed listening?
"the difference is no longer subtle"
Or, it is still.
"There are some, that are truely hilarious."
Could you give some example, 3 perhaps. |
| re: BEST CABLES? | cvc
Nov 30, 2001 11:13 PM | | for one thing, my source equipment is decent stuff..Yamaha DSP-A1 integrated amp, Pioneer Elite laserdisc player (which i use as main cd player), and Yamaha cd changer, Toshiba dvd player..will soon upgrade to the Sony NS700P dvd soon (probably)..i will definitely keep on fiddling with speaker placement..when i was auditioning speakers the guy at one store was was checking the connections and i asked about bi-wiring since those were..and he unplugged them and went the basic route and swapped again to bi-wiring..i looked at him and said "man, i don't hear much if any difference"..he sorta agreed..but then replied the cable was good stuff and that might make a difference..(when compared to some crap cable you might hear a big difference..i would think)..i know this is a heated debate..but i wanted to get more feed back on the mattter..i thank everyone so far for helping in this discussion..it does come down to hearing, and maybe even piece of mind..i do believe interconnects made a difference..so i figure cables must as well..i guess it comes down to what you prefer..some guys prefer fat babes over hard body babes..and thats something i will never figure out!..lol.. |
| re: BEST CABLES? | Jon Risch
Dec 1, 2001 7:13 AM | | See: "Everyone Should Get Good Cables":
http://www.audioreview.com/message/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=0&om=809&forum=DCForumID8
The Audioquest Type 4 is still available from Audio Advisor for $80 a terminated 10 foot pair.
DIY is a good route, see:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/i1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/s1.htm
and for a lower cost, but still better than zip cords (low cost Monster, hardware store, lamp cords) see:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/7637.html
no "assembly'' required, just use the center wire for the positive, and the braid for the negative polarity.
For some info on bi-wiring, see:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/biwiring.htm
For more on audio cables in general, see:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/27322.html
Jon Risch |
| re: BEST CABLES? | cvc
Dec 1, 2001 9:57 AM | | huge amounts of info here..thanks a lot! |
| A lot of faulty information. Beware(nt) | FLZapped
Dec 1, 2001 2:07 PM | | |
| Unsubstantiated Claims, motivated by Vendetta | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 8:07 AM | | See:
<a href="/crforum?14@@.eecb4e2/8">Jon Risch "Newbie, where should I look to learn basics?" 11/25/01 11:01pm</a>
Bruce (AKA FLZapped) has never given any real evidence or backup for these claims. He just says it is so, because he said so.
He follows my postings around, continually harrassing without grounds or basis. Aside from his OWN technical errors and boo-boo's concerning RF issues, he does not know very much about high performance audio.
Jon Risch |
| I knew you'd get back to ad hominem attacks eventually(nt) | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 10:42 AM | | |
| Crusade? | DarwinH
Dec 2, 2001 1:24 PM | | Why are you following Jon around and posting all this cr_p? He must be right about the vendetta,why else would anyone go to the trouble you have?
Jon has helped more people than you or mtrycrafts can even think about, his advice is sought out by serious audio lovers everywhere. He helped me with a room echo problem, and saved me money too. I do not recall seeing any helpful posts by you, just negativity and chasing Jon around. DH |
| Crusade? | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 1:44 PM | | There are any number of places where you could have gotten the same information, There is nothing new with the help he provided you.
Sorry if you don't agree, and I'm glad Jon helped you solved your problem, and if you'll bother to note, I dont' ever say anything when he is right, or had that escaped you? As for his hollow cable theories, he is helping to promote an industry that makes fraudulent claims and charges usery prices for their producs while trying to put forth many of the same fantasies as fact.
-Bruce |
| Crusade? | mtrycrafts
Dec 2, 2001 3:29 PM | | "Why are you following Jon around and posting all this cr_p? "
That is an uninformed opinion you can have.
"Jon has helped more people than you or mtrycrafts can even think about, "
Oh, now it is about the numbers of supposed beneficiaries that matter? I suppose then a belief in supernatural must be valir and real as the vast majority of people on th eplanet believe in it. Get a grip.
Besides, I am not in a race for numbers, for your information. But how would you know.
"his advice is sought out by serious audio lovers everywhere. "
And? That is evidence for what? More seek the help of Silvia Brown and John Edwards, or call the psychic networks, or consult holistic healing and homeopathic medicines. So what? Numbers cannot validate faulty and useless information, can it.
"He helped me with a room echo problem, and saved me money too. "
Good for you. After all, he does work for a speaker company.
"I do not recall seeing any helpful posts by you, "
That is because you don't look or know what is helpful and what is junk advice. |
| Crusade? | Eyespy
Dec 2, 2001 5:45 PM | | What user name do you usually post under? |
| re: BEST CABLES? | mtrycrafts
Dec 1, 2001 3:19 PM | | Yes, much fantasy that some appreciate instead of reality. |
| A lot of information..... | FLZapped
Dec 1, 2001 10:43 PM | | I could flood you with stuff too and not just on cables:
http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/
http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/wire.htm
http://www.prosoundweb.com/studyhall/studyindex.shtml
http://www.belden.com/ (Look under their technical section, thier site if down at the moment so I can't give you it exactly)
http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page1.html
You should also read through the archives here. While there are many arguments, it'll point out some of the fallacies that exist in the esoteric cable industries.
-Bruce |
| A lot of information..... | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 8:44 AM | | This list is not exactly solid information.
Here is why:
http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/
Mr. Ludwig is a confirmed non-believer in audio cables sounding different. Hence, his stance is not one that can be ascribed to an un-biased POV.
He has posted on this board before, about skin effect.
However, like many objectionists, he tends to only look at what the skin effect might do the amplitude response. I readily admit that it is not likely that skin efect will cause loss of HF output in most cases. Pure self-inductance will do much more to be a problem here, see:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/17.html
The real issue with skin effect is that, regardless of what amount you claim is occuring, that it forces current flow toward the surface of the wire, making platings, coatings, oxidation, corrosion, etc, much more of an issue that it would be otherwise. Yes, there is enough skin effect at audio frequencies to cause this to occur.
http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/wire.htm
There are many things that are quite out of date in the information presented at this web site. This is a good example of the old school on cable matters. Blinders and tunnel vision.
The chart is strictly concerned with resistive losses and the resultant amplitude drops. The author states that the table is based on a nominal resistance (resistive load) and approx. 5% (1/2 dB) of signal loss to the speaker.
Now when ABX/DBT proponents talk about doing speaker cable tests, or interconnect tests, the concern for level matching is always raised, and the criteria used is not 1/2 dB, but +/- 0.1 dB.
Quite simply, if the speaker cable can cause a 1/2 dB loss or more into a nominal rated impedance (say, 8 ohms), then what will it do into a loudspeaker? For a resistive load, the loss will be all across the audio band evenly (ignoring speaker cable inductance, we'll look a that later.), and there will be no effect on the frequency response.
But a loudspeaker is NOT a flat resistance, it has a widely varying impedance across the audio band, and typically has a rising impedance in the crossover region, to as high as 30-60 ohms. When we examine the signal from the amp at the speaker terminals, due to the impedance of the speaker dipping down to below the nominal rating (it is not uncommon for an 8 ohm rated speaker to dip down to 6 ohms or even less), and rising up far above the nominal, the voltage divider action of the speaker cables resistance will cause the frequency response to deviate across the band, directly inverse to the speakers impedance. Where the speaker impedance dips low, the losses are greatest. For the nominal 8 ohm system with a loss of 1/2 dB into 8 ohms, the real world impedance dip of 6 ohms will cause approx. 3/4 of a dB loss.
Conversely, for the high impedance region near the crossover frequency, the losses may drop to 1/10 of a dB. The net change across the audio band can easily be as much as 2/3 dB if this wire table is followed.
Interestingly enough, this far exceeds the +/- 0.1 dB criteria held dear by the ABX/DBT proponents.
The above is all predicated on strictly resistive behavior for the speaker cable, but ordinary zip cords also exhibit a significant amount of inductance, sometimes enough to roll-of the HF's by as much as 0.3 dB at 20 kHz for a 10 foot length. If a speaker system also happened to have low impedance at HF's, which is not uncommon for electrostats or high end speakers, then the total deviation within the audio band could easily approach or exceed 1 dB due to speaker cables that meet the table's requirements.
This very aspect of cables was brought up in an article by E. Brad Meyer in Stereo Review, "The Amp/Speaker Interface",Vol. 56, pp. 53-56 June 1991.
So cables that are substantially less resistive than what is shown in the referenced table would be a good thing, and avoid uncontrolled frequency response deviations due to the speaker cable.
Another |
| A lot of information..... Part 2 | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 8:45 AM | | Part 2
Another problem with using this wire table, is that it will also allow the damping factor at the speaker to drop to around 16 or so with real world speakers. This can cause the bass to sound boomy and ill-defined, with reduced punch and tautness.
The issue of cable inductance is ignored as well, oridnary lamp cord/zip cord can have enough inductance to actually roll-off the high frequencies, this additional roll-off gets added to the resistive losses, and the total deviation across the audio band goes up even higher. Into a 4 ohm load, at 20 kHz, as much as 0.3 dB of roll off can occur. Add this into the resistive losses, and the total loss at 20 kHz is now almost 1 dB ! Make the cable longer, and the inductance goes even higher, and this is NOT accounted for in this chart. For a 20 foot run, using wire gauges according to this chart, the losses at 20 kHz could reach 1.3 dB.
My own opinion is that lower resistance AND lower inductance cables than are recommended in this chart are going to offer less frequency response deviations, as well as other less obvious improvements, such as loudspeaker damping, and then there is always the issues of the quality of materials used in the cables, the cheap zip cord (AKA lamp cord) cited in the referenced article uses very poor insulating materials, and the quality of the copper is in question.
Some of the other issues raised at this web site:
Oxygen free copper and silver wire. Once again the only issue that is examined is the resistivity. What about how OFC reduces the disruptions to the copper metal's crystal lattice? Many high end cable companies have found that very hig purity copper, or some special way of processing it is necessary for best results. It is not just the resistivity issue, but a certain amount of concern for non-linearities as the signal passes through.
Listening tests are brought up.
While the results of this "test" sound impressive, they really have very little meaning in terms of scientific evidence. Listening tests can not be considered to be scientific evidence until they have been published in a peer-reviewed professional journal, so that the details of the test can be examined by others, and the results adequately duplicated.
Neither this listening test anecdote, or that of the ABX web site have been so published. Anyone can post things on an internet website, I have my own website, were I provide listening test results that show that cables sound different. I believe that my tests were done at least as well, and quite probably better, than either the ABX web site tests, or the tests at Mr. Russell's web site. To be perfectly honest, my test results have not been published in a peer-reviewed professional journal either, so they are also in the category of anecdotal evidence.
The Stereo Review Cable test article is brought up. This is one of the more controversial articles, as it was so-heavily edited by the Stereo Review editor to read the way he wanted, that the original author challenged the editor regarding the conclusions that the article appeared to make.
On the whole this web site page is sadly out of date, and provides no hard core data that is relevant, and the wire table does not allow for a very basic level of accuracy in terms of speaker cables.
It is also CONTRDICTED BY THE NEXT SITE ON FLZapped's list:
http://www.prosoundweb.com/studyhall/studyindex.shtml
The section of speaker wires shows that damping factor will be adversely affected by the minimum wire gauge recommended by Roger.
I idscuss this in some detail above.
Otherwise, this site does not address the more subtle issues, and this is probably appropriate, as it is a site for pro sound reinforcement, where cable subtleties are not one of the main concerns, they are struggling to get decent sound under horrendous conditions, using less than finesse speaker systems, and equipment with reliability the prime concern, not subtltie |
| A lot of information..... Part 3 | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 8:47 AM | | Part 3
Otherwise, this site does not address the more subtle issues, and this is probably appropriate, as it is a site for pro sound reinforcement, where cable subtleties are not one of the main concerns, they are struggling to get decent sound under horrendous conditions, using less than finesse speaker systems, and equipment with reliability the prime concern, not subtlties of sound for hom playback.
http://www.belden.com/ (Look under their technical section, thier site if down at the moment so I can't give
you it exactly)
I also reference this site, and give the exact URL's for my observations.
Tech article about Cable Impedance
http://bwcecom.belden.com/college/Techpprs/ciocahalf.htm
This shows that audio cables vary in their characteristic impedance, and also shows that different colors of insulution measure differently.
http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html
Dunlavy has been answered before, and he has yet to respond to several telling questions. See:
http://www.audioreview.com/message/DCForumID8/1483.html#49
which is a response to a post by Dunlavy Audio Labs here on AR.
He has also posted on AA, and also failed to back up his assertions, refusing to reply to pointed questions about his claims and statements.
As a confirmed objectivist, his POV is biased. There is also the issue of his patents on cable technology, and the fact that he sells expensive cables, upwards of $800. A bit of hypocrisy.
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page1.html
Another confrmed non-beleiver for differences in audio cables. Biased POV.
His analysis of Duncan's work is suspect, he leaves out some things, and makes several assumptions that tend to make things go his way (a common ploy by cable naysayers).
The page about skin efect is the sam old amplitude non-issues, and does not address the forcing of current to the surface, and the potential deleterious effects that entails.
You'll have to do better Bruce.
Jon Risch |
| A lot of information..... Part 3 | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 11:26 AM | | Part 3
Otherwise, this site does not address the more subtle issues, and this is probably appropriate, as it is a site for pro sound reinforcement, where cable subtleties are not one of the main concerns, they are struggling to get decent sound under horrendous conditions, using less than finesse speaker systems, and equipment with reliability the prime concern, not subtlties of sound for hom playback.
http://www.belden.com/ (Look under their technical section, thier site if down at the moment so I can't give
you it exactly)
I also reference this site, and give the exact URL's for my observations.
Tech article about Cable Impedance
http://bwcecom.belden.com/college/Techpprs/ciocahalf.htm
This shows that audio cables vary in their characteristic impedance, and also shows that different colors of insulution measure differently.
http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html
Dunlavy has been answered before, and he has yet to respond to several telling questions. See:
http://www.audioreview.com/message/DCForumID8/1483.html#49
which is a response to a post by Dunlavy Audio Labs here on AR.
He has also posted on AA, and also failed to back up his assertions, refusing to reply to pointed questions about his claims and statements.
As a confirmed objectivist, his POV is biased. There is also the issue of his patents on cable technology, and the fact that he sells expensive cables, upwards of $800. A bit of hypocrisy.
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page1.html
Another confrmed non-beleiver for differences in audio cables. Biased POV.
His analysis of Duncan's work is suspect, he leaves out some things, and makes several assumptions that tend to make things go his way (a common ploy by cable naysayers).
The page about skin efect is the sam old amplitude non-issues, and does not address the forcing of current to the surface, and the potential deleterious effects that entails.
You'll have to do better Bruce.
Jon Risch |
| A lot of information..... Part 3 | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 12:11 PM | | You critisize many of these references, one of which comes from a university. Yet, they at least provide some sort of mathematical model and experiments that confirm them. this is far more than you have done. All you have is speculation, heresay, and science-fiction.
-Bruce |
| A lot of information..... Part 3 | Eyespy
Dec 2, 2001 1:16 PM | | That is because in some circles, and in some circumstances, that is what has the most influential effect. |
| A lot of information..... Part 3 | mtrycrafts
Dec 2, 2001 3:55 PM | | "You critisize many of these references, one of which comes from a university. "
Jon can only claim that the bible proves itself. Pathetic. |
| A lot of information..... Part 3 | FLZapped
Dec 3, 2001 5:14 AM | | Well, for a change, he'd be correct. -Bruce |
| A lot of information..... | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 10:47 AM | | [Mr. Ludwig is a confirmed non-believer in audio cables sounding different. Hence, his stance is not one that can be ascribed to an un-biased POV. }
the pot is calling the kettle black here Jon, you're point of view is equally biased int he opposite direction. At least Ludwig offers some REAL evidence, rather han just a bunch of blather.
[The real issue with skin effect is that, regardless of what amount you claim is occuring, that it forces current flow toward the surface of the wire, making platings, coatings, oxidation, corrosion, etc, much more of an issue that it would be otherwise. Yes, there is enough skin effect at audio frequencies to cause this to occur. ]
And the fact is, that in order o create 1dB of additional insertion loss in an 8 ohm speaker system, it would have to increase the AC resistance to 1 ohm. ANd you know that just doesn't happen, don't you.
You also know that all your blather about the surface of the wire has yet to be shown to have any audible affect, beyond gross amouints of corrosion.
And so it goes, more BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, without any real proof from you Jon.
-Bruce |
| A lot of information..... | mtrycrafts
Dec 2, 2001 3:49 PM | | "Mr. Ludwig is a confirmed non-believer in audio cables sounding different. "
Get a grip of reality, Jon, if you know what that may be. I suppose you need to be a believer in cable differnces to hear it. Get real. Don't even compare yourself with him. You don;t have a chance.
"However, like many objectionists, he tends to only look at what the skin effect might do the amplitude response. "
There you go again, Jon. Yet, you will not demonstrate any of your claims, empty claims, worthless claims.
"There are many things that are quite out of date in the information presented at this web site. This is a good example of the old school on cable matters. Blinders and tunnel vision. "
Your evidence can be found where, Jon, to support your preposterous claim here. Get real. You have nothing but an empty claim.
"The chart is strictly concerned with resistive losses and the resultant amplitude drops. The author states that the table is based on a nominal resistance (resistive load) and approx. 5% (1/2 dB) of signal loss to the speaker.
Now when ABX/DBT proponents talk about doing speaker cable tests, or interconnect tests, the concern for level matching is always raised, and the criteria used is not 1/2 dB, but +/- 0.1 dB.
"
Oh, Jon, more preopsterous allegations and confusions what what the test level matching has to do with cable parameters. You are really an EE, Jon? Get real. You have yet to demonstrate that you can hear even that .5dB differneces, so , it is really a moot point, Jon. Claiming you can is foolish if you cannot demonstrate. Heard of alien abduction claims?
", sometimes enough to roll-of the HF's by as much as 0.3 dB at 20 kHz for a 10 foot length. "
Jon, you are pathetic and just cannot get away with htis silly example. You cannot even hear 20khz. Most cannot hear it. That .3 dB is meaningless, so is that 1db. Get real. Get educated, if that is possible. And perhaps, you can tell us the JND necessary at 20khz to hear it? Why can't you, JOn? Because you have no idea what is important and what is irrelevant. That is obvious from your leap of faith here. You can only impress the less educated followers, Jon.
Why do you so conveniently leave out the Davis AES Journal article that shows the overall losses in cables, Jon? Because it would not support your claims? Pathetic.
Davis, Fred E., 'Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions,' JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91, pg. 461-469. |
| re: BEST CABLES? | mtrycrafts
Dec 1, 2001 3:17 PM | | "and for a lower cost, but still better than zip cords (low cost Monster, hardware store, lamp cords) "
Better? How so, Jon? Audibly? Where is your evidence? Absent evidence speakes volumes. |
| The first link.... | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 11:02 AM | | From your first reference:
[This is a pretty strong statement, and sure to attract the ire of the cable nay-sayers. I will explain in full, and I do beleive that what I have to say will make sense, even to a lot of the nay-sayers.]
So right off the bat you opein with your highly biased position.
And in the very next paragraph, you repeat one of the oldest myths in audio:
[First, lets look at what this might cost, and what systems would be good candidates for their use. In order not to bog down, full details are at the end of this post. Bottom line: between $140 and $220, or about 15 to 10% of a systems total cost. ]
Where is your evidence that 10 - 15% is correct, by what standard was this established and agreed upon?
[They are not exactly arguing from a positiion of strength.]
Really, they at least have SOMETHING to point to Jon, what do you have?? Nothing.
Still in the very first link, we find:
[Let's explain this a little more, so that my premise is clear. Think in terms of a filter built into each and every cable, as well as a grunge box full of distortion that leaks into any signal passed down the cable. ]
Grunge? Really, what scientific evidence do you have that shows us this. Where is your measurements and yout data?
[This is where my recommendation to go ahead and get at least a decent entry level aftermarket cable comes from, first, the listener must become accustomed to hearing what the higher performance cables bring to the party, and they must replace all the critical links in order to gain the most benefit from the upgrades and be able to have enough performance to begin to hear what is being gained.]
Based on what evidence? Or is it just based on heresay, technobable and science-fiction?
[In so many cases, over the long term the listener will become accustomed to hearing more musical details and a smoother yet clearer presentation, and it becomes more apparent when these things are now removed or taken away. It is a simple matter to listen to a few reference grade musical cuts, and then swap the old cables back in wholesale (while leaving the volume control in the same place, switch to an unused input to avoid any transients while cable swapping #), and listen to those same cuts again. Now, the listener is much more likely to hear what the aftermarket cables did for his system.]
As a lawyer would say in court: Objection! Leading the witness!
Then there is YOUR unverified listening tests whic to date, no one has seen all the data on:
[These results are based on listening tests]
...therefore, it is just heresay.
End of the first link.
-Bruce |
| Really Bruce. | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 12:44 PM | | Your points are so weak as to be ludicrous!
Is this your big rebuttal?
This is talking about this post I made:
http://www.audioreview.com/message/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=0&om=809&forum=DCForumID8
[ And in the very next paragraph, you repeat one of the oldest myths in audio:
"First, lets look at what this might cost, and what systems would be good candidates for their use. In order not to bog down, full details are at the end of this post. Bottom line: between $140 and $220, or about 15 to 10% of a systems total cost. "
Where is your evidence that 10 - 15% is correct, by what standard was this established and agreed upon? ]
This is just a rule of thumb, and a rather common one at that. I did not 'invent it', but I do agree with it for most folks.
Given that I qualify it by saying that it only applies to systems where the total spent was over $1000, I would say that it is quite reasonable and not at all unrealistic to spend from $100 to $150 for ALL the cables for a $1000 system. This is barely enough to get the least expensive entry level cables that will be worth getting, in my opinion. Of course, the post was all my opinions and recommendations based on my personal experiences, which is something that is hard to debate about.
I suppose that since your's is a personal vendetta, that we can all understand why you try.
[ "Let's explain this a little more, so that my premise is clear. Think in terms of a filter built into each and every cable, as well as a grunge box full of distortion that leaks into any signal passed down the cable. "
Grunge? Really, what scientific evidence do you have that shows us this. Where is your measurements and yout data? ]
Really Bruce, I have posted this before, so I can only assume that this is yet another instance of your just ignoring it, or using this as a rhetorical device to make it seem as though I have no evidence.
Of course, since you are very much trying to further your vendetta, it is understandable. The evidence is listed in the Annotated Bibliography, and I have pointed it out to you before, several times.
[ "This is where my recommendation to go ahead and get at least a decent entry level aftermarket cable comes from, first, the listener must become accustomed to hearing what the higher performance cables
bring to the party, and they must replace all the critical links in order to gain the most benefit from the upgrades and be able to have enough performance to begin to hear what is being gained."
Based on what evidence? Or is it just based on heresay, technobable and science-fiction? ]
Once again, are you serious?
If someone gets better tires, they have to get used to them to ascertain just how much harder they can push them before they start to slide or become unstable. Until they do this, there is no way to know just how much better they are than the el cheapo tires they replace.
Or perhaps a fine musical instrument is a better example, you can not know just how much more you will be able to convey with the new instrument in terms of emotion and feelling, until you become familiar with it's characteristics, what it takes to 'make it sing'.
As I pointed out with the filter and grundge generator analogy, if the old cables were filtered and grundgy, and this is all one is used to listening to, how will they know immediately what the less filtered and less grundgy cables are doing until they can hear the differences over several different familiar songs, until they can see just how much more MUSIC is getting through? Remember, I have said that cable differences ARE subtle, not hit you over the head.
This process of getting used to the cables is a logical process, nothing that should be a mystery.
So far, none of what you have pointed out in any way makes what I posted less helpful or less relevant to those seeking to upgrade their system or cables.
I quote from the post we are talk |
| Really Bruce. Part 2 | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 12:45 PM | | Part 2
I quote from the post we are talking about:
"None of these posts is 'proof' of anything, and there are many who would argue about each and every aspect I write about. My main purpose in these posts is to raise awareness of the technical issues that are associated with audio cables, as many tend to dismiss them as just simple wires.... "
Jon Risch |
| Really Bruce. Part 2 | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 2:08 PM | | [None of these posts is 'proof' of anything, and there are many who would argue about each and every aspect I write about. My main purpose in these posts is to raise awareness of the technical issues that are associated with audio cables, as many tend to dismiss them as just simple wires.... ]
So then why is it you keep trying to promote these idea, Jon, you have no proof, yet over and over, you throw this out as though it exsists, or even exists in any audible quantity. It's just speculation. Why do you wish to mislead peolpe with this stuff when you have no basis in fact for any of it. So why do you keep insisting on trying o account for items that, if they exist, are so far below audibility that any reasonable engineer has enough sense to disregard. Or is that statement just an admission that you are clueless.
You've pushed his agenda since the late 90's, yet you haven't come up with anything that conclusively(or even remotely) proves you position. Many others before me have asked you to produce something that is workable evidence, yet you shrink back from all these requests. Why, Jon? Is your ego so big, you couldn't possile admit that you are wrong? Or are esoteric cable companies giving you kick-backs for buying off on their wild-assed theories and promoting them, yeah, I'm speculating now, but hey, if I repeat it enough, people will start to believe it, right. Isn't that one of the great realizations the Nazis' had. That if you repeat a lie long enough someone wil eventually believe it?
I think I'll keep repeating this as long as you keep lieing that I have a vendetta, which I don't, you know it, but it sounds better to attack the messenger than to attack the message, which in this case, you have no real argument against.
-Bruce |
| Really Bruce. | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 1:56 PM | | [If someone gets better tires, they have to get used to them to ascertain just how much harder they can push them before they start to slide or become unstable. Until they do this, there is no way to know just how much better they are than the el cheapo tires they replace. ]
One again, a poor analogy and COMPLETELY incorrect, tires are rated for tread wear, traction, load range, and speed: the consumer KNOWS what he is getting for his money and has a reasonable expectation of what to expect from them.
[As I pointed out with the filter and grundge generator analogy. . . I have said that cable differences ARE subtle, not hit you over the head. ]
As usual, you're back pedeling. So now all we have is subtle grnge. Well, what is that exactly? How do you measure it Jon? How is it quantified, I still only see speculation, althouh now it is a softer, more subtle speculation.
[This process of getting used to the cables is a logical process, nothing that should be a mystery. ]
Now you're contradicting yourself. Don't you also believe in cable burn-in? How then can you make the above statement. Now you are admitting that it is the human elemnt involved, not the cables themselves.
[So far, none of what you have pointed out in any way makes what I posted less helpful or less relevant to those seeking to upgrade their system or cables. ]
You're right, because there isn't anything there that is usefule to begin with, therefore there is really nothing to negate.
Is this the best you can do? Still no evidence, just squirming. Show some real work Jon, show some real data.
-Bruce |
| Really Bruce. | mtrycrafts
Dec 2, 2001 3:58 PM | | When you offer nothing of merit, not much to rebut. |
| The 1st Geocities link: i1.htm | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 11:16 AM | | [Information compiled over years of controlled subjective
listening tests of cables.]
This starts off with heresay, no evidence that this has actrually ever been done.
[, I did not use the ABX switchbox, cable swaps were used.
Over a period of months and years of testing, I developed a few
twists on test methods and procedures]
Then an admission to using a non-standard procedure on top of it.
[Preferred Construction for Unbalanced Connections:
After listening to cables with identical materials, and LCR
(Inductance, Capacitance and Resistance) parameters within an
acceptably similar range, but different physical geometry's,
it was determined that a twisted pair cable with overall shield
(a telescoping arrangement) was superior to a coaxial or triaxial
type. ]
Shown where to be superior?? Where is that data?
[-Balanced Connections-
A balanced connection nominally involves two conductors, both of
which could be considered "hot", but with opposite polarities of
signal.]
And in a classic goof, you mistake the differential signal for making this system balanced.
If either conductor is earth grounded, theoretically the
signal does not short out, but has been unbalanced by this earth
connection. As with the unbalanced connection, earth grounding
either of the "hot" conductors has it's problems.]
It does, why then isn't there an explaination of what that would be?
[Since audio signals typically require some sort of shielding from
hum, a third conductor, in the form of a conductive cylinder
surrounding both "hot" conductors is classically used.
This most common construction is called a twisted pair.]
More erors. How does having a shiled make this called a twisted pair? that what the writing here would lead one to believe.
Again, more errors in your writing Jon, this is without a doubt, the WORST explaination of what a balanced audio connection is and why it is constructed in the method it is and what the benifits are.
[It was further determined that if it was possible to use the
twisted pair without a shield physically present, that this
resulted in higher performance]
Really, by whom? You? I wonder what the phone system would have to say about that. More ommissions, are you trying to mislead your readers to believe this is all your work, Jon?
[If a shield was introduced between the pair of wires, the
performance suffered greatly, rendering this version inferior to
the coaxial style]
Suffered greatly how? What was the length tested? What were the test parameters. Again, no evidence, just heresay!
Then we have all this:
[-Preferred Conductor Materials-
In descending order of preference:
Bare copper
Enameled copper
Tinned copper
Silver plated copper
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR SERIOUS AUDIO USE AT ALL:
Cadmium copper, beryllium copper and other copper alloys.
Nickel plated copper
Silver plated copper clad steel
Copper clad steel
Tinned steel
Bare steel ]
Again, not a drop of evidence as to why. Not even a theoretical reasons. |
| The 1st Geocities link: i1.htm -continued.... | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 11:23 AM | | [NOT RECOMMENDED FOR SERIOUS AUDIO USE AT ALL:
Solid Polyethylene
Rubber
PVC (Polyvinylchoride) \ These two actually attack most conductors
Polyurethane / over a period of time, the severity
depending on the exact formulation.
-Filler or molded insulation-
Fillers with lots of air are best.
SEE "Inner Conductor Insulation" for order of plastic style fillers
Cotton
Rayon
Nylon
The above fibers would all be placed just below foamed
polyethylene, but above solid polyethylene. ]
Again, not a drop of evidence as to why. Waitaminute, maybe.....
[The quality of the cable dielectric can be related to a
capacitor, so work or information on capacitor quality
can be applied to audio cables. See the site:
http://www.capacitors.com/pickcap/pickcap.htm
This is a reprint of an excellent article on capacitors
by Walt Jung which explains and gives measurement data
about various capacitor types. ]
Yes, youlove to misuse Jungs work. You have yet to show how his work actually makes a difference in cables. Most of what jung did was to extend he bias on electrolytic caps to expand their linerar chargin region. It is well known that electrolytic caps are really non-linear.
He did also look at other stuff, but no as in deph as with electrolytics.
However, the one important point you keep ignoring is that he said the improvement went down with the impedance of the circuit involved.
And most pre-amps are in the 50 to 100 ohm output impedance range, whereas Jungs work was in higher impedance circuits that he saww the greatest improvement.
[-Shield Materials-
In descending order of preference for coaxial cables:
Bare copper
Tinned copper
Silver plated copper
Foil ]
Where 's the evidence again, Jon???
[NOT RECOMMENDED FOR SERIOUS AUDIO USE AT ALL
(in coaxial cables):
Double copper braids
Foil/braid combinations
Cadmium copper, beryllium copper and other copper alloys.
Nickel plated copper
Silver plated copper clad steel
Copper clad steel
Tinned steel
Bare steel
-Jacket Materials-
In descending order of preference:
Solid Teflon (TFE)
Solid FEP Teflon
Fluorocopolymer
Silicone Rubber
Borderline:
EPDM
Flamarrest \
Rubber These three are real close
Neoprene /
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR SERIOUS AUDIO USE AT ALL:
PVC (Polyvinylchoride)
Polyurethane ]
More speculation....
[It would seem that jacket materials could have
no possible affect on the audio, due to the shield
isolating the signal from the insulators. However,
for coaxial cables (or even twisted pairs with braided
or served shields), the shield coverage for a braided
copper shield maxs out around 95% and often runs
87%-90%; with served copper shields, the shield
coverage often runs only 85%. And due to the
inherently unbalanced construction of a coaxial cable,
and the lack of 100% shielding, this means that the
electric field leaks through the shield and interacts
with the surrounding environment, where the jacket
is the nearest thing. ]
So where is your evidence, no measurements, no data, not even a lisening test, just specualation.
So with all this guesswork you have in your writing Jon, how could you really expect anyone to take you seriously.....
-Bruce |
| BOY! | Redd
Dec 2, 2001 1:08 PM | | I did not think that John Risch was for real,that you were out to get him for personal reasons. This sure looks like a personal thing going on when you are posting about his individual links.
BTW,your posts do not show that John is wrong,just that you are nuts!
Redd |
| BOY! | Eyespy
Dec 2, 2001 1:18 PM | | What user name do you usually post under? |
| BOY! | Musika
Dec 3, 2001 10:35 AM | | "What user name do you usually post under?"
Are you the new moderator, spyboy??? 007's got nuthin' on you.
When all else fails...accuse 'em of being a fraud with a false moniker. |
| BOY! | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 2:17 PM | | That is his big lie. Jon is promoting ideas as an engineer in which he has no basis in fact for. He has ducked every attempt to prove himself and not just by me.
I am showing just how hollow his supposed work really is.
If it were personal, wouldn't I be personally atacking him instead of arguing against the ideas he is promoting which are flawed?
And you say my posts do not prove Jon is wrong, well, you are correct, I cannot prove a negative. However, Jon is making these claims and has the burden of proof to prove them correct. He hasn't even reached any level of proof yet, but promotes these ideas as fact over and over again.
-Bruce |
| BOY! | mtrycrafts
Dec 2, 2001 4:11 PM | | "you are posting about his individual links"
Of course since Jon uses them as his references. The bible cannot prove itself. Did you know that?
"BTW,your posts do not show that John is wrong,just that you are nuts!"
You are informed enough to know this? |
| The 1st Geocities link: i1.htm | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 2:24 PM | | This is regarding the DIY Interconnect Note I make available, see:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/i1.htm
(You may have to go to this first: http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch
due to Geocities pop-up ad machine. Sorry)
[ This starts off with heresay, no evidence that this has actrually ever been done. ]
Yeah, I made all that stuff up, and the contents of the AES paper were just my imagination too. Bruce, I have obviously conducted and participated in controlled listening tests, I would not be able to comment about, and know what I do if I had not done so. I wrote an AES paper on Subjective listening tests, "A User Friendly Methodology for Subjective Listening Tests", presented at the 91st AES convention, October, 1991. AES preprint #3178.
These things did not spring fully formed from my head, I did listening test after test, on cables, on other audio components, in order to learn what I have about procedures and methods.
So you can call me a liar by implying that I am just saying that I did these tests, as a matter of fact, you have slandered me, lied about me, misrepresented me in many other posts before. But that does not take away from all the listenig I have done, allthe tests I have conducted and administered over the years.
Those who have bothered to try my DIY cable designs know the truth, they know that I know what I am talking about!
[ " I did not use the ABX switchbox, cable swaps were used.
Over a period of months and years of testing, I developed a few
twists on test methods and procedures"
Then an admission to using a non-standard procedure on top of it. ]
This is rather misleading on your part (is ANYONE surprised?). Using cable swaps to change the components in and out is NOT considered wrong or bad, it is merely not using a switchbox.
Of course, if you listen to the ABX zealots, they would have everyone believe that theirs is the ONLY way to conduct a listening test. But many of the early ones let the music play on, did not repeat the musical selection for each comparision, did not train the listeners, did not verify the level of test sensitivity, or even what IF ANYTHING that particular test could discern, they had so many flaws and problems, it is hard to see the science beneath the mistakes. I pointed out many of these common ABX mistakes in my AES paper, for the first time in print in some instances.
Cable swaps are an accepted method of switching components in and out for comparisons. Even the ABXers will concede this point when pressed.
[ "Preferred Construction for Unbalanced Connections:
After listening to cables .... it was determined that a twisted pair cable with overall shield (a telescoping arrangement) was superior to a coaxial or triaxial type."
[ Shown where to be superior?? Where is that data? ]
Ummmm, is there a reading disorder, a comprehension difficulty? Perhaps you should learn to read better. It was determined empiraclly, via controlled listening tests.
As a side note, many of the high performance aftermarket cable manufacturer's use a twisted pair with overall shield as their top of the line models, and those conversant in cable theory and physics will tell you that a twisted pair with overall telescoped shield provides superior shielding, as when the shield in not made to carry the return currents, it is more effective as a shield.
So we have empiracle research results, theory, and the marketplace all in agreement. What part do you not get?
You then go on to criticize my explanation of a twisted pair construction. Note the use of the words nominal and typical.
I provide further explanation of twisted pairs in other posts, see:
http://www.audioreview.com/message/DCForumID8/1766.html#1
I also answer Q's from folks about such things, both privately and publicly. It may be that I need to update the note with a clearer explanation, and a differentiation between balanced and twisted pair.
It could be pr |
| The 1st Geocities link: i1.htm REPLY. part 2 | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 2:25 PM | | part 2
I also answer Q's from folks about such things, both privately and publicly. It may be that I need to update the note with a clearer explanation, and a differentiation between balanced and twisted pair.
It could be presented more clearly.
[ "It was further determined that if it was possible to use the
twisted pair without a shield physically present, that this resulted in higher performance"
Really, by whom? You? I wonder what the phone system would have to say about that. More ommissions, are you trying to mislead your readers to believe this is all your work, Jon? "
I did all of my listening test work on cables from first principles, and did not assume anything. Everything was questioned, nothing was taken for granted, what sounded best is what I posted about, not what theory said should sound the best. I don't see how this, or even posting about twisted pairs with and without shields could be considered to impinge on the phone company, or any of their work.
Most of their work concerned long lines, where transmision line effects intrude. A lot of what they do is done for cost reasons, not necessarily what is best, and certainly not at all associated with high performance home playback issues.
[ "If a shield was introduced between the pair of wires, the
performance suffered greatly, rendering this version inferior to
the coaxial style"
Suffered greatly how? What was the length tested? What were the test parameters. Again, no evidence, just heresay! ]
The standard test lengths I used were typically 1M, but in some instances I used 2M to get the effect level up. Nothing outrageously long or unusual. The test parameters were those I used for the vast majority of my controlled listening tests. I have posted some of the details here before, whee YOU paying attention?
Adding a shield between the two conductors of a pair caused the dynamics to suffer, the sound was very flat and compressed, lifeless.
Soundstage was truncated and shortened, image width was reduced, all the same things that make a high performance cable superior to an OEM freebie were what suffered.
[ "Preferred Conductor Materials-
In descending order of preference:
Bare copper
Enameled copper
Tinned copper
..... etc. "
Again, not a drop of evidence as to why. Not even a theoretical reasons. ]
For the reading impaired, once again, these were the results of controlled listening tests, with one variable substitutions to determine what sounded the best.
As for theory, I have posted about some of this before, and once again, you either forgot, ignored it, or are using this as a device to present an appearance that there is no evidence, when in fact, there is.
I talk about platings in the speaker cable note:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/s1.htm
and show what copper crystals look like at:
http://microstructure.copper.org/coppers.htm
http://microstructure.copper.org/grain_size.htm
it is not too hard to imagine what the structure would look like with a dissimilar metal involved, it wouldmake the microphotographs shown their look like a paragon of orderlyness.
Anyone interested can look into metallurgy and metal plating issues, and see that it is far from benign to plate the surface of a conductor.
Alloys are also at issue due to their dissruption of the atomic crystal patterns, and the consequent HUGE increase in the number of crystal interfaces the signal must jump to traverse the conductors.
As for steel, it has magnetic hysterysis. Despite their being a very low level of current in interconnects, there still is SOME current. Where there is alternating current in a wire, there is an alternating magnetic field, where there is an alternating magnetic field and steel, there is hysterysis distortions.
Steel in a speaker cable is quite obvious, and can be used to practice listening for it in IC's.
Really, your objections to my DIY note so far have been in the realm |
| The 1st Geocities link: i1.htm REPLY. part 2 | FLZapped
Dec 3, 2001 5:36 AM | | [I did all of my listening test work on cables from first principles]
Again, where is the data from said tests?????
[The standard test lengths I used were typically 1M, but in some instances I used 2M to get the effect level up. Nothing outrageously long or unusual. The test parameters were those I used for the vast majority of my controlled listening tests. I have posted some of the details here before, whee YOU paying attention? ]
Oh, right, that's good enough for you I suppose. A dribble here, a dribble there, and how convienient to do so that you may interpret each little piece individually to argue your poihnt to see fit at the moment.
[For the reading impaired, once again, these were the results of controlled listening tests, with one variable substitutions to determine what sounded the best. ]
With no published data to be found anywhere. Just your testimonial.
While John Q Public may take your word for it, those of use who work with this stuff won't take "I said so" for an answer.
[As for steel, it has magnetic hysterysis. Despite their being a very low level of current in interconnects, there still is SOME current. Where there is alternating current in a wire, there is an alternating magnetic field, where there is an alternating magnetic field and steel, there is hysterysis distortions.
Steel in a speaker cable is quite obvious, and can be used to practice listening for it in IC's. ]
So where is your mathmatical model and subsequent numbers that show this effect, Jon??
Where is the measured data that backs this up as valid???
Or would that be to factual for you??
-Bruce |
| The 1st Geocities link: i1.htm REPLY. part 2 | Jon Risch
Dec 3, 2001 6:40 PM | | "As for steel, it has magnetic hysterysis. Despite their being a very low level of current in interconnects, there still is SOME current. Where there is alternating current in a wire, there is an alternating magnetic field, where there is an alternating magnetic field and steel, there is hysterysis distortions. Steel in a speaker cable is quite obvious, and can be used to practice listening for it in IC's."
So where is your mathmatical model and subsequent numbers that show this effect, Jon?? ]
Again, you are kidding right?
Now I am supposed to explain to you, try and teach you all about hysterysis distortions in steel, when it is exposed to alternating magnetic fields? I have to come up with mathematical models and simulations to show that it exists?
If it exists (and I think that it is a pretty safe assumption that it does), then it will distort the audio signal.
Of course, there is always that bugaboo of HOW MUCH distortion.
The most basic answer is: enough to hear.
But then, you are saying that I am lying about hearing it, so we are at an impasse.
Basically, you disagree with my own personal experiences, claim they are not valid, not real, that YOU do not agree with them, so they can not be accepted.
However, you go further, by trying to say that not only will you deny my experiences and results, but that they just can not be, because you said so. There is no counter argument, no evidence for your points, just the usual lame demands for unreasonable proofs.
In doing this, you deny the very basis for the hobby, sharing personal experiences with others, by trivializing them and demanding some sort of scientific validation way beyond the reasonable expectations of the hobby. Trying to turn this into a scientific board of inquiry on an audio chat board is just overboard and ridiculous.
Jon Risch |
| The 1st Geocities link: i1.htm REPLY. part 2 | FLZapped
Dec 4, 2001 7:14 AM | | [Now I am supposed to explain to you, try and teach you all about hysterysis distortions in steel, when it is exposed to alternating magnetic fields? I have to come up with mathematical models and simulations to show that it exists? ]
Oh no, Jon, everyone knows it exists, but you are claiming audible distortions. THAT is where you need to provide your proof.
[Basically, you disagree with my own personal experiences, claim they are not valid, not real, that YOU do not agree with them, so they can not be accepted. ]
No Jon, it's just that they are not valid as scientific evidence, that's the yoke you must bear as an enginner, Jon, it's a different standard than Joe Blow off the street with no formal training.
[In doing this, you deny the very basis for the hobby, sharing personal experiences with others, by trivializing them and demanding some sort of scientific validation way beyond the reasonable expectations of the hobby. ]
Only from engineers making unproven speculative claims that they are trying to pass off as fact.
-Bruce |
| The 1st Geocities link: i1.htm | FLZapped
Dec 3, 2001 5:18 AM | | No Jon, just that you have yet to cough up any evidence that supports you output claims that could either be verified, or shown incorrect. But it is easier to say what the outcome was and just hope everybody is gullible enough to believe you rather than publish the information and undergo the scrutiny that might find errors, blowing your theories away in a cloud of smoke.
-Bruce |
| Link s1.htm.... | FLZapped
Dec 2, 2001 11:58 AM | | [My take on this is to consider that the speaker cable carries the
most current of any single component for the longest distance
(anywhere from 10 feet up to 30-50 feet as needed), so that any
effects due to surface "contaminants" would be at a maximum.
I consider "tinning", nickel plating, silver plating, or any other
material on the surface of the conductor to be a contaminant]
And absloutely no proof hat any of this reaches th point of audibility, much less measurability. So it is just pure speculation.
[The skin effect/self-inductance pushes the current flow out
towards the surface. ]
Yup. But in your writing you fail to mention that you would have to raise the cable's AC resistance raised to 1 ohm in order to see 1dB attenuation. Again, you also speculate about the surface of the wire, but have no actual proof it matters.
Magnetostrictive or Motor Effects:
[What does occur
is movement of the conductors relative to one another due to peak
current flow, and the induced back EMF due to the motion while
carrying current. This is one reason soft insulator/spacer
materials should be avoided, stiff dielectrics like teflon or
polypropylene or even polyethylene will allow less movement and
reduce any magnetostrictive/motor effects. ]
Yet you can't show this has any merit. No measuremets, no data, just more speculation.
Then there is this experiment for the Darwin award:
[A simple demonstration of the presence of this effect is to take
a loop of thin limp wire several feet long, lay the wire out in a
long skinny "U", with the spacing about 1/2" and pulse some
current through it (a car battery or such), ]
Ah yes, conduct a very extreme test and you can get to see the effect if you don't burn yourself, or blow up your battery. The current through the wire will only be limited by its resistance and the internal resistance of the battery.....what would you hazard to guess, a couple hundred amps? The average current throuh a speaker cable is under 10 amps.
[Vinyl Insulation (dielectric) Concerns:
Vinyl as an insulator/dielectric has a high dielectric
coefficient and a large amount of dielectric absorption. The
dielectric coefficient of vinyl varies with frequency, that is,
the coefficient does not remain constant. While the dominant
action of concern in a speaker cable is the current flow, and
related inductive effects, there is still a fairly high voltage
present too, one of the highest in the system (unless the power
amp is a tube amp). This voltage can be corrupted by the
delayed discharge involved with dielectric absorption. ]
Then there is all this stuff. While DA is real, no one has shown that it matters in audio interconnects, or speaker cables. Take a look at Bob Pease's work, where he shows a model. Note in particular that the cap is 1uF and typical interconnects are about 200pF, then note how SMALL in comparision the residual network is. Thn consider what all thos tiny little capacitors are going to be able to do. Especially when the output impedance of an amplifier is far below 1 ohm and the output of a preamplifier is 50 to 100 ohms. Quite a voltage divider, no?
http://www.planetee.com/planetee/servlet/DisplayDocument?ArticleID=2461
Here is another, please not the model of fig 4:
http://www.national.com/rap/Application/0,1570,28,00.html
-Bruce |
| Link s1.htm.... | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 5:13 PM | | This concerns my DIY Speaker Cable note, at:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/s1.htm
[ "My take on this is to consider that the speaker cable carries the
most current of any single component for the longest distance...."
And absloutely no proof hat any of this reaches th point of audibility, much less measurability. So it is just pure speculation. ]
The quote is where I am talking about why are the speaker cables a concern, when there is wire inside the amp, inside the speaker box, etc. that may be tinned or coated.
If the speaker cable is the longest uncontrolled, no-buffered run of wire in the system, then it is a logical thought process to believe that it is also going to have more total effect on the signal than the other wires.
Most of the wires and connectors inside a preamp or power amp are within a feedback loop, and the effects of the wires and connectors are mostly negated or cancelled out by the feedback loop. However, the speaker cable is not within such a loop.
So the logical statement that I am setting up is consistent and makes sense. It is a wonder that you fail to make these connections and inferences.
[ "The skin effect/self-inductance pushes the current flow out
towards the surface."
Yup. But in your writing you fail to mention that you would have to raise the cable's AC resistance raised to 1 ohm in order to see 1dB attenuation. Again, you also speculate about the surface of the wire, but have no actual proof it matters. ]
Again with the red herring of amplitude losses for skin effect. You even make a big point that I do not mention that there are no signifcant amplitude losses due to skin effect, but since I do not use this as any portion of my argument or point, it is indeed moot. You seem to be merely trying to confuse and misdirect, rather than address the real issues.
[ "A simple demonstration of the presence of this effect is to take
a loop of thin limp wire several feet long, lay the wire out in a
long skinny "U", with the spacing about 1/2" and pulse some
current through it (a car battery or such), ...."
Ah yes, conduct a very extreme test and you can get to see the effect if you don't burn yourself, or blow up your battery. The current through the wire will only be limited by its resistance and the internal resistance of the battery.....what would you hazard to guess, a couple hundred amps? The average current throuh a speaker cable is under 10 amps. ]
Sure a couple of hundred amps, but the whole idea was to make the effect visible, and no other claims or inferences were made. Obviously, if you can make the wires move, the effect is real, and exists. If you can see it with hundreds of amps, and even with tens of amps, is it not possible that with normal speakers, currents of amps to dozens of amps, that motion that is not readily visible is occuring? Why this is SUCH a difficult concept for you is a mystery, but you would rather there be no example of overall magnetostrictive
effects, eh? Better to keep them in the dark, let's not confuse the issue with any facts!
BTW, I do warn to be careful.
As for your comments on DA, well, what would we all expect from a naysayer? You say the effect exists, but that it has not been shown to matter in audio cables. Of course, in order to find out, one would have to do some research, make some measurements, do some listening. Do the naysayers do ANY of these things? Mostly, they just say it can't be. Period. Some science!
On the other hand, I HAVE listened, I HAVE measured (as best I could), and I have done some research.
These things, none of which you seem to have done, lead me to believe that there is a good chance that DA effects are audible on audio cables, that the dielectric material matters.
BTW, I am glad that you brought up the Pease articles, he was duped by Tom Nousaine, who claimed to be an electrical engineer (he is not), given misleading information, told |
| Link s1.htm.... REPLY part 2 | Jon Risch
Dec 2, 2001 5:14 PM | | part 2
BTW, I am glad that you brought up the Pease articles, he was duped by Tom Nousaine, who claimed to be an electrical engineer (he is not), given misleading information, told outright lies about listening test results (the usual, that nulls equal a negative, and that Nousaine had lots of negatives. What Mr. Pease was NOT told, was that there were NO peer-reviewed professional journal papers that had such nulls, and the VERY FEW amateur listening test results were not very good evidence. Can't imagine why he would then jump to conclusions after havig been mislead! BTW, Mr. Pease has publically admitted he has a tin ear, and could care less about high performance audio, or even run-of-the-mill audio, so his credentials as an engineer with experience with high end audio are quite lacking.), etc.
So where are all these terrible flaws in my DIY notes? I provide information to build excellent cables that perform to levels that require retail investments on the order of $500-$1000 or more for speaker cables, and $250-$700 for interconnects, yet they cost a tiny fraction of that. What I post, provide at the web site, are obviously my opinions, and I endeavor to provide citations and references.
So far, you disagree with those references, but fail to provide solid back up for YOUR _CLAIMS_ that what I post or provide is WRONG.
Still a lot of nothing, but hot air and vendetta.
Jon Risch |
| Link s1.htm.... | FLZapped
Dec 3, 2001 5:28 AM | | [Yup. But in your writing you fail to mention that you would have to raise the cable's AC resistance raised to 1 ohm in order to see 1dB attenuation. Again, you also speculate about the surface of the wire, but have no actual proof it matters. ]
Again with the red herring of amplitude losses for skin effect. You even make a big point that I do not mention that there are no signifcant amplitude losses due to skin effect, but since I do not use this as any portion of my argument or point, it is indeed moot. You seem to be merely trying to confuse and misdirect, rather than address the real issues. ]
That is the real issue Jon, everything else you have presented is just speculation.
[Sure a couple of hundred amps, but the whole idea was to make the effect visible, and no other claims or inferences were made. Obviously, if you can make the wires move, the effect is real, and exists. If you can see it with hundreds of amps, and even with tens of amps, is it not possible that with normal speakers, currents of amps to dozens of amps, that motion that is not readily visible is occuring? Why this is SUCH a difficult concept for you is a mystery, but you would rather there be no example of overall magnetostrictive
effects, eh? Better to keep them in the dark, let's not confuse the issue with any facts!
BTW, I do warn to be careful. ]
OK, lets get to the facts. Where is your mathematical model and subsequent numbers that show the REAL forces you're talking about????
[. Of course, in order to find out, one would have to do some research, make some measurements,]
OK, so where are yours then??
You keep claiming, yet no one can find the results, Jon, that's the whole problem in a nutshell.
-Bruce |
| Link s1.htm.... | Jon Risch
Dec 3, 2001 6:57 PM | | [ You keep claiming, yet no one can find the results, Jon, that's the whole problem in a nutshell. ]
Simple. I've heard it. Using standard experimental procedures, and varying one aspect at a time, it becomes obvious what occurs when the individual aspects are varied.
One example I cited for overall cable magnetostriction, is the old Discwasher Smoglifters. They were a very loose braid, the braided individually insulated wires were like a chineese handcuff, and would spread apart quite readily, expanding their weave as they did so.
An amplifier turn-on thump was enough to make them twitch noticably.
Now, by placing non-magnetic, non-conductive weight on top of a pair of such cables, the sound would clear up, and become less fuzzy.
Take the weights off, with the weave kept under tension, and they degrade sonically some, loosen the weave tightness enough so they can move easily, and they sound fuzzier, less clear, less precise.
Now this is classic scientific method. It is pretty clear what is changing, what is being varied. All else remains substantially the same, so the results are fairly clear. Yet, if you automatically dismiss what I (and others) heard, then YOU are left with nothing, I have some results that make sense, do not violate any physical laws, and are consistent in terms of physics and the real world.
So you go on, ignorant of what factors it takes to make for a superior signal transfering speaker cable, and I take what I learned, and apply it to DIY audio cable design, and end up with great sound.
I post the design publically, and literally thousands of people build it and LOVE the results, while you just post "it can not be so", and help no one.
Who is really fooling themselves, me, or you?
Jon Risch |
| Link s1.htm.... | FLZapped
Dec 4, 2001 7:16 AM | | [Simple. I've heard it. ]
And people think they've seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland.
-Bruce |
| |
