|   40 Different wires! ENJOY! | Abex
Oct 18, 2003 5:07 PM | | As an Aerospace Engineer by training and former Consultant (Andersen Consulting) by profession, I just could not take all the marketing BS I was getting from the cable manufactures. Therefore, I got my Electrical Engineering book off the bookshelf, read tons of forums/articles/etc, and started from scratch. My personal experience was that Interconnects seemed to make a slightly bigger difference than speaker cables so that is where I started (YMMV).
Over a two month period I made and tested about 40 different designs. In each case I tried to correlated the measured capacitance, inductance, and resistance to what I actually heard. In most cases the difference was pretty subtle but in some it was not. Except for one or two exceptions, what I heard tracked pretty well with what my measurements had predicted. The final test was to use my wife (who has very good hearing) as a guinea pig in a blind A/B testing format for 6 different cables (one badly designed on purpose, one reference [Straightwire Maestro II], and 4 of my own design). She was able to identify the bad interconnect 100% of the time. Two other interconnects also consistently scored higher than the Straightwire reference (with one scoring higher on every category except for bass).
Based upon my testing, the end result is that for interconnects you want to minimize capacitance as much as possible and resistance and inductance have significantly less effect as long as you do not take them to the extremes (i.e., the use of 32 AWG wire is a resistance extreme). This correlates with basic crossover theory associated with low voltage sources. My "bad" interconnect was 27 strands of individually braided wire I took from high quality Cat5 cable. For this design the Inductance was almost not measurable, resistance was low, but capacitance was through the roof. The high capacitance made the bass bloated and totally killed all the detail in the highs (sounded extremely bad on my system but might be an acceptable tone control for overly bright speakers). I keep these around strictly for demonstrating to people that Interconnects CAN make a difference (it is not a fair comparison but usually shuts up the folks that say interconnects make zero difference).
For speaker cables, my testing seems to indicate that resistance is the most important attribute followed by low inductance (correlates with crossover theory for high current/voltage sources). Capacitance seems to be a non-issue as long as your amp can drive it. For a fullrange tower (especially the VMPS RM40 which likes lots of current), the difference between 14 AWG and 10 AWG is very easy to hear. The difference between medium and low/no inductance is relatively subtle. I personally cannot hear the difference five-9 copper makes, but I "think" I can hear the difference silver (or silver plated copper) makes.
As to your actual question as why a few milli-ohms or mF makes a difference, that is all that is required to change the high/low-pass crossover characteristics by a few percent. Some people say you can't hear this but I personally believe you can. As for my wife, she has the uncanny ability to tell when speakers are more than about .5 dB out of balance even when not in the sweet spot. Audioholics is a great source for technical data (also a great demonstration how personal bias can sometimes create bad conclusions from good science).
For those folks that say they can't hear the difference between cable A and cable B on their system, they are probably correct. I have tried some of my cables on lower-end systems in poor acoustic environments (which is probably what 90%+ of people who listen to music have) and I can't tell the difference between cables either. However, in my state-of-the-sound dedicated demo room, using high-quality speakers and amps (VMPS RM40s powered by Ampzilla 2000s), I am quite sure that 95%+ of the people will hear a very distinct, audible difference.
Copied experienc |
| 40 Different wires-each offering another way to waste money | skeptic
Oct 18, 2003 8:41 PM | | A difference in overall frequency response of a sound system can be easily immitated or compensated for with an inexpensive equalizer. Given that some of these cables cost many hundreds or even thousands of dollars, and given that their effect is largely unpredictable to the average audiophile and totally uncontrollable in its degree of effect, it seems to me that this a poor way to purchase what amounts to a filter. Furthermore, no one has shown that there is any difference in non linear distortion ie. harmonic or intermodulation distortion or that there is any change to input/output linearity by changing wires.
The average 3 foot off the shelf interconnect has low enough shunt capacitance to pass a 6 megahertz NTSC video signal without any visual degradation even with a television set having excellent resolution. By your rationale, this should therefore have no effect on the transmission of spectral content of audio signals which have less than one three hundreth of the bandwidth of a composite video signal.
Some audiophile and DIY speaker cables have such high shunt capacitance that they have the ability to send marginally stable power amplifiers into spontaneous ultrasonic oscillation which may not only impair performance but damage the amplifier itself.
The widespread commercialization of these products without any concrete support evidence that they provide the substantial performance improvement their advertising implies or that one would expect commensurate with their selling price leaves only the option to search endlessly expending enormous time and cost of trial and error to find those products which offer even marginal improvement or reject the notion that they represent a viable mechanism for improving the performance of a sound system until proven otherwise by their manufacturers.
Carefully reading their advertising literature, it is clear that they very cleverly avoid overt violations of the FTC rules for fair advertsing by not making any objectively refutable performance claims. However, through their implied claims they have clearly violated the intent of the law and will likely be eventually warned to cease these implied claims unless they can back them up with honest to goodness scientific evidence that they are valid. Until then, it's buyer beware. |
| re: 40 Different wires! ENJOY! | mtrycrafts
Oct 18, 2003 11:14 PM | | b As to your actual question as why a few milli-ohms or mF makes a difference, that is all that is required to change the high/low-pass crossover characteristics by a few percent.
Actually, that is not what Fred Davis published in his peer paper a few years ago where he measured and tested speaker wires with 10X resistance and 20X indictance variations.
"Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions", Davis, Fred E., JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91,
Tom Nousaine has tested a wide range of people with a wide range of cables on very good systems. Some in the cable designers $250K system, no audible differences, same holds for IC cables.
IC cables are not designed as your extreme high capacitance cable as that would roll off the highs. That can be calculated easilly:
"Beating the Bafflegab & Filtering the FooFooDust", Hayward, James, Part 1- Marshall's Audio Ideas Guide(Canada) Summer/Fall 94
"Making the Connection. Part Deux: A Closer Look at the Role of Loudspeaker Cables", Hayward, James, Winter 95. Reprints available from Kimberkable.
You need a high output impedance for this to show up. But then, I don't know what your extreme capacitance was.
How good was your bias controls on th elistening sessions?
What were the stats? As you only seem to have rated subjective performances as Toole uses on speakers.
Try a 20 trial same/ difference testing. |
| Mtry ... | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 20, 2003 9:20 PM | | ... , while the data is sketchy, the things he says are not unreasonable. It's not that difficult to make wires or interconnects with characteristics that are audible, and as I read his post, that is all he is claiming to have done. I've done as much myself, and don't really need to do a DBT to know that when the output is down 5dB at 14kHz. it will be audible. Notice what he has identified as the "critical" parameters. RLC is the right answer, isn't it? ;-)
What was left unsaid was the cost of wire or interconnects with acceptable parameters. Do cheap interconnects or 12 AWG zip have any unacceptable parameters? That's the question I see left unanswered here, and IMHO it's the first question anyone should be asking (when it comes to interconnects or speaker wire).
Have you seen the latest piece on wire myths over at Audioholics? http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Audio-Cable-Vendor.html
Audioquest is claiming what Mr. Risch claims, that being that they have done blind tests with dielectrics, metals, and so on, and have gotten positive results. Any comments?
;-)
R.O. |
| Mtry ... | mtrycrafts
Oct 21, 2003 12:31 AM | | b Notice what he has identified as the "critical" parameters. RLC is the right answer, isn't it? ;-)
Yes, it is but it is not as sensitive as one might think, not when 10X difference in inductance didn't do very much, or 10X resistance.
He did say a few mil ohms here. A few mF referencing to cross overs. In wire?
Difference between 14 ga and 10Ga? Hardly if Greenhill couldn't between 16ga and 12 ga with music, levels unmatched.
b I've done as much myself, and don't really need to do a DBT to know that when the output is down 5dB at 14kHz.
I am sure you can have such cables, but one must try to have so much capacitance to overcome the impedance ration of output and input.
b Do cheap interconnects or 12 AWG zip have any unacceptable parameters?
Not the 12 ga, it doesn't, nor the 14ga. Tom and his cohorts have yet to find stock interconnects that mattered any.
b Have you seen the latest piece on wire myths over at Audioholics? http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Audio-Cable-Vendor.html
Audioquest is claiming what Mr. Risch claims, that being that they have done blind tests with dielectrics, metals, and so on, and have gotten positive results. Any comments?
;-)
Easy to claim positive results. One just makes it. More difficult to demonstrate it and have it reproduced to 3rd party observers. That is the challenge:) They will never do it. Never have before. Jon has had many chances to do just that.
Actually, false positives is what you get when your protocol is worthless and unreliable, more so than false negatives. |
| SO true. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 21, 2003 5:10 PM | | b "Actually, false positives is what you get when your protocol is worthless and unreliable, more so than false negatives." - Mtry
Absolutely! And if one then keeps the methodology and results a secret they never have a chance to find their errors. If you or I got such astounding results we'd be sending all the details to our friends so they could find the fly in the ointment. When it's all kept a deep dark secret it's usually a sign that the claimant knows that his findings are weak.
R.O. |
| SO true. | mtrycrafts
Oct 21, 2003 8:52 PM | | b Absolutely! And if one then keeps the methodology and results a secret they never have a chance to find their errors.
Some/many don't like answers, real answers :) |
| I've got a question for you, Mtry. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 25, 2003 5:55 PM | | Perhaps by putting it in this sub-thread I can avoid directly confronting the offenders. ;-)
You've been posting on this forum for years, longer than anyone else here, and you have spent a great deal of that time confronting people like (and including) Jon Risch with hard facts. Over time your efforts, and the efforts of others, changed this forum dramatically, but from what I have seen I believe you are the only constant here, and you've worked very hard to keep the cable-cult-crazies from taking the place over. So how do you feel about the recent claims by a relative newcomer, that it was his posts that drove Mr. Risch away? I checked the archives, and the posts do not bear out his claims in any way. If you check you will see that Jon's last posts (go back six months prior to his last post) and the threads that followed were threads in which the claimant hardly participated. Now it seems that his ego has lead him to some kind of delusion (clearly not his first), and I was just wondering how you felt about having a delusional ego maniac step forward and take public credit for you efforts (and the efforts of others). How do you feel about that, Mtry?
R.O. |
| I've got a question for you, Mtry. | mtrycrafts
Oct 26, 2003 6:48 PM | | I am not sure, I may have missed that proclamation by that other. I don't know whom you are referring to.
Well, I appreciate your thoughts and perhaps I should have had some credit. I don't need such credit. Doesn't make me feel different one way or the other. I know what I have contributed and the many thanks I received over the long haul, many in private. That is all that matters to me.
If it makes him feel better, so be it.
I doubt I was the sole source reason or he would have been gone a long time ago, shortly after AA was established.
Jon has other reasons I am sure.
Yes, I may be the longest poster here:) |
| Biases. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 27, 2003 3:48 PM | | b Well, I appreciate your thoughts and perhaps I should have had some credit. I don't need such credit. Doesn't make me feel different one way or the other. I know what I have contributed and the many thanks I received over the long haul, many in private. That is all that matters to me.
If it makes him feel better, so be it. - Mtry
To avoid getting into a pissing contest with the man I won't mention his moniker or provide a link to the thread in question (nothing to be gained by getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man), but it is one of the people here who regularly lies about his education. I feel that such lies only bring discredit to us all, so I'm not particularly fond of such people. What struck me about his demented claim that he was the man who drove Jon away was the delusional and egotistical nature of the claim. If you see me referring to someone here as "Little Jon" or some other similar negative comparison I'm probably talking to the sick-o in question. He's actually gaining a little following with his lies and deceptions, so his little games and bullshit are working as well for him here as Jon's antics work for him over on AA. What surprises me is that guys like you and Bruce tolerate it.
Makes me wonder if my strong biases (hence the subject line of this post) against anyone who lies about their education and/or experiences are coloring my own perceptions. I see these people as vermin that need to be eliminated the same way we'd want to keep roaches out of our homes. Why doesn't anyone other than Phil call people to task for the lies they tell here? Do you believe that Jon Risch has a degree in electrical engineering? How about Skeptic? How about me? (Clue, I've never made the claim, and would be lying just like them if I did.) Don't you guys realize that liars always get caught, and that one rotten apple spoils the entire barrel? Skeptic is a perfect example. He's as much of a pathological liar as Mr. Risch. He claims to have degrees that he does not have, and nobody calls him on it. Don't you guys realize that once his lying becomes public knowledge it will cast a shadow of doubt on the entire group and forum? The cable nuts and general public will see that the people talking about science and logic on this forum are just a bunch of liars who don't actually have the education they claim. It reflects negatively on everyone here, so why the hell is it tolerated? Is Mr. Risch called on his lies because he's preaching the cult line, while Skeptic is allowed to get away with the same exact lie ("I'm an EE") just because his arguments agree with the part-line? You are one of the most objective people here, Mtry, (perhaps the only objective person here) so why do you allow one to tell the lie while slamming someone else for telling the same lie? Is a lie OK when it supports the majority opinion? If that's the way it works here (and right now that is exactly how it's working here) then this forum is just a mirror image (reversed) of AA-cable. No better or worse. Mtry doesn't belong in such company, IMHO. ;-)
But then perhaps I'm just biased. Perhaps Jon's last six months of posting here don't actually tell us what ran him off. Perhaps the guy claiming to have done it all by himself is not insane after all. Might well be me. And both Jon and Skeptic might have EE degrees, and the earth may be the center of the universe. This forum pretends to be objective and scientific, but the lies make it all a sham. Don't they? Seriously Mtry, don't the liars in our group make us all look bad?
R.O. |
| Biases. | mtrycrafts
Oct 27, 2003 10:54 PM | | b Do you believe that Jon Risch has a degree in electrical engineering?
Well, I didn't research his degree but I did sit through one of his presentations at AEs in San Francisco in 1998 and he was presented to the audience as having a BS EE from some school that didn't ring a bell. But then, I don't know them all. :)
b Perhaps Jon's last six months of posting here don't actually tell us what ran him off.
Nope it doesn't. He wasn't run off by anyone but by his choice. He didn't get anything more than he got over his enire time here.
b Seriously Mtry, don't the liars in our group make us all look bad?
Don't the liars and frauds with degrees in fields of science make the whole group look bad? To a small minority in the general public as that is what makes them feel grander. To the rest, they know that not all are created equal. Just cannot be as we are human by nature with flaws and warts. |
| Exactamundo!!!!!! | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 28, 2003 1:26 PM | | b "Don't the liars and frauds with degrees in fields of science make the whole group look bad? To a small minority in the general public as that is what makes them feel grander. To the rest, they know that not all are created equal. Just cannot be as we are human by nature with flaws and warts." - Mtry
Exactly! Taking the thought a step further, one doesn't have to be a liar or a fraud to discredit their professional community. Sometimes "spit happens." To minimize both error and deception, any credible group has to police itself. That said, it isn't always desirable to "minimize both error and deception." Some organizations and individuals use these as tools of capitalism, label it as "business," and consider it perfectly acceptable. The line between promotion and deception is often very thin. BUT ...
... in a technical environment where mistakes (and fraud) must be minimized, the group must police itself. I've been working with mission critical systems since the peach-fuzz turned into facial hair, and I'm pretty sure that the experience has left me with some unrealistic expectations. It's not that no one ever tried to pull a fast one, just that when it's a matter of life and death, such people have to be quickly exposed and eliminated. There is enough risk and complexity without having to worry that someone on the team is hiding or misrepresenting things. I've spent most of my life in environments where such things were simply unacceptable, so the stuff that goes on in the audio forums is totally foreign to me. From my perspective it looks like a big mess in need of some serious housecleaning.
AA and AR are like mirror images of one another. Both have outspoken regulars that are fundamentally dishonest. AH is trying to keep their ducks in a row, and so far they seem to be doing a better job of it, but I wonder how long it will last. How do you keep the negative influences from making a mockery of all efforts, without censoring out the negative factors?
I guess at this point I'm wondering (yet again) whether or not it's worth the time to read and post on the audio forums. Is anything ever resolved?
R.O. |
| Exactamundo!!!!!! | mtrycrafts
Oct 28, 2003 11:36 PM | | b From my perspective it looks like a big mess in need of some serious housecleaning.
Yes. But those in the industry who could do that is not showing much/any interest. Why? Chat boards is nothing to take on that segment of the audio industry.
b AH is trying to keep their ducks in a row, and so far they seem to be doing a better job of it, but I wonder how long it will last.
Depends on who runs it for how long. But, me think, the web is small potatoes. You only get those who are interested to look, one way or the other. Like religion. Nothing will change unless there is a different approach and effort. But then I am but a insignificant peg. I can influence very few. Maybe planting seeds here and there will have a consequence over the long haul.
b How do you keep the negative influences from making a mockery of all efforts, without censoring out the negative factors?
In my estimation, my insignificant peg, one must keep at it. Carl Sagan had something similar to say, a candle in the darkness cannot be snuffed out or it is end game.
The die hards will never be converted or convinced. So, as long as they are around, the candle must burn ever so brightly. I wish I have had the chance to hear Carl at some of his presentations, but his book is all I have. Cannot give up.
b I guess at this point I'm wondering (yet again) whether or not it's worth the time to read and post on the audio forums. Is anything ever resolved?
Yes, it is worth it and something is resolved, being resolute to the truth and facts. The candle is burning and must burn to th elast man. |
| Cruelty to horses. | RADAR O_Riley
Nov 2, 2003 6:23 PM | | "Yes, it is worth it and something is resolved, being resolute to the truth and facts. The candle is burning and must burn to the last man." - Mtry
I think I understand your motivation.
Whether the horse will drink or not, it is cruel to deny the opportunity.
R.O. |
| I like this one from audioquest | mtrycrafts
Oct 21, 2003 12:38 AM | | b I'm an old fuddy duddy that still believes that the ear is the best test instrument of all.
That is why instruments can do better than human JND, threshold detection, no masking effects, on and on.
No wonder his cables are so much voodoo nonsense. |
| LOL. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 21, 2003 5:19 PM | | That cracked me up too. He seems to be trying to imply that he ears are more sensitive than dedicated test equipment, without actually saying something so easily discredited. I guess it is a good example of using the power of implication to support an invalid argument.
I don't think anyone would argue with the statement that the ear is the final judge. Without some understanding of the limits of our auditory system the measurements are pretty useless. We can always measure differences if we have enough resolution, and this extends well below the levels of audibility, so we need the ears to tell us when the measurements are "good enough."
Or we could just totally dump our brains down the toilet and believe that SET amps are "more accurate reproducers" than a good op-amp, and that wires have notch-distortion. Some of the snake oil really seems too stupid for anyone to believe, but if the crap wasn't selling I don't think we'd see so much of it.
R.O. |
| Mtry ... | skeptic
Oct 21, 2003 7:16 AM | | If LCR is all cable manufacturers have to offer in the way of "improvement," that alone tells you how unviable their product is for "improving" sound system performance. How do you engineer for that? How do you specify a cable type when you don't know before hand what LCR compliment is optimum for correcting frequency response errors with different combinations of other components? How do you predict what effect a change to LCR will have on a particular component or pair of components it connects? How do you control the degree of correction if the required length is too short or impractically long? And how do you justify the added expense when an equalizer can do exactly the same thing, by the same means, in a predictable, controllable way, at what might be a fraction of the cost? |
| Yup! It only works because it operats on FM. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 21, 2003 5:24 PM | | Not "Frequency Modulation" but "F***ing Magic." ;-)
Since the wire is magical it can match anything to anything, and there is always an improvement. I wonder what the golden ears do when their wire cops an attitude.
;-)
R.O. |
| I just | mtrycrafts
Oct 21, 2003 9:30 PM | | did a quick calc on what capacitance is needed to have a 3dB drop at 15kHz with normal component output impedance of 1K ohm and 100K imput impedance.
3.5 micro farads/m and a 3 meter cable. Wow, that is 10X grater than the worst cable measured by James Hayward in my citation
b "Beating the Bafflegab & Filtering the FooFooDust", Hayward, James, Part 1- Marshall's Audio Ideas Guide(Canada) Summer/Fall 94
b "Making the Connection. Part Deux: A Closer Look at the Role of Loudspeaker Cables", Hayward, James, Winter 95. Reprints available from Kimberkable.
I suppose one can do that or have components with impedances that are far from 'good design practice' |
| I just | FLZapped
Oct 22, 2003 10:38 AM | | A while ago I measured several cables, the "worst" of the stuff showed a cut-off frequency of 78kHz for a 25 foot length driven by 600 ohms and terminated with 10000 ohms. That was Belden 8451 with both center conductors tied together and measured against the shield.
Phase shift at 20kHz was in the area of 4 degrees.(Of course, you can get far more than that by turning your head in the soundfield less than a half inch.)
-Bruce |
| I just | mtrycrafts
Oct 23, 2003 6:22 PM | | And the great cable guru, not Jon, but Ben Duncan had a 3 part cable article in a rag a while back. He could only find fractional degree phase shift at 20kHz :) Probaly mush shorter cables, etc.
Wouldn't 1 cyle be 50 micro second at 20kHz? 4 degrees would be .1 micro second. How far does sound travel in that time? 12/1000 inches. OK I am worried :) |
| I just | FLZapped
Oct 23, 2003 7:09 PM | | 1139 feet/second. Yeah, 50 microseconds is about right for 20kHz. One wavelength at 22.78kHz would be 0.05 feet, or 0.6 inches, so 20kHz is a little more than this. (Didn't feel like accurately crunching the numbers tonight.)
Regardless, 4 degrees isn't worthwhile to worry about at 20kHz.
-Bruce |
| Indeed. | RADAR O_Riley
Oct 23, 2003 6:09 PM | | b "I suppose one can do that or have components with impedances that are far from 'good design practice'" - Mtry
With interconnects that's a given (not to say that this is a universally accepted truth, just that it is true). ;-)
R.O. |
| |
