What are some of the popular high end cables people are using in this forum?

I have used Transparent in the past and have Bi-Wire MIT Magnum MA cables now. The associated equipment are Levinson 436 monoblocks, Meridian 861, Aerial 20T and cc5 center speaker.

I wonder if all of this time if maybe this type of cable I am using is not giving me sound how it is "supposed" to be. This is something that I have thought about in the past, but about a week ago my brother met someone who was a "higher up" with Mark Levinson and now is with Meridian. He had said that the type of cable that I am using is a poor choice with Levinson amps in that it kills the dynamics of the amp. My brother said that he mentioned Kimber and another brand but doesn't remember it. Regardless of what brands he mentioned, what do you think of Transparent/MIT type cables versus other high end speaker cables without networks.

Please let's not get into a debate that there is no difference in sound between cables. Let that be on another thread.

Thanks,
Ken

What are some of the popular high end cables people are using in this forum?

I have used Transparent in the past and have Bi-Wire MIT Magnum MA cables now. The associated equipment are Levinson 436 monoblocks, Meridian 861, Aerial 20T and cc5 center speaker.

I wonder if all of this time if maybe this type of cable I am using is not giving me sound how it is "supposed" to be. This is something that I have thought about in the past, but about a week ago my brother met someone who was a "higher up" with Mark Levinson and now is with Meridian. He had said that the type of cable that I am using is a poor choice with Levinson amps in that it kills the dynamics of the amp. My brother said that he mentioned Kimber and another brand but doesn't remember it. Regardless of what brands he mentioned, what do you think of Transparent/MIT type cables versus other high end speaker cables without networks.

Please let's not get into a debate that there is no difference in sound between cables. Let that be on another thread.

Thanks,
Ken

Odin

I am a huge fan of the new Tesla line from Synergistic Research

I really enjoyed the Transparent top of the line interconnects and speaker wires in a mixed solid state and tube setup. In that system they were markedly better than the Purists they replaced.

I am a huge fan of the new Tesla line from Synergistic Research
I agree The Tesla is one of the new hot tickets. It's very intriguing indeed with the Enigma Power Supply. The Audioquest DBS cables are also very nice.

Please let's not get into a debate that there is no difference in sound between cables. Let that be on another thread.

Thanks,
Ken


Well you already did that. You stated that you think they are not giving you the correct sound. So cables must make a difference. The reality is if you are using the correct gauge cable for the gear then price is no issue. The reality is also that none of these cable companies have beat physics and until they do they are pure snake oil.

see that? only 5 posts and you get the typical "can't resist post". i think this is the last forum you should ask a cable question in. audioasylum and audiocircle are better for this.

audioasylum and audiocircle are better for this.
[I[/I]


Indeed they are. Science is not allowed there. Truth is not either. Here at the AV SCIENCE forum the truth is allowed.Please instead of just blowing it off tell me how I was wronng in anything I wrote?

And it seems you also missed the point I made as well. The OP said dont debate yet it was ok for him to do it in his post.

I would first want to know how the cables can possibly be "killing the dynamics." Maybe you should place a call to makers of these cables to hear what they have to say. Not that you should believe them, but at least to hear what they say, get another opinion. Next, just for argument's sake, if you need specific cables to keep from harming your dynamics, how do you determine which cables those might be? By taking a poll to find out which cables others use and favor in their systems? What next, a series of random trial and error to see if you hit the lucky number? Stop and think about it for awhile. What special conditions does your gear present that would demand special cables to keep the dynamics intact? Which cables can work effectively under these conditions and, more importantly, why? Then, you might ask around, talk to a few electrical engineers and see if any of these "conditions" and "remedies" make sense or if they are just marketing BS. Get another point of view. If your gear truly has special conditions that make your dynamics fragile and in danger of degradation from the wrong cable and demands the "right" cable, it would seem to me like some rational investigation is in order.

Transparent, MIT and Purist all try very hard to alter the sound. Speakers with boxes are obviously different sounding and warmer than something like Nordost or Kimber. If the sound is kinda midrangey and rolled off, just try any other cable.

Transparent, MIT and Purist all try very hard to alter the sound.

In what way?

Speakers with boxes are obviously different sounding and warmer than something like Nordost or Kimber.

Why should they? Speakers with "boxes" generally tout their ability to do the opposite, to avoid attenuation and stay linear.....way outside the range of human audibility. Don't see any reason that should make them sound different, much less, "warmer."

Speakers with boxes are obviously different sounding and warmer than something like Nordost or Kimber. If the sound is kinda midrangey and rolled off, just try any other cable.

Can you elaborate more on what you are saying with regards to the statement.
Ken

I'm saying that you can make a speaker cable have a sound if you want, especially easy if you throw in extra parts in the signal path. We've traded in a lot of MIT, Purist and Transparent over the years because people change their speakers to something more refined and suddenly these don't work for them. We then resell them to people with bright, aggressive speakers and it makes them happy. Passive tone control. Technically, a pair of zip cords would be more accurate. A guy at Nordost once told me that they measured some really expensive Purist cables and their propagation speed was way below that of zip cable.

Siltech G6 Emperor. Others from sig line are also vy vy good. Ribbons and boxes can be very problematic. Cables are about system balance and should be done last.

What are some of the popular high end cables people are using in this forum?

I have used Transparent in the past and have Bi-Wire MIT Magnum MA cables now. The associated equipment are Levinson 436 monoblocks, Meridian 861, Aerial 20T and cc5 center speaker.

I wonder if all of this time if maybe this type of cable I am using is not giving me sound how it is "supposed" to be. This is something that I have thought about in the past, but about a week ago my brother met someone who was a "higher up" with Mark Levinson and now is with Meridian. He had said that the type of cable that I am using is a poor choice with Levinson amps in that it kills the dynamics of the amp. My brother said that he mentioned Kimber and another brand but doesn't remember it. Regardless of what brands he mentioned, what do you think of Transparent/MIT type cables versus other high end speaker cables without networks.

Please let's not get into a debate that there is no difference in sound between cables. Let that be on another thread.

Thanks,
Ken

:eek:OMG, you didn't go there!

Ribbons and boxes can be very problematic.

You do know someone will dispute this.

i have 1 question to ask all the "physics" guys (not intending to be rude). do you believe that different cable constructions result in "different" sounding cables? for example, would you say that a solid silver interconnect/speaker cable sounds exactly the same as an a gold or copper cable?

for example, would you say that a solid silver interconnect/speaker cable sounds exactly the same as an a gold or copper cable?I do reject the notion that silver and copper impart different flavors to the sound. Any measured or audible differences between silver and copper are entirely due to the fact that silver is approximately 8% more conductive than silver. That means given two otherwise identical cables, one being silver and one being copper, the former will have slightly lower resistance. It's not likely this is audible at all at any reasonable cable length; regardless, simply making the copper cable slightly thicker mitigates the conductivity advantage too.

First, you have to state *why* you think a given cable should sound different, then we can examine the science behind it and see it it is valid. Why should the "boxes" employed by MIT and Transparent should make them sound different?

If a particular set of amplifiers and speakers needs a certain cable to avoid killing the dynamics, there should be a reason. Knowing the reason should help pick the particular cable and before spending money on the cable, it should be verified that it possesses the properties needed. That's only logical.

First, you have to state *why* you think a given cable should sound different, then we can examine the science behind it and see it it is valid. Why should the "boxes" employed by MIT and Transparent should make them sound different?It's fairly well known that those boxes are filters. The only question is what they filter; i.e., whether the information filtered would have been audible in the first place. Or more precisely---since filters necessarily affect the entire frequency spectrum from DC to infinity---how much they impact the audible content. If the cutoff frequencies are high enough, the audible content should remain effectively untouched.

Some of those filters have a Zobel network effect, which can be helpful to settle instability issues in certain types of amplifiers. But of course to do those right they should take the amplifier itself into account, and in fact many amplifier designs build them in. Supplying them generically with the speaker cable means they're likely to be suboptimal or even useless or counterproductive. Here's a good discussion of the science:

http://sound.westhost.com/cable-z.htm

As Michael points out, Silver is slightly less resistant than copper. So, if you compare a silver cable to a copper cable that is slightly thicker in order to compare cables of equal resistance, there will be no audible difference.

However, silver and copper *look* different. Silver, as a metal, in appearance, *seems* cleaner, more pure, which sets up an *expectation* that it will sound different. Just like thicker cables *seem* like they would pass the signal (conduct the current) better, while thinner cables *seem* like they might introduce a "bottleneck" where the frequencies, music signals, notes -- or whatever the primitive mind imagines -- might get crowded or stuck and get lost. So, most cable companies simply put a very thick sheath around their cables to make them appear thicker, while other simply provide very thick cables, up to 6 gage -- AND -- cover them with a thick sheath. But, the issue here is *resistance* which, like all electrical properties, is well studied and well-known. It is a simple task to calculate the gage of wire needed to conduct the current without loss or attenuation and it doesn't cost much at all to buy wire that is slightly thicker than needed to provide "overkill" to be absolutely sure.

Some of those filters have a Zobel network

This is my understanding. A few years ago, someone bought either a Transparent or MIT cable, opened the box, and found a very cheap and crudely made Zobel network. A Zobel network will have the effect of keeping the signal linear out past the range of human audibility -- and this is what MIT used to advertise with charts showing the linear signal response, which went further out into the range of human audibility than other cables. Of course, with their ad copy, they confused the facts and made it seem like other cables were rolled off within the audible frequency range, while their had a higher "bandwidth." But, with an amplifier like a Levinson 436, the Zobel network will make no audible difference.

which can be helpful to settle instability issues in certain types of amplifiers.

True, but the OP says he has Levinson 436 Monoblocks. I doubt anyone will provide a reason why Levinson 436's should need special cables or why the OP's cables should be killing his dynamics. I think it is more likely he has acoustic problems in his room, or doesn't really like the sonic signature of his speakers and will go on a cable merry-go-round trying to solve the problem that exists elsewhere. But, I have noticed, cable enthusiasts generally become wedded to their components and will look to cables first.
The search is never scientific. Usually, it starts with a post asking others what they like, listening to a lot of unverified claims that such and such a cable is rolled off, while another cable is "grainy," but such and such cable is just right. It's an interesting phenomenon.

i have 1 question to ask all the "physics" guys (not intending to be rude). do you believe that different cable constructions result in "different" sounding cables?

Be more specific. Which cable construction do you believe sounds different and why?

I'm saying that you can make a speaker cable have a sound if you want, especially easy if you throw in extra parts in the signal path.

That's too vague. Which extra parts and how do you believe they will make the resulting sound audibly different?


We've traded in a lot of MIT, Purist and Transparent over the years because people change their speakers to something more refined and suddenly these don't work for them. We then resell them to people with bright, aggressive speakers and it makes them happy. Passive tone control.

Or, placebo effect. MIT and Transparent sell pairs of 8' speaker cable that sell for $5,000 to $25,000. If these companies are selling speaker cables that are not refined enough for high end gear then, by your own admission, this quite a fraud.

Technically, a pair of zip cords would be more accurate.

Or, equally accurate, but far less expensive. If zip cord is allegedly more accurate, then it would stands to reason, zip cord is the *first* thing that should be tried.

A guy at Nordost once told me that they measured some really expensive Purist cables and their propagation speed was way below that of zip cable.

This is where it gets funny. Nordost will slag the other cable makers. However, just because a guy at Nordost said it, doesn't make it true or even relevant. Nordost is in the business of selling cables. Slagging the competition is probably the oldest and crudest technique in sales.

Interesting story about Transparent cables....

http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

For what its worth, I have Levinson 436 Monoblocks and I use Canare 4S11 speaker cable with WBT connectors and my system has excellent dynamics, wide holographic soundstage, etc. If you believe the Transparent cables are harming your sound, you can get Canare 4S11 from a number of places including Blue Jeans Cable and Ram Electronics. This would be a low cost way to see if the Transparent cables are causing a problem and if inserting simple, well constructed, well measured cables into your system instead improves your dynamics.

First, you have to state *why* you think a given cable should sound different, then we can examine the science behind

This is a hobby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure, and there are lots of hobbies. If your hobby is high performance automobiles and you tell me your car's performance is being degraded by the "willies" and you post to an automobile science forum that you're thinking of adding high performance air to your tires to eliminate the "willies" you would get similar responses.

Why post to a forum if you want to be left in peace the hold your beliefs without being interrupted by scientific study that has been done in the area of interest?

Makes no sense nohow.

Honestly, I think Anthony A's advice was right: if you aren't interested in having your beliefs challenged, this is not the place to hang out. Audio Asylum (http://www.audioasylum.com/index.htm) or Audio Circle (http://www.audiocircle.com/) are probably better. For me, frankly, the debates are part of the hobby!

i agree. Plus, if someone isn't happy with the dynamics -- or any other aspect of their audio system's performance, I feel for them. But, for that reason, I don't like to see that person sent on a wild merry go cluster goose chase based on superstition and magical thinking. Usually, there is a very logical explanation that has nothing to do with cables and will provide a far more satisfying solution. In most cases, the money wasted on cables could have more than paid for the real, more satisfying, solution. What's weird is when cable believers (and salesmen) oppose investigation into real problems and solutions based on the idea that it will be less fun, less filling, less whatever.

He had said that the type of cable that I am using is a poor choice with Levinson amps in that it kills the dynamics of the amp.


Sorry, this sounds like BS long way. In what way can the cable kill the dynamics? I hope you understand that almost all music have been produced with simple and cheap cables and in most cases the signal have gone maybe at least 1000 feet of simpel cable before your CD/LP. So do you still believe the cable can kill any dynamics?

As Michael points out, Silver is slightly less resistant than copper. So, if you compare a silver cable to a copper cable that is slightly thicker in order to compare cables of equal resistance, there will be no audible difference.
rsbeck,

The other way to make that comparison is to do it on a comparable cost basis.

You compare a silver cable to a copper cable of the same cost.

Although the silver cable has 8% less resistance given identical cross-section and length;
silver costs more than 8% more than copper, I believe.

Thus, for a given cost of silver cable; you could get a fatter copper cable that has
LESS resistance than the sliver cable.

I feel bad here. i love a good debate as much as anybody. and i love trying to break down arguments and call out crap and laughing at bogus claims.

But come on folks, stop being A-holes. the original poster asked a simple question. he asked...
What are some of the popular high end cables people are using in this forum?

So either answer that question... or do not. possibly even put in your thoughts that you used... and tried ''' and found no difference other than cost, YMMV. and let it be.

If you see two people discussing their religion, do you jump in and try to convince them the religion is a tool to control weak minds or something like that? no... you shrug and walk away.

So why is it that here so many people find it imperative to piss on other people parades.

If they had said that you have to use ___ cable due to is impenetrable green kryptonite fortress of solitude proprietary matrix... then have at 'er. otherwise... let a few go.

Cables make a HUGE difference. Try running your system without any !!

You have a point, but....

The OP also wrote,

"the type of cable that I am using is a poor choice with Levinson amps in that it kills the dynamics of the amp...Regardless of what brands he mentioned, what do you think of Transparent/MIT type cables versus other high end speaker cables without networks."


So, he didn't just ask for some popular high end cables, he stated a perceived problem,
lack of dynamics, and asked for thoughts about various cables in that context. This invites discussion about the alleged problem, it's validity, possible causes and solutions and whether the proposed solution is valid.

Maybe he should have just stopped with the first question.

I wouldn't ordinarily crap on someone's religion, but if someone tells me they've been eating spicy food and a friend of a friend told them their stomach ache is due to their spirit being infected with "bad humors", that their high priest told them to use leeches at a $1,000 a pop and asks me what I think, I will probably tell them to save the leech money and try an ant-acid.

agreed, but it is like the religion thing. just giggle and keep on walking.

So why is it that here so many people find it imperative to piss on other people parades.

Well, you could also ask why some people schedule their parades to follow the route through the golden showers.

Are you advocating pissing on one's own parade? A ban on parade pissing? Ever pissed on a parade? I once took a leak on a shriner's convention. It wasn't easy, but man....once you try it.....

It not easy to piss on a parade. You've got to drink LOTS of fluid beforehand.

I mean, pissing on a Tuba player, that's child's work, but a whole parade...

That takes stamina.

So, don't piss on the parade of those pissing on parades!

just giggle and keep on walking.

Okay, now you've REALLY gone too far.

Giggle AND walk?

AT THE SAME TIME?!!

This is madness!!!

I mean, pissing on a Tuba player, that's child's work, but a whole parade...


rsbeck,

Do you have to fill the Tuba?:)

That doesn't sound like child's play.

The contract only calls for pissing on or around the tuba *player.*

Generally, there's an extra charge for filling the Tuba.

But, if you're willing to barter, something can usually be worked out.

That doesn't sound like child's play.


Oh, yeah? Ask an eight year old if he would like to play, "Fill The Tuba."

The contract only calls for pissing on or around the tuba *player.*

Generally, there's an extra charge for filling the Tuba.

But, if you're willing to barter, something can usually be worked out.
rsbeck,

I was wondering. When we get drug tested at the Lab under 10CFR 707.5(A),
we have to produce a certain amount. If you can't - it's considered a "refusal":

https://hrp-pa0008-rw.llnl.gov/PSAP99_5.html

"Failure to provide sufficient specimen for drug testing could be considered a refusal.
Federal regulations require that you must provide at least 45 milliliters (about a quarter of
a cup) of urine. You are allowed two attempts to produce a sufficient urine sample. If no
valid medical reason exists for not being able to produce the sample within the specified
testing time, this constitutes a refusal to test."

A refusal can cost you your clearance, and hence your job.

Would "silver showers" have less resistance?

See how I got us back on topic?

<polishing halo>

Ken, just go by your own ears. If you don't think your cables are "killing your dynamics" then they're not. I use MIT speaker cables and interconnects, and I'm quite satisfied with them. Frankly, I've found that under powered amps and over compressed recordings kill dynamics more than any cable I've ever used. But again, trust your own ears and judgement and don't rely on what other people say.

After everything that has been discussed with cables why would anyone still think they could have a negative/positive effect?

Because posts don't change reality.

Because posts don't change reality.

How so? Are you saying that becuase information is posted on an internet forum it has no merit in the "real" world?

I think it is more likely he has acoustic problems in his room, or doesn't really like the sonic signature of his speakers and will go on a cable merry-go-round trying to solve the problem that exists elsewhere. But, I have noticed, cable enthusiasts generally become wedded to their components and will look to cables first.
The search is never scientific. Usually, it starts with a post asking others what they like, listening to a lot of unverified claims that such and such a cable is rolled off, while another cable is "grainy," but such and such cable is just right. It's an interesting phenomenon.

A gold star to you sir. Sadly, there is a lot of truth to your statement. I'm part of an "audiophile" group here and it's boggling to my mind that people try to change the sound of their systems with different cables. I believe cables do make a difference and in my own experience I've heard the differences but they are so subtle that I can't imagine how it would turn a crappy sound into a good sound. The price of some audio cables nowadays is staggering and the same money could be used to buy a new pair of speakers which would have a better chance of improving satisfaction imho. There are always at least 3 sides to any argument - objectivists, subjectivists, and the truth!

Because posts don't change reality.

Posts CAN change reality, but first....reality has to WANT to change.

I use Lat International SS1000 MKII speaker cables across the front. Not really high end. I bought them used on ebay for 230.00 like I buy most of my stuff, used not so much on ebay. I use Granite Audio IC 470 interconnects in most places in my system. Still need to buy a few more pair. My suggestion is that you do what a friend does. He uses the Cable Company for in home trials. http://www.thecableco.com/tryathome.php

Posts CAN change reality, but first....reality has to WANT to change.

Hmm, there's an old joke that screams to be changed:

Q: How many fundamentalist Christians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: change? CHANGE?

:p

(sorry, that's probably really bending forum rules...;))

Hmm, there's an old joke that screams to be changed:

Q: How many fundamentalist Christians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: change? CHANGE?

:p

(sorry, that's probably really bending forum rules...;))

How about it takes one to replace a light bulb, and one Curt Palme to snicker at his own attempt at humor. If you're going to change an old joke, at least make it funny.

Umm, no, my joke above is the original. Someone else here can take the credit to change it to an audio related joke, I'm not creative enough. Of course, you wouldn't dare try Jim, you'd be hurt beyond belief if someone critiqued your joke.

Umm, no, my joke above is the original. Someone else here can take the credit to change it to an audio related joke, I'm not creative enough. Of course, you wouldn't dare try Jim, you'd be hurt beyond belief if someone critiqued your joke.

Actually no. I show little emotion when it comes to things like this. It never becomes personal. Once you lose a child; trivial matters mean nothing. I also know I'm not good at jokes.. let alone telling them. Which is why I never chose the life of a comedian. I'll give you a B- for effort though.

How about the Zen Buddhist who walks up to a hotdog vendor and says, "make me one with everything."

After which, the Monk pays for the three dollar dog with a crisp five. The vendor takes the five and goes to help the next in line.

The Buddhist asks, "hey, what about my change?!"

To which the vendor replies, "change comes from within."

OP asked for some cable recommendations:

Ridge Street Audio Poiema, any version, silver ribbon - fantastic IC's, PC's, and SC's

KCI Silkworm - gold wire IC's

Audio Metallurgy - gold plated wire IC's and dig IC's

Moon Audio Silver Dragons IC's and PC's

At least some people were helpful. Thanks.

The others are too impressed with themselves (in their own mind of course) to look at the post, and answer what popular cables do you in this forum use. You seem to have no problem if someone asked what processor, amp, speakers, etc. It is amazing that someone asks the forum a question to help them, and yet so many of the replies have nothing to do with what was asked. Oh yea, if you don't have anything to contribute, it's OK to not type.
Ken

At least some people were helpful. Thanks.

The others are too impressed with themselves (in their own mind of course) to look at the post, and answer what popular cables do you in this forum use. You seem to have no problem if someone asked what processor, amp, speakers, etc. It is amazing that someone asks the forum a question to help them, and yet so many of the replies have nothing to do with what was asked. Oh yea, if you don't have anything to contribute, it's OK to not type.
Ken


Why should people let missinformation go without any answer? What other hobbies are people getting angry to hear that you can spend less with the same result? No other than hifi IMO.

Let me be more helpful; If someone who takes the same Yoga class as your Uncle's Cousin's Best Friend tells you your cables are killing your dynamics, I think you should probably switch cables IMMEDIATELY. Why? Well, because, of course. Because audio is a big mystery and, well, you just never know. It might help. Wouldn't that be a heck of a coincidence? Sure, but that's what you get when you participate in the big mystery -- you just never know when you might chance on something -- and picking the most popular cable has GOT to be the way to increase your chances, right? Right. As for the difference between cables with boxes and the others? Hey, who knows what voodoo is going on in those boxes. The musical notes go in, they go round and round and come out the other side dizzy. You might try silver cables cuz they will make your music sound silvery, but you should probably avoid flat cables, who wants short squatty music? My Aunt's next door neighbor has a nephew who went skiing and a guy on the chair lift told him he swears by coat hangers. Yes, COAT HANGERS! I know it sounds weird, but come on -- THIS IS A HOBBY, FOLKS! It's not rocket scientifics. Now, some egg heads will probably pipe up to say that coat hangers can't possibly improve your sound, but what do those guys know, except which pocket to put their pocket protector in, right? Don't listen to them, they are not part of the great mystery so they'll never get it. Great sound is only for those willing to try something that makes no sense, so screw 'em all, pry the cardboard off and get those wire hangers into your system, pronto! Bring back the dynamics!

Frankly, I think that there's a large number of people that take Yoga that are complete whackjobs, so no, I wouldn't instantly switch cables if they said so..;)

Objectivist!

Just from the title of this thread the OP knew what he was getting into. It is obvious that he wanted a argument.

As far as what cables I use. In my home and in the office which is a mere 10 million dollar system. I use Belden,Whirlwind, Standard 12 gauge SO, SJO, and for underwater speakers we use a real tough green coated cable, the name of which escapes me right now but I will have in about an hour. Nothing fancy just the right gauge cable for whatever the job is at hand. We understand and know the reality of cables.

Just from the title of this thread the OP knew what he was getting into. It is obvious that he wanted a argument.


NO. He wanted some recommendations for cables. But the self-righteous saw their cause as just. The objectionist are becoming more fanatical than subjectionist ever were. Funny.

Nothing high end. Oxygen free copper cable with good shielding and high quality terminations everywhere, Monster is just fine. Except: pure silver cable for phono cable and pure silver speaker wire to midrange ribbon and ribbon tweeters, Nothing real expensive, my sets of silver speaker wire and silver phono cables cost less $400 total for all of the sets combined through shopping on the internet, no name brand stuff. Some local wiring with silver cable teflon coated and shielded bought in bulk for about $40 on ebay.
Do I think my sound would be substantially improved with expensive cables? No, it might change things a little, but after some listening, I doubt I would be able to determine that the sound was substantially superior or inferior, I would be still generally be in the same range of psycho-acoustic accommodation. Why silver for some cables? I like the sound of silver cable with my phono, I can hear a difference there, and silver speaker cables seem to work better with SET amps, call it throwing a pinch of salt over my shoulders to the gods of electrodynamics.
I just bought a Da Vinci tonearm that comes with a cable built on that reputedly retails for $2000, but it comes with the tonearm, I would never pay that much for the cable alone.
I guess this still makes me a little superstitious, but in limited quantities.

From the Original Post....

I wonder if all of this time if maybe this type of cable I am using is not giving me sound how it is "supposed" to be....He had said that the type of cable that I am using...kills the dynamics of the amp....what do you think of Transparent/MIT type cables versus other high end speaker cables without networks.

NO. He wanted some recommendations for cables. But the self-righteous saw their cause as just. The objectionist are becoming more fanatical than subjectionist ever were. Funny.


Bingo! That's what I mainly asked for as well as did anyone now what network versus non network cables do to the sound.

As far as the poster saying that I got what I asked for, my last sentence was:

"Please let's not get into a debate that there is no difference in sound between cables. Let that be on another thread."


Ken

did anyone now what network versus non network cables do to the sound.

This was discussed. It might change the sound on a few esoteric amplifiers, but not with the Levinsons, so, unfortunately, the guy was misinformed.

However, unless you are completely opposed to it, try zip cord to see if your dynamics come back. That's just sound practice.

If, with your last request, you were asking to get the answer that network cables will sound different from non-network cables in your system, even if they won't, that's just weird. Complaining that people didn't follow that requirement in trying to help you or that only people who let you remain ignorant were helpful is also disingenuous.

If your dynamics change when you get the networked cables out of your system and you're not happy with Zip Cord and all you want to do is poll the forum to see which "high end" cables are most popular, then start a new thread and get focused before you write your post so you don't muddy the water with the other information, questions, musings, etc.

Just a suggestion.

I hope you get the musical dynamics you're craving -- it sucks when you're not happy with your system.

NO. He wanted some recommendations for cables. But the self-righteous saw their cause as just. The objectionist are becoming more fanatical than subjectionist ever were. Funny.


Do not agree.

I'm not unhappy with my system, just always trying to improve upon it.

I was curious what people had to say about what the guy told by brother. My opinion was that what he saying made little sense especially since most Levinson dealers also sell either Transparent or MIT. Now that I just typed this I just remembered that he had said that those cables were better with tube amps. I don't know why he thought that up.
Ken

Ken, in what way can the cable "kill the dynamics"?

Of course the poster *asked* not to have a debate. So what? If someone stands up in the middle of a restaurant, asks everyone not to listen, and then launches into a speech, do I have to stick fingers in my ears?

This is open forum. The thread poster doesn't dictate squat, no matter how much he might want otherwise. Some posters gave him exactly what he wanted, but frankly I think rsbeck was exceedingly helpful at getting to the crux of the matter---the issue behind the question. Heck, even The Bogg agreed in part!

Subjectivists---and, actually, objectivists too---who truly and surely want to avoid a dose of both sides of the debate ought to know better than to post here.

NO. He wanted some recommendations for cables. But the self-righteous saw their cause as just. The objectionist are becoming more fanatical than subjectionist ever were. Funny.

Frankly, I think the MODs should crack down on people always having to interject their opinion in a thread about hi-end cables when the OP specifically ask that the cable nay-sayers DON'T POST. Afterall, the MODs keep the HD-DVD guys out of the BD threads, and vice-versa. It gets tiring reading the same old 'snake oil' post from the same old usual suspect. :rolleyes:

Ain't gonna happen. If that's the forum you want, go to Audio Circle or Audio Asylum---or, for that matter, the Tweaks section of this forum, which does have more restrictive posting rules.

Ain't gonna happen. If that's the forum you want, go to Audio Circle or Audio Asylum---or, for that matter, the Tweaks section of this forum, which does have more restrictive posting rules.

And you're probably correct. Which is why I rarely post in this part of the forum any more. People are continually allowed to be rude and thread fart with off topic responses and with no consequences (other than the entire thread eventually ending up locked). And yes, you are correct. There are other parts of this forum that give reprimands for going negative against the subject. Evedently some Mods or as tired of the nonsense as many users are.

"Please let's not get into a debate that there is no difference in sound between cables. Let that be on another thread."


Ken

Isn't that like saying, "I was just trying to feed the dogs" by throwing a bone into a caged pack of starving wolves?

Isn't that like saying, "I was just trying to feed the dogs" by throwing a bone into a caged pack of starving wolves?

I believe this Craigslist post sums it up better:

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/687162102.html

I'm not unhappy with my system, just always trying to improve upon it.

I hear you. That's understandable. You've got great speakers and amps. The problem now is trying to find something that will really improve your sound in a noticeable way. You might not want my advice because I am a cable nay-sayer, but I am a fellow high end audio enthusiast and I would advise that if you really want to hear an improvement, hire an acoustic consultant to come to your listening room and give you an evaluation and some recommendations. The acoustics of your listening room make a huge difference and most rooms are sonic nightmares that can be improved with treatments. Interview a few before hiring one. Some guys are very creative and can help you with treatments that will blend into your decor. Or, if you are one of the lucky few who don't have to take WAF into consideration, you can give him/her more leeway to treat your room without having to worry about aesthetics.

Unlike cables, acoustics are not controversial -- objectivists and subjectivists alike agree that they make a huge difference.

NO. He wanted some recommendations for cables. But the self-righteous saw their cause as just. The objectionist are becoming more fanatical than subjectionist ever were. Funny.

Did you read his first post? Did you read the thread title? He was looking for a fight. "Warning incoming"???? Give me a break. If he wanted info then he would have titled it with something more to the point, and not combative.

Regardless he has the truth, several have given it to him. Why the truth is so hard to understand I just do not know.

And if you think I am self righteous for posting real world truths then so be it. I will take that.


Now the cable we use underwater is called "Falmat"

I don't know why he thought that up.
Ken
Exactly. He "thought it up". It just is that a false claim. Unless there is some sort of filter inline, the right gauge cable for the run is what you need. The cable has NO WAY of telling if it is hooked up to a tube or SS amp etc. In most homes 14 or 12 gauge cable is all tat is needed. That can be had for pennies a foot.


If you are SERIOUS about getting a better sound, then look at the room treatment, clean your ears dont drink booze and then listen to your music. Those things effect the sound not the snake oil.

It gets tiring reading the same old 'snake oil' post from the same old usual suspect.


Yes it does, yet they continue to post about their "snake oil" products, and how much it improves their sound, without any evidence what so ever. This should stop immediatly.;)

Oh, you rascal you. I had consider a response of that sort but decided to be nicer :) (Note I said "nicer", not "nice" :))

If you are SERIOUS about getting a better sound, then look at the room treatment, clean your ears dont drink booze and then listen to your music.

A lot of the things in this thread are good despite it deviating from what I did ask. However you really reached moron status. WTF does this statement like this have to be in this thread?
Ken

Of course the poster *asked* not to have a debate. So what? If someone stands up in the middle of a restaurant, asks everyone not to listen, and then launches into a speech, do I have to stick fingers in my ears?

This is open forum. The thread poster doesn't dictate squat, no matter how much he might want otherwise.

While you are correct about your restaurant analogy, do you think a little common courtesy is too much to ask?

It's just more good advice. Another very easy way to get better sound is to listen with the lights low or off. Your hearing becomes more acute when you are in darkness. Turn out the lights and -- voila -- you hear things you never heard before. Cheapest and easiest tweak there is.

If you are SERIOUS about getting a better sound, then look at the room treatment, clean your ears dont drink booze and then listen to your music. Those things effect the sound not the snake oil.

Room treatments are #1 on the priority list before cable upgrades as they tend to a) make the most impact, b) cost less than specialty cables. It's a shame that by adding color commentary one of your items of advice will be ignored. How do you know someone drinks alcohol? That could be offensive to some. Maybe you don't mind stepping over the line. I'm sure others do.

The problem with common courtesy is that it's just so....you know....common.

I prefer extra special courtesy. Version 2.7 Elite Estate Bottled, not a spec of cereal filler.

But -- hey -- that's just me.

dont drink booze and then listen to your music. Those things effect the sound not the snake oil.

He can speak for himself, but I think he was just trying to say that drinking booze will affect your hearing. "Those things will effect the sound..."

However, if he really is accusing the OP of being a booze-hound, I suggest we handle this in a civilized manner.

Pistols at dawn.

Jim, I really don't think we need to hear lectures on common courtesy from you. (e.g. *stupid*)

Jim, I really don't think we need to hear lectures on common courtesy from you. (e.g. *stupid*)

I never called the person stupid. Just the statement.

Room treatments are #1 on the priority list before cable upgrades as they tend to a) make the most impact, b) cost less than specialty cables. It's a shame that by adding color commentary one of your items of advice will be ignored. How do you know someone drinks alcohol? That could be offensive to some. Maybe you don't mind stepping over the line. I'm sure others do.




Give me a break. It was listed in a short list of what is really a very LOOOONNNGGGGGG list of real things that effect our hearing. Lets make the list possibly less offensive.


Common cold, hayfever, sad,happy,mad,sleepy, just waking up. All of those things effect the sound more than cables.

A lot of the things in this thread are good despite it deviating from what I did ask. However you really reached moron status. WTF does this statement like this have to be in this thread?
Ken


The you just do not understand human hearing and sound. This moron makes his living at providing excellent sound for alot of people. So if I am a moron for pointing out ways for you to improve your system which is what you asked for then I am a moron.

I never called the person stupid. Just the statement.If you think that distinction matters then I must simply reiterate what I said: we need no lectures from you on common courtesy.

But let's just cut the crap about that. This would still be a rough and tumble forum even if we took the cable debates out of it. And frankly, I kind of like it that way. But this really has nothing to do with how courteously the opinions are delivered---you don't want the opinions delivered at all.

The you just do not understand human hearing and sound. This moron makes his living at providing excellent sound for alot of people. So if I am a moron for pointing out ways for you to improve your system which is what you asked for then I am a moron.

My room is treated. I saw the things that he wrote and they are either addressed in my room or not applicable. I was just replying the other BS in the sentence.
Just because you say he makes a living at making "excellent" sound doesn't mean you're good at it. There are more lousy people out there than good ones. That's why the good ones command big $'s. I saw on TV the other day a surgeon operated on a guy and took out the wrong lung. He was a professional too.

Ken, in what way can the cable "kill the dynamics"?


Ken, you maybe missed my question?

My room is treated. I saw the things that he wrote and they are either addressed in my room or not applicable. I was just replying the other BS in the sentence.
Just because you say he makes a living at making "excellent" sound doesn't mean you're good at it. There are more lousy people out there than good ones. That's why the good ones command big $'s. I saw on TV the other day a surgeon operated on a guy and took out the wrong lung. He was a professional too.


I still do not know what BS you refer to. Everything I stated was true.

And yes I am one of the good ones. I get a very high dollar and have made a very good living at it for along time. I added that to qualify my statements about audio. I am not speaking in half truths like many ad copy does.

If you think that distinction matters then I must simply reiterate what I said: we need no lectures from you on common courtesy.

But let's just cut the crap about that. This would still be a rough and tumble forum even if we took the cable debates out of it. And frankly, I kind of like it that way. But this really has nothing to do with how courteously the opinions are delivered---you don't want the opinions delivered at all.

I am starting to ignore them. Pretty soon both sides will ignore the other and we will live quite happily as we won't see each others posts.

Ken, you maybe missed my question?

Sorry. I got side tracked. I asking the same question myself. I was just repeating that the guy said. I don't see how unless something is in those boxes that are doing something. Personally i don't think that guy knows what he is talking about. Of course he is a professional so I guess me must. :)
Ken

Ok Ken. Next time you see that guy, ask him about the 500 feet (or so) of cheap reagular cable the signal goes tru from the artist-recording-mixing-mastering and all the steps between them before you play the CD. When he say something like that, then old recordings where the analog signal have been in and out of different mixing and masterings consols many times would have no dynamics at all if a short cable can change the dynamics. But that is not the case

NO. He wanted some recommendations for cables. But the self-righteous saw their cause as just. The objectionist are becoming more fanatical than subjectionist ever were. Funny.

Our cause? I was not aware that science and the laws of physics changed since the last cable thread.

Frankly, I think the MODs should crack down on people always having to interject their opinion in a thread about hi-end cables when the OP specifically ask that the cable nay-sayers DON'T POST. Afterall, the MODs keep the HD-DVD guys out of the BD threads, and vice-versa. It gets tiring reading the same old 'snake oil' post from the same old usual suspect.

Well HD dvd is dead so that is irrelevant, remember that it is not our opinion that we post but fact on what is possible and what is not.

I think this forum is gonna die when everything goes wireless ;)

On second thought, I think we'll graduate to how air treatments will affect the transfer of wireless signals.

Where the hell is chuck barris when you need him!

Where the hell is chuck barris when you need him!



Schwing and gong.

http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2001/03/06/chuck_barris/story.jpg

The cable wars will never end, not because of science or the lack of, but because of marketing. Cables are high profit. Audiophiles who spend big bucks on components will require an aura of exclusivity in the wire snakes that go with them. This creates two powerful lobbies for the mystique of exotic cables, and no amount of science or common sense will defeat successful marketing that leads to substantial profits, or creates the aura of something magical that will improve the sound.
Sheik Yorboudi: " I will order a dozen of those Lamm 3's to go"
Hi end salesman: " Right away, your Sheikdom, and on your way past the strip mall, be sure to pick up some zip cord from Rat Shack to hook them up to your speakers."
Dream on.
The same thing happens in my profession, where relatively inexpensive products are hammered with an aura of technology and promoted with extremely expensive colorful advertisements. I guess marketing works, or they wouldn't do it. The louder the objectivists yell, the more BS will be injected into the information pipeline to protect the profitable market. I guess you could call this the parallel BS/objectivity principle.

I have a set of Dunlavy's.

I never called the person stupid. Just the statement.
Jim,

"A distinction without a difference".

On second thought, I think we'll graduate to how air treatments will affect the transfer of wireless signals.

Hey that is not a bad idea, can you imagine what type of air ionizer/deionizer the audiophiles will come up with.

The cable wars will never end, not because of science or the lack of, but because of marketing. Cables are high profit. Audiophiles who spend big bucks on components will require an aura of exclusivity in the wire snakes that go with them. This creates two powerful lobbies for the mystique of exotic cables, and no amount of science or common sense will defeat successful marketing that leads to substantial profits, or creates the aura of something magical that will improve the sound.

The same thing happens in my profession, where relatively inexpensive products are hammered with an aura of technology and promoted with extremely expensive colorful advertisements. I guess marketing works, or they wouldn't do it. The louder the objectivists yell, the more BS will be injected into the information pipeline to protect the profitable market. I guess you could call this the parallel BS/objectivity principle.

To think that someone would allow any type of advertising to hold that much power and control over ones mind. These audiophiles or atleast some of them can obviously make decisions for themselves in other aspects of life but why not something as simple as cable?

Jim,

"A distinction without a difference".

What you never had a stupid thought, or opened your mouth and said, "that was a stupid thing of me to say"? That doesn't make one stupid.

You understand these things when you balance the amount of English classes with Math classes. Or at least stay awake for them.

What you never had a stupid thought, or opened your mouth and said, "that was a stupid thing of me to say"? That doesn't make one stupid.

You do enough of that by supporting certain high end devices.

You understand these things when you balance the amount of English classes with Math classes. Or at least stay awake for them.
Jim,

I did pay attention in English class!!!

I put QUOTATION MARKS around that line for a reason - those are NOT my own
words; but a well known maxim. [ Well, well known by some. ]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/distinction_without_a_difference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference

Try Googling the phrase - you'll find many other references.

What you never had a stupid thought, or opened your mouth and said, "that was a stupid thing of me to say"? That doesn't make one stupid.No, it doesn't. But common courtesy doesn't permit one to call someone's ideas stupid, any more than it permits one to call the person stupid.

But again, this really isn't about courtesy, it's simply about not wanting to hear stuff that challenges your thinking.

Jim,

I did pay attention in English class - evidiently YOU did NOT!!!

I put QUOTATION MARKS around that line for a reason - those are NOT my own
words; but a well known maxim. [ Well, well known by some. ]

Wrong use of the quote regardless who wrote it. There is a CLEAR difference between saying something stupid and being stupid based on IQ.

No, it doesn't. But common courtesy doesn't permit one to call someone's ideas stupid, any more than it permits one to call the person stupid.

But again, this really isn't about courtesy, it's simply about not wanting to hear stuff that challenges your thinking.

I'm livin' in Michael's World baby.. ;) Or as Michael puts it - This would still be a rough and tumble forum even if we took the cable debates out of it. And frankly, I kind of like it that way. Which by the way is a proper quote. To give credit to whom made the quote.

I don't mind the thinking... it's the hearing. ;)

There is a CLEAR difference between saying something stupid and being stupid based on IQ.
Jim,

Well, we don't have online IQ tests on this forum.

ALL I have to go on here are the words and the concepts expressed by the poster.

However, even with that limited amount of data; it allows one to draw some conclusions
with regard to IQ.

That's too vague. Which extra parts and how do you believe they will make the resulting sound audibly different?

I didn't know I was being judged on my response.

Or, placebo effect. MIT and Transparent sell pairs of 8' speaker cable that sell for $5,000 to $25,000. If these companies are selling speaker cables that are not refined enough for high end gear then, by your own admission, this quite a fraud.

I didn't say it wasn't a fraud. But the MIT and Transparent cables I've heard do sound notably different to me and that doesn't happen often.

This is where it gets funny. Nordost will slag the other cable makers. However, just because a guy at Nordost said it, doesn't make it true or even relevant. Nordost is in the business of selling cables. Slagging the competition is probably the oldest and crudest technique in sales.

This was a private response to a private question I asked one Nordost person.

Well Jim, if you want to concede that your "common courtesy" kick is a crock, I'm all for it. I mean, like I said, this is a rough and tumble forum. But if you wish to persist in it, I suggest you first learn what it means.

If there is no legitimate distinction between calling a statement "stupid" and a poster "stupid" then the same reasoning ought to apply to the most "humble" of objectivists here who likes to use terms like "moron", yet noone seems to call him onto the carpet. The rhetorical question thus becomes: is "commom courtesy" only a one-way street?

how about we get back to technical issues?

how about ...take the high road in every post? and Challenge the post: never the poster

the Over $20k forum is beginning to look like a joke with stuff like this

Ken, in what way can the cable "kill the dynamics"?


Well I don't see how any cable can kill "dynamics" as dynamics imply amplitude range and even with voltage drop, the range is still there, just reduced in amplitude.

Now it's a fact that a high capacitance cable will roll off HF information. But again we need to look at the numbers involved. Any modern audio product form the 1990s forward is going to have an OPAMP line output stage with feedback. This results in an output impedance below 100 ohms. Likewise the input stages are also OPAMP with megohms of input impedance. They are typically shunted down to 50K ohms. The typical audio component interconnect is 6 feet. When you couple these three factors together, even the poorest, highest capacitance audio cabel will have no audiable effect. Yes, there is HF attentuiation taking place. But it is so far right of the decimal point at audio frequencies, you won't hear it. Some my think they hear it.

Now I will say with vintage tube equipment that drive cables fom the plate circuit of a tube are much more sensitive to cable capacitance. Here even 6 feet can make a audiable difference. But then you can buy good low capacitance cables for under $10 if you know what to look for.

Ken,
I suspect the "killing dynamics" suggestion was about possible interconnect compatibilty issues-where capacitance/inductance issues with some boxed cables can have this effect. You should get in touch with the Cable co., and try different stuff. And do avoid price and construction bias, although in general, more expensive stuff is better (and man does that drive the naysayers nuts!!!). One pretty universal affordable cable is the older Audioquest Lapis and Clear-good copper cables. On a better system (thought I'd rile them up again) the cheaper silver stuff will bleach the sound, so only go silver if you can afford the top Nordost or Siltech.

Well I don't see how any cable can kill "dynamics" as dynamics imply amplitude range and even with voltage drop, the range is still there, just reduce in amplitude.

Now it's a fact that a high capacitance cable will roll off HF information. But again we need to look at the numbers involved. Any modern audio product form the 1990s forward is goiing to have an OPAMP line output stage with feedback. This results in an output impedance below 100 ohms. Likewise the inpyt stages are also OPAMP with megohms of input impedance. they are typically shunted down to 50K ohms. The typical audio component interconnect is 6 feet. When you couple these three factors together, even the poorest, highest capacitance audio cabel will have no audiable effect. Yes, there is HF attentuiation taking place. but it is so far left of the decimal point, you won't hear it. Some my think they hear it.

Now I will say with vintage tube equipment that drive cables fom the plate circuit of a tube are much more sensitive to cable capacitance. Here ever 6 feet can make a audiable difference. But then you can buy good low capacitance cables for under $10.

That was one of the most memorable experiences I had back in the day. Using a Tube Amp and swapping between two cables. The smaller cable put the music right in your face invading your personal comfort zone. With the larger cable (same manu.), the vocals moved to the middle of the room.

although in general, more expensive stuff is better (and man does that drive the naysayers nuts!!!).

No it just makes us laugh harder, as stated would it not be in your best interest to use a low capacitance cable which would be plain old copper constructed in the a simple fashion?

Any modern audio product form the 1990s forward is going to have an OPAMP line output stage with feedback. This results in an output impedance below 100 ohms.


This is just just not true-ANY top rated preamp from the last few years
ARC,CAT,CJ, Aesthetix, Lamm, or BAT are higher than 100 ohms.

Well, I was curious about that too, grellberg, so I started checking it out. According to Lamm's own web site, the ML 2.1 has an output impedance of about 1.68 ohms; the ML 1.2 is even less at 0.082 ohms.

On a better system (thought I'd rile them up again) the cheaper silver stuff will bleach the sound

<Clearing throat> Wouldn't a cheap silver cable *tarnish* the sound?

Isn't that their amp?

Yeah, that's what I thought we were talking about. My mistake.

<Clearing throat> Wouldn't a cheap silver cable *tarnish* the sound?

One of these days, Alice.....

This is just just not true-ANY top rated preamp from the last few years
ARC,CAT,CJ, Aesthetix, Lamm, or BAT are higher than 100 ohms.

Top rated by who? Just because they charge huge amounts for their products does not mean they are good.

OK, OK, Doug. We don't need to go even further off on a tangent. Actually I've heard at least two of those brands, so let's say rated "by me" :)

I did notice that a Lamm preamp has an output impedance of 3.5kOhms or something like that.

Any modern audio product form the 1990s forward is going to have an OPAMP line output stage with feedback. This results in an output impedance below 100 ohms.


This is just just not true-ANY top rated preamp from the last few years
ARC,CAT,CJ, Aesthetix, Lamm, or BAT are higher than 100 ohms.

They are all tube amps. Perhaps he meant "any top rated solid state pre-amp", but then again, a bunch of "highly rated" solid state pre-amps have discrete output stages, . . . but then again, the output impedance is still "well below" 100 ohms.

Top rated by who? Just because they charge huge amounts for their products does not mean they are good.

OK, OK, Doug. We don't need to go even further off on a tangent. Actually I've heard at least two of those brands, so let's say rated "by me" :)

I did notice that a Lamm preamp has an output impedance of 3.5kOhms or something like that.

You're probably right-my point was that most of the top modern tube preamps are highly incompatible with some of the boxed (and even non-box) cables. Longer runs of NBS for example produce easily measurable (oh gosh, did I say that?) rolloff. It appears that many of the notions expressed by the engineer types on the forum assume things like high output impedance, which avoid these issues with most cables. But with the more esoteric stuff (of which you might even say I favor ;)), cables can have much more interaction problems.

Sorry, this sounds like BS long way. In what way can the cable kill the dynamics? I hope you understand that almost all music have been produced with simple and cheap cables and in most cases the signal have gone maybe at least 1000 feet of simpel cable before your CD/LP. So do you still believe the cable can kill any dynamics?

I agree. The person who opined that the cable was killing the dynamics was in over his or her head.

In response to the question "What are some of the popular high end cables people are using in this forum?", I would say that your choice of cable is not worth fretting much about or even spending much for. There are cables that are high end in price, cables that are high end in appearance, and cables that are high end in performance, and these groups only partially coincide with one another.

You're probably right-my point was that most of the top modern tube preamps are highly incompatible with some of the boxed (and even non-box) cables. Longer runs of NBS for example produce easily measurable (oh gosh, did I say that?) rolloff. .


Can you point us to some paces that show these measurements?

NO. He wanted some recommendations for cables. But the self-righteous saw their cause as just. The objectionist are becoming more fanatical than subjectionist ever were. Funny.

Who are the self-righteous? Are they not the people who insist that wire has magical properties, and therefore you must lighten your wallet substantially to appease the magic?

Any modern audio product form the 1990s forward is going to have an OPAMP line output stage with feedback. This results in an output impedance below 100 ohms.


This is just just not true-ANY top rated preamp from the last few years
ARC,CAT,CJ, Aesthetix, Lamm, or BAT are higher than 100 ohms.


OK then, let's say 5K ohms. Still doesn't make an audiable difference even with high capacitance cables of less than 10 feet.

BTW, they must be discrete output stages. The design goal is still as low as possible an impedance for a voltage source drive. Of course you have to keep in mind there is a portion of voodoo in high end equipment specs as well. Even though the engineering department knows better marketing still rules. And I'll also be fair here. A higher impedance output driver may have less distortion and 3.5K as stated above is still low enough for most practical applications.

Bob, talking sense in this forum doesn't seem to make too much sense to some. Be careful, or you're due to be tarnished with 'that heathen in California that makes them thar switching amplifiers'

;)

Can you point us to some paces that show these measurements?

How about we try a forum experiment?

Assuming an output impedance of 800ohms (Jadis Jp-80), and a 50k input impedance,
how much capacitance per foot on a 25 ft cable would lead to a -2 db roll off at 20khz?

There are cables that are high end in price, cables that are high end in appearance, and cables that are high end in performance, and these groups only partially coincide with one another.

The high priced cables are generally of higher quality construction but unless you are a DJ moving equipment around each night, once your cables are installed, they generally remain untouched for at least a year.

The problem I see with expensive audiophile cable is the raw stock is never tracable. In reality they don't want it to be. They don't buy specification grade cable such as Belden. They buy off shore bulk cable from the far east with little or no consistant specifications. It may be stamped "OFC" but to what degree? How much oxygen was removed? How pure is the copper? And I dare some accredited lab to actually test thee 99.99999% purity claims.

If I were to spend $200 on a 6 foot RCA interconnect, I sure as hell want to see all the specifications listed and backed up with an official certification. And just to be clear, and "official" certification is not the test bench at some HiFi magazine!

How about we try a forum experiment?

Assuming an output impedance of 800ohms (Jadis Jp-80),
how much capacitance per foot on a 25 ft cable would lead to a -2 db roll off at 20khz?

Ohh I concur, lets do some math! Be careful you may not like what comes back if you are in the high end cable camp.

And note I said "audiable difference" If you are a male over 15 years old, you are already well beyond -2db at 20khz in the first place from what I understand of the human ear.

Ohh I concur, lets do some math! Be careful you may not like what comes back if you are in the high end cable camp.

And note I said "audiable difference" If you are a male over 15 years old, you are already well beyond -2db at 20khz in the first place from what I understand of the human ear.

And my concert-going in the 80's!:D

Audio, July 1994: "Speaker cables: Measurements Vs Psycho-acoustic data" by Edgar Villchur. "The psycho-acoustic data shows that for pure tones at 16kHz the smallest average detectable difference in level is 3.05 dB and it can be predicted that at a given level the just noticeable difference will be increased by a significantly greater amount due to the masking effect of musical sound below 10 kHz."(1)

(1). The findings were based on individuals 20 to 24 years old that had normal hearing to 20 kHz

Audio, July 1994: "Speaker cables: Measurements Vs Psycho-acoustic data" by Edgar Villchur. "The psycho-acoustic data shows that for pure tones at 16kHz the smallest average detectable difference in level is 3.05 dB and it can be predicted that at a given level the just noticeable difference will be increased by a significantly greater amount due to the masking effect of musical sound below 10 kHz."(1)

(1). The findings were based on individuals 20 to 24 years old that had normal hearing to 20 kHz

The flipside to this is that all the objectivists who argue tube amps are rolled and therefore colored might be wrong? Or do they want to have it both ways?

That was one of the most memorable experiences I had back in the day. Using a Tube Amp and swapping between two cables. The smaller cable put the music right in your face invading your personal comfort zone. With the larger cable (same manu.), the vocals moved to the middle of the room.

And as has been pointed out and semi illustrated, the iisues under discussion are valid as the impedances are VASTLY different than just about anything made today.

One of the problems we run into is that people take a "rule" that is totally valid, but then try to apply it equally when talking about VASTLY different power or impedance or frequencies. things scale.

What Glimmie said is right on, when talking about todays impedances in the audible range, the cable differences are not audible. is it possible with some bizaro exotic boutique amp and preamp, sure. wrong cable can fry sometihng or cause issues in that case, but as has already been mentioned, even lamm is relatively in the realm of acceptable ranges that we find today.

why is ohms's law a law and not a guideline? because it is proven and we find that it always works. as long as you get the right data and apply it properly, it will always win out.

So when we talk about oddball scenarios, the reality is that the difference in exotic a or b is so far outside the realm of hearing that bats would be hard pressed to hear a difference. this was the issue with the pear cables a while back. they showed a measurement, they showed a difference (i am not going to get started on their representation of those measurements becasue i seem to recall that they were pretty wacko) but the differences for those who chose to look at the chart were off in the inaudible range and in actual fact a very small power difference.

Nobody says that all cables are the same... Well except for Doug maybe. what many of us say is that you cannot demonstrate inthe AUDIBLE RANGE that there is an audible difference.

Go ahead and prove us wrong, we would love to pick over the next problem.

How about we try a forum experiment?

Assuming an output impedance of 800ohms (Jadis Jp-80), and a 50k input impedance,
how much capacitance per foot on a 25 ft cable would lead to a -2 db roll off at 20khz?



No how about you point me to said measurements. 20K? Really audible to the masses I am sure.

No how about you point me to said measurements. 20K? Really audible to the masses I am sure.

1) the math is simple, but I suspect you don't know it.


2) Your second point would be what, that flat extension to 20k is inaudible?
Start another thread saying that a speaker, preamp, or amp shouldn't have to be flat to 20k to be accurate and be prepared to be torn apart by the other "objectivist/measurements are everything/engineering" types.

The flipside to this is that all the objectivists who argue tube amps are rolled and therefore colored might be wrong? Or do they want to have it both ways?

Well, if you recall that thread, this was exactly what I was questioning.

So, I work both sides of the aisle, yet I am consistent.

So.....I got that going for me.....

And, good thing that aisle is carpeted.

I wonder how many extra hard drives Alan has had to buy to accomodate threads on cables? Sheesh! Hopefully, wireless transmission will finally put an end to this nonsense.

I wonder how many extra hard drives Alan has had to buy to accomodate threads on cables? Sheesh! Hopefully, wireless transmission will finally put an end to this nonsense.

Won't happen. Imagine $100K of equipment on a wireless network and some twit drives by with a device to create interference and then ruins your gear. No thanks. Wireless has to get A LOT better before it is adopted. That is my opinion though.

1)
2) Start another thread saying that a speaker, preamp, or amp shouldn't have to be flat to 20k to be accurate and be prepared to be torn apart by the other "objectivist/measurements are everything/engineering" types.


Few speakers and even fewer rooms have a flat response.

Here's the spec on the Watt/Puppy 8.

Frequency Response: (with port contribution) +0, -3dB 21 Hz - 22.5 kHz

I wonder how many extra hard drives Alan has had to buy to accomodate threads on cables? Sheesh! Hopefully, wireless transmission will finally put an end to this nonsense.

You can have wireless now. There are some things you could use from Sennhieser(sp). Just expensive and really not needed when 12 gauge sjo works just fine.

Oh, grellberg's little challenge comes out to 7.7nF or so, I believe.

Oh, grellberg's little challenge comes out to 7.7nF or so, I believe.



I just got into the office. I was going to crack some of my books here. I will be the first to admit I need alot of help in doing math.

I wonder how many extra hard drives Alan has had to buy to accomodate threads on cables? Sheesh! Hopefully, wireless transmission will finally put an end to this nonsense.

That's not going to change anything. There will be a flood of magic potions to wipe on and attach to your wireless antenna for improved dynamics, better blacks, less MPEG noise, etc, etc, etc. God forbid the antennas are detachable. Then we will have a cornacopia of audiophile and videophile grade after market antennas to swap out the one that came with the device.

Why should people let missinformation go without any answer? What other hobbies are people getting angry to hear that you can spend less with the same result? No other than hifi IMO.

why is it your sole duty to point this out....is it your sense of purose to save the masses from audiophile cabling? I hope you have a more noble purpose around here.

lets have some real fun.

Lets debate the judgement of paris!

Wirelss accessories like this

http://www.audioprointernational.com/news/382/Lectrosonics-introduces-WA250-Wireless-Antenna

WOW Dizz. I had not seen that. That is really useful

why is it your sole duty to point this out....is it your sense of purose to save the masses from audiophile cabling? I hope you have a more noble purpose around here.

As you look around AVS, I think you'll find that NIN74 and many others are opposed to snake oil products in general. IMHO, that's noble.

As you look around AVS, I think you'll find that NIN74 and many others are opposed to snake oil products in general. IMHO, that's noble.

I think ALL of us are opposed to 'snake oil'.

As you look around AVS, I think you'll find that NIN74 and many others are opposed to snake oil products in general. IMHO, that's noble.


I just looked at the past 100 posts of NIN----90% are on a few threads where he plays objectivist to audiophiles (and i've never seen a DBT thread on anything video, but that's another story i don't want to get into).

if you think that is really contributing, fine Bob but i think more people are here to talk about HT than saving a guy 100 bucks on a cable (i could care less if people are for or against cables, as i think there are bigger fish to fry)

the reason this forum went down the tubes is because of these stupid threads. people like myself don't come around here anymore to talk about high end gear. in fact, i'm not sure why a single cable thread exists on this forum as it should be in the tweak section as has little to do with "high end devices."

i asked for comments on a high end speaker design in another thread---and never saw NIN or any of the objectionists comment. that would be a tad more helpful as they know all the laws of physics etc that snake oil can't fix or change :)

Cheers,

KeithR

i do want to point out that in case you missed it... you should look at the date of that press release.

i do want to point out that in case you missed it... you should look at the date of that press release.



Hook Line and Sinker. I was in such a hurry here at work I didnt really even read it. Just glanced.

Ahhh a sucker born every second now it seems.:D

if you think that is really contributing, fine Bob but i think more people are here to talk about HT than saving a guy 100 bucks on a cable (i could care less if people are for or against cables, as i think there are bigger fish to fry)That is true! Which is why it's a good idea to limit such posts to threads about... cables! What's the name of this thread again?in fact, i'm not sure why a single cable thread exists on this forum as it should be in the tweak section as has little to do with "high end devices."I have no issue with this! I'm happy to stay away from a forum where my opinions are not welcome. But it ought to be clear by now this isn't a place where objectivist-free discussion will happen.i asked for comments on a high end speaker design in another thread---and never saw NIN or any of the objectionists comment. that would be a tad more helpful as they know all the laws of physics etc that snake oil can't fix or change On my part, there's a very good reason for that: because I don't know enough about speaker design to contribute! Among all audio components, speakers are unique in that they are the only devices intended to actually generate sound. They have not only an electrical component but mechanical and acoustic as well. I'm particularly weak about mechanical things. Incidentally, on the mechanical side I'm not just talking about the transducers but also the materials choices that go into cabinet design.

On the other hand, cables, amplifiers, preamps, DACs, etc. are not audio devices, really. They are electrical devices, designed to generate, transmit, and/or manipulate electrical signals. They operate on exactly the same principles when used in an audio context than they do when used in other electrical systems. I'll bet there are plenty of people who design audio components like amps, preamps, CD players, etc. who don't feel qualified to contribute to a discussion about speakers. But they would be able to contribute experience to other electrical fields where cables, amps, and DACs are utilized. So it is with those of us outside of audio who can bring our experience and/or knowledge into it.

I think ALL of us are opposed to 'snake oil'.What good is that opposition however if there is so little skepticism given towards the more outlandish claims?

At least some people were helpful. Thanks.

The others are too impressed with themselves (in their own mind of course) to look at the post, and answer what popular cables do you in this forum use. You seem to have no problem if someone asked what processor, amp, speakers, etc. It is amazing that someone asks the forum a question to help them, and yet so many of the replies have nothing to do with what was asked. Oh yea, if you don't have anything to contribute, it's OK to not type.
Ken

In case you guys missed this - the OP is not looking to be prosletyzed to your beliefs or evangelized about the forbidden evils of cables and saved from the demonic draw of those snakelike cables. He's found RELIGION, baby and you don't like it! :eek: He already owns/has owned high end cables and he wants to know if they very specifically aren't serving his needs possibly...

In fact, he's asked some very specific questions to a problem that I bet many here would like to weigh in on but are too reticent that the whole cable taliban will reemerge en masse to take back their little corner of cyberspace. I love the "It's OK to not type" LOL

Can we get this thread back on track?

I think ALL of us are opposed to 'snake oil'.

Okay, but some are also able to detect snake oil.

I just looked at the past 100 posts of NIN----90% are on a few threads where he plays objectivist to audiophiles (and i've never seen a DBT thread on anything video, but that's another story i don't want to get into).

if you think that is really contributing, fine Bob but i think more people are here to talk about HT than saving a guy 100 bucks on a cable (i could care less if people are for or against cables, as i think there are bigger fish to fry)

the reason this forum went down the tubes is because of these stupid threads. people like myself don't come around here anymore to talk about high end gear. in fact, i'm not sure why a single cable thread exists on this forum as it should be in the tweak section as has little to do with "high end devices."

i asked for comments on a high end speaker design in another thread---and never saw NIN or any of the objectionists comment. that would be a tad more helpful as they know all the laws of physics etc that snake oil can't fix or change :)

Cheers,

KeithR

He plays objectivist to audiophiles? Horrors!! Whose fault is it that the terms "objectivist" and "audiophile" have so diverged? You'd think that one who loves audio--with the ability to listen to wonderful music, cinema soundtrack, etc.--would also be interested in how audio things work, and what does or doesn't contribute to it. NIN is an "audiophile" in the original sense, not the "Psychic Friends Network" sense that it has become.

Saving $100 on a cable might or might not be a worthwhile thing. It depends on the cable. I'd be a fool to tell somebody that $100+ spent on a simple interconnect or even a pair of speaker cables (unless they're really long) would be money well spent. Saving that much on a 30-meter 64-pair snake, though, would not be as much of a priority.

In case you guys missed this - the OP is not looking to be prosletyzed to your beliefs or evangelized about the forbidden evils of cables and saved from the demonic draw of those snakelike cables. He's found RELIGION, baby and you don't like it! :eek: He already owns/has owned high end cables and he wants to know if they very specifically aren't serving his needs possibly...

In fact, he's asked some very specific questions to a problem that I bet many here would like to weigh in on but are too reticent that the whole cable taliban will reemerge en masse to take back their little corner of cyberspace. I love the "It's OK to not type" LOL

Can we get this thread back on track?

OTOH, he did ask about cables. That's fair game, Talib.

I wonder how many extra hard drives Alan has had to buy to accomodate threads on cables? Sheesh! Hopefully, wireless transmission will finally put an end to this nonsense.


Well, the only way Alan can save all these cable threads, is if he buys transparent nord super hard drive, that save all info that reagular drives cannot save. ;)

He plays objectivist to audiophiles? Horrors!! Whose fault is it that the terms "objectivist" and "audiophile" have so diverged? You'd think that one who loves audio--with the ability to listen to wonderful music, cinema soundtrack, etc.--would also be interested in how audio things work, and what does or doesn't contribute to it. NIN is an "audiophile" in the original sense, not the "Psychic Friends Network" sense that it has become.

Saving $100 on a cable might or might not be a worthwhile thing. It depends on the cable. I'd be a fool to tell somebody that $100+ spent on a simple interconnect or even a pair of speaker cables (unless they're really long) would be money well spent. Saving that much on a 30-meter 64-pair snake, though, would not be as much of a priority.

Bob- if you remember audioreview.com 10 years ago, you know how this obj vs. subj talk can actually permanently ruin forums.

honestly, i would just like these non-gear related threads (do cd players matter, do amps matter, does the sun go down, etc.) be switched to another place. the high end forum here has significantly deteriorated as a result.

i personally hang out more on audiogon forums now because i think the dialogue about components is 10x what this forum has to offer (sadly, i must say b/c it wasn't like this several years ago)

Cheers,

KeithR

Please let's not get into a debate that there is no difference in sound between cables. Let that be on another thread.

Thanks,
Ken

Hear Hear. ... Let's say for instance that we were on an automotive enthusiast forum and discussing high performance automobiles. Somebody posts that, "hey, I like the Lamborghini Gallardo and you say, you can't possibly , you're a moron for liking that car, it's too much money you can have the same exact performance or similar 0-60mph and top end for a 1/3rd the cost with a Corvette Z06. You must buy the Z06 or you're an idiot. You know what, if he wants a Gallardo, that's what he likes and he has the money and that's what he wants then that's a subjective choice.

Using the objectivist MO that seems to gravitate towards these parts the only appropriate purchase is the Corvette or nothing. It's a little patronizing IMO and smacks of big daddy speaking to his child. Sure there's snake oil in cables, we get it, we don't need 20,000 posts to know or understand this. Some people here are intelligent adults and don't necessarily want or need to be told what your world views are and you want them to do ad nauseum and can by their own experience go out into the big wide world and daresay listen with their own ears and vote with their own wallets.

I'll take the Lambo every time, baby! :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVoxxHKR-PM

This guy strangely reminds me of valhalla...

That is true! Which is why it's a good idea to limit such posts to threads about... cables! What's the name of this thread again?I have no issue with this! I'm happy to stay away from a forum where my opinions are not welcome. But it ought to be clear by now this isn't a place where objectivist-free discussion will happen.On my part, there's a very good reason for that: because I don't know enough about speaker design to contribute! Among all audio components, speakers are unique in that they are the only devices intended to actually generate sound. They have not only an electrical component but mechanical and acoustic as well. I'm particularly weak about mechanical things. Incidentally, on the mechanical side I'm not just talking about the transducers but also the materials choices that go into cabinet design.

On the other hand, cables, amplifiers, preamps, DACs, etc. are not audio devices, really. They are electrical devices, designed to generate, transmit, and/or manipulate electrical signals. They operate on exactly the same principles when used in an audio context than they do when used in other electrical systems. I'll bet there are plenty of people who design audio components like amps, preamps, CD players, etc. who don't feel qualified to contribute to a discussion about speakers. But they would be able to contribute experience to other electrical fields where cables, amps, and DACs are utilized. So it is with those of us outside of audio who can bring our experience and/or knowledge into it.

Michael- thanks for the comments (i appreciate your candor on speaker design). problem is this forum becomes a place to debate objectivity vs. subjectivity, and less about promoting HT. hell, if i post up a thread about SS amp decision, i'll probably get 20 responses on dbts, etc. these days. look what happened on the SET threads a while back if i recall correctly. this discourages people from posting anything at all, whether healthy debate is wanted or not.

so these arguments go nowhere unfortunately---in my 10 years in this hobby, there has always been science vs. ears type of debate....and in another 20 there will be too.

i just wish the debate wasn't here in this particular forum.

maybe create a sub forum on "engineering debates" or what not.

cheers,

KeithR

Sure there's snake oil in cables, we get it, we don't need 20,000 posts to know or understand this.There is? But Rutgar says everyone is against this! and daresay listen with their own earsDaresay indeed! If only more people would listen with their ears, and only their ears---as opposed to integrating their eyes and foreknowledge into the mix.

so these arguments go nowhere unfortunately---in my 10 years in this hobby, there has always been science vs. ears type of debate....and in another 20 there will be too.I do not disagree with this. I've seen these very debates back in the early days of Usenet and rec.audio.

Let's say for instance that we were on an automotive enthusiast forum and discussing high performance automobiles. Somebody posts that, "hey, I like the Lamborghini Gallardo and you say, you can't possibly , you're a moron for liking that car, it's too much money you can have the same exact performance or similar 0-60mph and top end for a 1/3rd the cost with a Corvette Z06. You must buy the Z06 or you're an idiot. You know what, if he wants a Gallardo, that's what he likes and he has the money and that's what he wants then that's a subjective choice.


not totally accurate. those cars have performance differences. and if the performance of one does not measure up and you like it anyways, you say "i know the ___ is faster in the 1/4 mile, but i just like how the ___ looks." and it is a truthful statement.

If a guy showed up there with a quantum cigarette lighter that made the can stop 16% faster... he would be beaten to within a quantum inch!

I do not disagree with this. I've seen these very debates back in the early days of Usenet and rec.audio.

It appears a lot of people don't disagree with this from their stepping all over the very polite requests of the OP. However, I think that in the hiend forums there should be an ability to have a free speech discourse without people stomping all over the intent and spirit of the OP.

I bet there's a large number of people on this forum who have spent big money on cables and sure as anything believe that they are a component in the audio chain and know the cable police will show but really want a question answered so post anyways. There should be an ability to discuss this topic here on an ultra high end forum without the same tired old responses as it's the most appropriate place in a high end forum where people have spent 5 figures on cabling. What I'd like to see is people honoring the OP's request...

The OP claimed he was losing dynamics because of his cables.

It's weird that cable enthusiasts get bothered if you do the least amount of investigation before replacing cables.

It's weird that there's nothing the least bit rational about the way new cables are purchased to solve problems without knowing any real properties of the cables being replaced or the new cables.

It's weird.

I suspect you guys know its weird otherwise you wouldn't beg to be left along to do your thing without having to do any thinking.

The automobile analogy doesn't work.

To make it work, someone would have to say, "I think I have a flat tire, what are the popular tires around here." An "objectivist" would say, "you wanna check that tire first to make sure it actually has a hole in it?" And then the cable enthusiasts in this analogy would cry out, "HEY MAN, THIS IS A HOBBY! Leave us alone to discuss tires without guys like you wanting to see if the tire is actually flat -- WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW!"

It's weird.

It could get even weirder, the Objectivist would say, "Since you don't have a flat, but you seem to be experiencing something, I think you might check your suspension instead." And the cable enthusiast would cry out, "WHY AREN'T YOU TRYING TO HELP ME?!!"

Come on, it's weird.

not totally accurate. those cars have performance differences. and if the performance of one does not measure up and you like it anyways, you say "i know the ___ is faster in the 1/4 mile, but i just like how the ___ looks." and it is a truthful statement.



zactly, but you can also substitute "sounds" for "looks" :D

A man walks into the doctor's office and says, "Doc, whenever I drink my morning coffee I get this sharp pain in my eye. What brand of coffee should I switch to?"

Doctor says, "Here, let's go to my coffee machine and go through the motions, so I can see what you're talking about."

So they do.

Soon the doctor figures out the problem. He says, "Take the spoon out of your cup before you drink it."

(rimshot)

Classic joke. But imagine if the patient said, "You're not being very helpful. Just tell me which coffee brand I need to use to get rid of the problem."

these arguments go nowhere unfortunately
Exactly. But people on both sides are stubborn. It is not enough to make one's point. One must do so to the extent that "merely" making it ad nauseum would be a relief. How many times can one repeat oneself, ignoring the fact that there is no common ground in these arguments? Absolutely, unequivocally pathetic.

Doc G, I did not even have to ask. Your timing was perfect. Too bad the relief is fleeting.

Michael,

I think he asked out of curiousity what kind of coffee do other people here on the forum drink and btw, someone told me that having a spoon in my coffee could be a problem, do you think there's something to what they said....

Oh, grellberg's little challenge comes out to 7.7nF or so, I believe.

So what kind of total capacitance from a cable are we looking at that would act like a crossover and start rolling off the highs?

someone told me that having a spoon in my coffee could be a problem, do you think there's something to what they said....No. The analogy is this: What kind of coffee do you drink? I always get a sharp pain in my eye when I drink Folgers, and someone told me I should try Starbucks instead, and that will fix it. What do you all think?

And then the coffee lovers pounce when objectivists suggest he take the spoon out of the cup.

So what kind of total capacitance from a cable are we looking at that would act like a crossover and start rolling off the highs?Blue Jeans standard interconnect is 12.2pF/ft, so we're talking a cable 630 feet long, if my original 7.7nF figure is right. Canare LV-77S is higher at 21pF/ft, but we're still talking 366 feet. Nordost Odin is 19pF/ft, which puts you right around 400feet.

I do not disagree with this. I've seen these very debates back in the early days of Usenet and rec.audio.

These 'debates' started back in the tube and turntable era. Vibration control was important. Output impedance was high at both the pre-amp and amp stage. Input impedance was low. Back then, all the things people argue about now were important when putting a system together.
Yet, the technology has greatly changed. Somehow the debate didn't.

How about we try a forum experiment?

Assuming an output impedance of 800ohms (Jadis Jp-80), and a 50k input impedance,
how much capacitance per foot on a 25 ft cable would lead to a -2 db roll off at 20khz?

Where'd the impedance of the cable go??
And what is the load impedance? (oh duh, try reading better John...:o)
What is the effective dielectric constant of the cable? (or, the prop velocity).

John

I did assume a vanishingly small impedance in the cable itself. I think with input and output impedances that high, it was a reasonable approximation. It does suggest, however, the extremely long distances I calculated above might be shorted by a foot or two.

I did assume a vanishingly small impedance in the cable itself. I think with input and output impedances that high, it was a reasonable approximation. It does suggest, however, the extremely long distances I calculated above might be shorted by a foot or two.

Ohhh, no no no no..sorry bout that..

Not the resistance of the conductors..

The characteristic impedance of the cable itself.

Cheers, John

Oh yeah we've had that confusion before. :) Anyway, you at least know what I meant now. I did a pretty simple lumped-element calculation to come up with the number I did.

Oh yeah we've had that confusion before. :) Anyway, you at least know what I meant now. I did a pretty simple lumped-element calculation to come up with the number I did.

The settling time (hence the time constant) of a cable feeding a load is dependent on the capacitance, the inductance, and the termination impedances.

The lumped element approximation can be easily off by a factor of 2 for lumped as opposed to distributed along with time of flight.

If the load matches the cable impedance, the number drops to zero.

Cheers, John

I'm fine with a factor of 2. I don't think anyone here is going to rip me if my 400-foot prediction for Nordost Odin goes down to 200 feet.

I'm fine with a factor of 2. I don't think anyone here is going to rip me if my 400-foot prediction for Nordost Odin goes down to 200 feet.

Nope, not at all.

But don't forget, it drops to zero if the cable matches the load. Problem is, making such a matching cable requires significant inductance and almost no capacitance.. Very difficult to do and keep out noise..

Cheers, John

i think it would be really nice if someone made a sticky thread on cables, explaining how inductance, capacitance, resistance, etc. play a role in cables. i for one am a cable believer, but yes i do believe their is science within it and would be very interested in knowing how all these properties can affect how a cable "sounds" in a particular system.

i think it would be really nice if someone made a sticky thread on cables, explaining how inductance, capacitance, resistance, etc. play a role in cables. i for one am a cable believer, but yes i do believe their is science within it and would be very interested in knowing how all these properties can affect how a cable "sounds" in a particular system.
Agreed. However, for all the e/m and t-line and lumped approximation stuff that could be plopped up, it really doesn't provide a reasonably scientific explanation of why a cable should affect the "sound".

So far, all the attempts of explanation have come up rather "shy" of plausibility.

Cheers, John

Michael,

The Nbs (and MIT I believe) can have 10x the cap per ft you noted on the
Canare and Nordost. And some SS amps have 1/10 the load impedance-the non digital Rowlands for example.
So in some pairings, we are down to 3 ft? My point really was that to make assumptions given a "world view" expressed above about source impedance doesn't cover the admitedly tweakier (yet hi-end audiophile mainstream) products, and to discount these interactions would be incorrect. And I do find it amusing that some posters feel the need to discount the audibility of
differences that they would attack otherwise. I'll start another thread saying that my $100k 5 watt amp that measures 3 db down at 20khz is better than an NAD and watch the fireworks (maybe I'll do it Friday).

Agreed. However, for all the e/m and t-line and lumped approximation stuff that could be plopped up, it really doesn't provide a reasonably scientific explanation of why a cable should affect the "sound".

So far, all the attempts of explanation have come up rather "shy" of plausibility.

Cheers, John

i think that cables sound "different" in many peoples setups simply because of the characteristics of the cable acting together with their electronics. inductance and capacitance do make a difference with different types of electronics as i have been a witness of myself. generally, there are ways of choosing a specific cable for a specific need, i don't agree that all cables sound the same so use the standard zip cord. i also don't agree with all the cable manufactures stating this and that, but i do believe that if one matches their electronics (speakers included) to a cable with the corresponding inductance, capacitance, resistance, etc. that it will perform better than a standard cable with any "measurement". i would be very interested (and i think many subjectivists will be also) if someone could provide a sticky as to what each cable property can do when coupled with one's electronic's. and i do believe that this can open up many people's eyes as to why cables make a difference in some setups and not in others.

The Nbs (and MIT I believe) can have 10x the cap per ft you noted on the
Canare and Nordost.That's a real shame.And some SS amps have 1/10 the load impedance-the non digital Rowlands for example. So in some pairings, we are down to 3 ft?Yes, it would seem so: if you pair a preamp with abnormally high output impedance and an amp with abnormally low input impedance, and connect them with a cable with abnormally high capacitance, you might very well get some audible rolloff. Is that the argument you want to hang onto? I'm cool with that if you are, particularly because this kind of situation is entirely predictable from basic electrical principles, and not dependent on any way on exotic materials, oxygen content, diode effect, crystal structure, stranded vs. solid conductors, skin effect, and other flawed appeals to science that many audiophiles insist on using.I'll start another thread saying that my $100k 5 watt amp that measures 3 db down at 20khz is better than an NAD and watch the fireworks (maybe I'll do it Friday).I would consider it a positive step if subjectivists started posing arguments that way. Yes, I do think there would be fireworks! Where I think you would be challenged is to offer a credible explanation as to what other aspects of your amplifier's performance merit the "loss" of those high frequencies.

if you pair a preamp with abnormally high output impedance and an amp with abnormally low input impedance, and connect them with a cable with abnormally high capacitance, you might very well get some audible rolloff. Is that the argument you want to hang onto? I'm cool with that if you are, particularly because this kind of situation is entirely predictable from basic electrical principles, and not dependent on any way on exotic materials, oxygen content, diode effect, crystal structure, stranded vs. solid conductors, skin effect, and other flawed appeals to science that many audiophiles insist on using.

michael, this is the exact kind of info i think would benefit many of us in this "sticky" thread im talking about. yes, basic electrical principles, but can explain (and help) many subjectivists as to why their cables sound different and can aid in cable selection (and save them money too). i believe you, and many others as well, are completely reliable to start this thread and help many of us understand. i also think it would help future "debates" on these sort of things calm down a bit. what say you?

michael, this is the exact kind of info i think would benefit many of us in this "sticky" thread im talking about. yes, basic electrical principles, but can explain (and help) many subjectivists as to why their cables sound different and can aid in cable selection (and save them money too). i believe you, and many others as well, are completely reliable to start this thread and help many of us understand. i also think it would help future "debates" on these sort of things calm down a bit. what say you?

I'd certainly have no issue with it, that was not my point.

As Michael is pointing out, gross errors in selection of cable parameters will cause issues like rolloff, but beyond that, I don't know..

I think the things Michael pointed out, ""exotic materials, oxygen content, diode effect, crystal structure, stranded vs. solid conductors, skin effect, and other flawed appeals to science that many audiophiles insist on using.""
may lend itself to just more arguments...perhaps localized to one thread..

Cheers, John

It relates to what i posted earlier. and while Grellberg has posted a varied example that MIGHT be an issue, it is important to enusure that. in reality though, michaels numbers hold up. sure we can have an extreme case where the cable MIGHT be an issue, but by and large it will not. the physics do not support it.

So it does add one thing to the other side of the argument though... it would be impossible to say what cables MIGHT be better withouth knowing the AMP, and the Preamp so as to find the impedances and therefore find a cable that will not F it all up.

Now, if you're not using 25 feet of interconnects, then it becomes a moot point to a large extent. That is, unless the source component (preamp) has poor current drive capability.

That's a real shame.Yes, it would seem so: if you pair a preamp with abnormally high output impedance and an amp with abnormally low input impedance, and connect them with a cable with abnormally high capacitance, you might very well get some audible rolloff. Is that the argument you want to hang onto? I'm cool with that if you are, particularly because this kind of situation is entirely predictable from basic electrical principles, and not dependent on any way on exotic materials, oxygen content, diode effect, crystal structure, stranded vs. solid conductors, skin effect, and other flawed appeals to science that many audiophiles insist on using.I would consider it a positive step if subjectivists started posing arguments that way. Yes, I do think there would be fireworks! Where I think you would be challenged is to offer a credible explanation as to what other aspects of your amplifier's performance merit the "loss" of those high frequencies.

Wow, some tiny middle ground between the o's and s's? Next stop world peace :D

I do consider these mismatches predictable and audible, yet not the only reason for differences. The OP asked about dynamic issues, in my system with high output impedance preamps these high impedance cables exhibit a rolloff (and a loss in dynamics-and I'm not claiming for the same reason although they are paired). 10 years ago I took my preamp and cable over to MFA and we put them on a scope to see what the issue was (after I heard it;))We then adjusted the output resistors down in value to limit the problem.

The issue is that 90% of the the subjectivist posters are unaware of the possibilty of these mismatches because they don't have a clue about the high end. Would I rather have a preamp without these problems-yup. Just don't know of any that sound as accurate as ones that do-the "other aspects" you note. You've heard vinyl here-do you think that some even consider a rock being dragged through plastic possible of accurate sound? Regardless of arguing superiority, vinyl on a good system hardly sucks-and to me is an example of these "other aspects". Ask Dave Wilson or Keith Johnson, guys who make their own recording, then hear it on both mediums, think. They both will tell you they stopped making it on financial, not quality, grounds. And Reference has gone to higher sampling rate downloads for better sound. The Spectral guys are hardly snake oil mystics (and BTW-I agree that selling gear based on voodoo is silly and fraudulent).

The spoon in the coffee analogy implies a subjectivist sees the problems from some higher plane, one where the enlightened inhabitants possess all pertinent electrical knowledge. Me, I just wanted to help the poster.

Now, if you're not using 25 feet of interconnects, then it becomes a moot point to a large extent. That is, unless the source component (preamp) has poor current drive capability.

Like the 5 or six top audiophile preamps I listed.;)

Assuming they do, which is not something necessarily to be proud of, then it should behoove the manufacturer to explicity state the limitations and recommend that total cable capacitance not exceed a particular value.

Ken, just go by your own ears. If you don't think your cables are "killing your dynamics" then they're not.


And make sure you buy this book!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DNy2eWlxL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

That's a real shame.Yes, it would seem so: if you pair a preamp with abnormally high output impedance and an amp with abnormally low input impedance, and connect them with a cable with abnormally high capacitance, you might very well get some audible rolloff. Is that the argument you want to hang onto? I'm cool with that if you are, particularly because this kind of situation is entirely predictable from basic electrical principles, and not dependent on any way on exotic materials, oxygen content, diode effect, crystal structure, stranded vs. solid conductors, skin effect, and other flawed appeals to science that many audiophiles insist on using.I would consider it a positive step if subjectivists started posing arguments that way.


I've always advocated the use of qualifiers in the rhetoric of these debates. No one should just say 'All cables sound the same' (I hasten to add: I've never seen anyone say this EXCEPT tweakos erecting a straw man argument). One can always construct a real, though pathological, example where a cable can be expected to make an audible difference.

But IME the cable believers hardly ever seem to be talking about pathological cases. They're talking about the same old sighted comparison horse puckey that has stunk up the 'high end' since the 70's (which is when the 'cable debate' was born).

i think it would be really nice if someone made a sticky thread on cables, explaining how inductance, capacitance, resistance, etc. play a role in cables. i for one am a cable believer, but yes i do believe their is science within it and would be very interested in knowing how all these properties can affect how a cable "sounds" in a particular system.

will this do?

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/the-truth-about-interconnects-and-cables

Wow, some tiny middle ground between the o's and s's? Next stop world peace :D

I do consider these mismatches predictable and audible, yet not the only reason for differences. The OP asked about dynamic issues, in my system with high output impedance preamps these high impedance cables exhibit a rolloff (and a loss in dynamics-and I'm not claiming for the same reason although they are paired). 10 years ago I took my preamp and cable over to MFA and we put them on a scope to see what the issue was (after I heard it;))We then adjusted the output resistors down in value to limit the problem.

The issue is that 90% of the the subjectivist posters are unaware of the possibilty of these mismatches because they don't have a clue about the high end. Would I rather have a preamp without these problems-yup. Just don't know of any that sound as accurate as ones that do-the "other aspects" you note. You've heard vinyl here-do you think that some even consider a rock being dragged through plastic possible of accurate sound? Regardless of arguing superiority, vinyl on a good system hardly sucks-and to me is an example of these "other aspects". Ask Dave Wilson or Keith Johnson, guys who make their own recording, then hear it on both mediums, think. They both will tell you they stopped making it on financial, not quality, grounds. And Reference has gone to higher sampling rate downloads for better sound. The Spectral guys are hardly snake oil mystics (and BTW-I agree that selling gear based on voodoo is silly and fraudulent).

Why vinyl sounds 'different' (and to some, better) is not all that mysterious. The characteristic distortions of vinyl playback were analyzed long ago (you can find the articles in JAES library if you look back to the predigital era), and we know why , for example, the dynamic range of vinyl can *seem* larger than it is, why there can *seem* to be 'air' or 'ambience' compared to a digital delivery format. These are artifacts. They're not faithful replicas of the master tapes. James 'JJ' Johnston has written about this in posts to AVSforum as well. And most tellingly, you can make a CD that sound just like an LP, by recording the output of the turntable preamp to digital; that captures all the 'euphonic' distortion products.

Reference going to higher sample rates in itself doesn't convince me of anything. Reference publishing replicable blind test results showing that people could tell higher sample rates apart from Redbook, when the ONLY DIFFERENCE is the sample rates, would. Unlike higher bit-depths -- whose audibile utility is technically well-grounded and demosntrable in blind tests, for digital production, if not home delivery -- higher sample rates have NOT been demonstrated to be a benefit except in that they make the design of ADC/DAC filters easier (which is also the reason for oversampling in consumer DACs).

Don't forget about the better mastering on many vinyls.

The settling time (hence the time constant) of a cable feeding a load is dependent on the capacitance, the inductance, and the termination impedances.

The lumped element approximation can be easily off by a factor of 2 for lumped as opposed to distributed along with time of flight.

If the load matches the cable impedance, the number drops to zero.

Cheers, John

Impedance matching is generally irrelavent at audio frequencies. Once you get above a half wave legnth at 20khz, then you need to start considering it. But even in large broadcast and production facilities, nobody worries about the charasteristic impedance of analog audio cabel. Digital AES cable - well thats another story.

In the 1950s and 60s most broadcast plants were "power matched" audio distribution systems. They got this technology from the telephone company. That is a transformer coupled output and input at 600ohms or in same cases 150ohms. Anytime you need to "Y" you needed a distribution amplifier to maintain the impedance match. The impedance match was to maintain levels. In the 1970s the recording industry did not want to add a hundred or so distribution amplifiers for a 96 input console. So they adopted a "voltage matched" system. This is analogious to your basic wall outlet. The source impedance is at least 10 times lower than the collective load impedance so the signal levels are not affected by loading. Do you worry about your local electric utility's line impedance when you plug in your vaccuum cleaner? Of course not because the source impedance is a few ohms at most. And due to the fact that audio electrical wavelegnths are so long, there is no danger of reflections.

In the early 1980s when stereo television came along, TV plants had to clean up and expand their audio infrastructures. At this time they too have mostly adopted the voltage matched system and abandoned the obsolete 600ohm power matched system. Only the phone companies still use 600ohm matched lines and for good reason as they are going many miles where wavelegnth does come into play. And I'll bet most of those old analog lines are being phased out in favor of multiplexed digital transmission over fiber.

FWEIW, the classic analog audio cable, Belden 9541 and it's copies are 60ohms charasteristic impedance. But most modern analog audio equipment is a few ohms or less output impedance and at least 10K load impedance so the cable impedance doesn't really matter.

The spoon in the coffee analogy implies a subjectivist sees the problems from some higher plane, one where the enlightened inhabitants possess all pertinent electrical knowledge. Me, I just wanted to help the poster.Grellberg, I see your point, but I think that's taking my analogy too far. I think rsbeck wanted to help the poster, too, but it's not his fault that the OP didn't like the help---he went into it limiting the options he was willing to hear.

On the other hand, your personal experience and your test problem might have been more welcome by Ken---and yet it probably didn't apply! After all, his amps have an input impedance of 50kOhms balanced (100kOhms unbalanced) and an output impedance of <0.05 Ohms; his preamp has an output impedance of 47 Ohms. I doubt interconnect capacitance is the issue.

Anyway, I'd love to have discussions with you and anyone else on the level you're delivering them now. But let's be fair: usually you limit your comments to snark about how the objectivists don't have the kind of equipment you do :) It is frankly refreshing to think that some sort of common ground could be scoped out. I know some objectivists won't enjoy navigating that middle ground, because they think it means they have to concede something. I don't think so at all!

Impedance matching is generally irrelavent at audio frequencies. Once you get above a half wave legnth at 20khz, then you need to start considering it. But even in large broadcast and production facilities, nobody worries about the charasteristic impedance of analog audio cabel.

Actually, that is incorrect.

Reflections occur at all frequencies independent of the length of the line. When the length of the line is significantly shorter than the wavelength, you are unable to see the reflections as a result of the slew rate vs prop speed. But they are still there.

When the cable matches the load, the energy storage within the cable is a minima.

It's too late in the day for me to start plopping all the equations and graphs and t-line theory again...maybe tomorrow if you're interested..

Maybe that sticky thread taint a bad idea afterall..it's tiring explaining the same thing over and over again.

Cheers, John

Reflections occur at all frequencies independent of the length of the line. When the length of the line is significantly shorter than the wavelength, you are unable to see the reflections as a result of the slew rate vs prop speed. But they are still there.He didn't claim they weren't. He said they were irrelevant. Big difference!

Have you done that experiment yet John? Regardless, this may not be the place for a continuation of that discussion.

He didn't claim they weren't. He said they were irrelevant. Big difference!

Unfortunately, it is not irrelevant. For speakers and zip, for example, the consequence of the higher line impedance is the storage of inductive energy that the cable otherwise would not have. For IC's, it's the storage of capacitive energy. For both, the energy is aquired through the process of reflections.


Have you done that experiment yet John? Regardless, this may not be the place for a continuation of that discussion.

No. A master bathroom took precedence..

Cheers, John

Given that we routinely have sources, sinks, and transmission lines (cables) that can quite easily pass 10s if not 100s of Mhz of bandwidth (video) is should be pretty apparent that it’s not too difficult to have sources, sinks, and transmission lines that can have easily have 20KHz of bandwidth with <2dB of rolloff. As far as the example cited, I considered setting up a spice simulation but the question seemed more poised from a single ended perspective and seem to ignore or discount the return. I could model it lossy, lumped, distributed or more FEA like with IBIS.

As noted, there would be more parameters needed to model. Per unit DCR, characteristic Z, inductance, dielectric constant, etc… Also as noted, an 800-ohm output impedance seems awfully high for anything that calls itself an amplifier. An amplifier should be a sort of power supply and a good power supply should have a relatively low output impedance, much, much less than 800 ohms IMO. Ideally zero. Anyway, we can look to the video bandwidths that we routinely pipe from point A to point B with inexpensive, common cables with many orders of magnitudes higher bandwidth requirements than audio to see that cable capacitance shouldn’t be much of an issue with audio frequencies.

Dave

For speakers and zip, for example, the consequence of the higher line impedance is the storage of inductive energy that the cable otherwise would not have.Fine, but the question is how much; specifically, how much of an impact occurs on the voltage waveform delivered to the speaker.

Also, from my previous discussion, it is clear that we disagree on the importance of energy storage per se. It is not a concern simply because it exists, but only if it impacts the power delivered to the speaker.

Glimmie, dlarsen: From my experience, it is very easy to get drawn into a long discussion with John on this stuff. Furthermore, his views are somewhat unorthodox. For instance, this page on Audioholics (http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/bi-wiring-from-amplifier-to-loudspeaker/bi-wiring-modulation-muddle) discusses his theories. I would encourage any of us who wishes to pursue this with him to take it elsewhere.

For instance, this page on Audioholics discusses his theories.

I see the simple model shown in the link you provided confirms my assumption that this was poised from a first-order single ended model with the return path ignored. No sense doing transmission line models as there isn’t really a stationary fixed ‘ground’ or reference in a real transmission line with propagating wavefronts.

SI and EMC guys know there is no such real component as a GND symbol much like they know that everything has some LCR but for the most part these are considered parasitic and ignored. For audio frequencies and <0.1db of effect, it seems very reasonable to consider them as such to me.

I have amplifiers delivering >100Mhz of bandwidth traveling some distance on common transmission line medium (coax) with <3db of rolloff all around me. While I’m sure some attention was paid to minimize the capacitance in the cable via it’s material and construction, its material and construction is common and cheap. 20KHz?

Dave

Hi

I have not visited this forum for a good while. I have been and continue to be extremely busy with a new business venture… I have acquired a new appreciation for the iPod with an Etymotic Research bud.... I have also been listening to Flac on my iPod and it does make a substantial difference.. For Flac on your iPod go there (http://www.applesource.com.au/ipod/soa/Video-Free-your-iPod-to-play-OGG-and-FLAC/0,2000070791,339287528,00.htm)
These days the forum seems to be dominated by the Audio Flat Earthers Rhetoric: No! YOUR-gear,-which –I- have not HEARD is no different than gear xyz.. .. Ok you continue to believe it is …ok Prove it to me in a blind test and you are responsible to hold that double-blind test and No I will not listen to your gear-unless-you-pay-for-my-plane-ticket-and-my-food-and-for -my-time-out-of-work….

Yet I must say that I have lately been taking a different view on things I would qualify as Audiophile Orthodoxy, especially the perilous (and bandwidth-consuming) subject of cables. I will quickly add that to me, Turntables, Arms, Cartridge, CD players, Preamps, amps and especially speakers do sound immensely different.. but my views on cables have changed after reading the experience conducted by Mike Lavigne and Mr Wiggle … I am not so sure they do make that much of a difference past a certain threshold… I have the Nordost Valhalla set and I will simply never change them.. heck!.. I will never buy expensive cables again, Belden and Canare have become my friends, they were already my friends on the video side… which I expect to upgrade after having been blown away by the SIM C3X 1080 (Damn what a PJ!! Is the HT 5000 that much better??) … I have not become a double-blind advocate but one needs to exercise some skepticism toward claims that fly in the face of all logic…

...When the cable matches the load, the energy storage within the cable is a minima.
Cheers, John

What happens when the cable's impedance does not match the poer source impedance though, the amp in this case? Amp impedances of .01 is a few orders of magnitude different from the cable so there is a mismatch there.

And make sure you buy this book!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DNy2eWlxL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

What's wrong with that book.;) :D:D

What happens when the cable's impedance does not match the poer source impedance though, the amp in this case? Amp impedances of .01 is a few orders of magnitude different from the cable so there is a mismatch there.

It all depends on the frequency. At 20khz or less the effect of a sub ohm amp feeding an 8ohm speaker through a 2ohm total cable resistance is nil. There is no practical negative effect. Yes, mathmatics can prove there is but at what magnitude?

Now does a 225kw UHF TV transmitter at 600mhz need a matched transmission line and antenna load? It better be! But look at the operating frequency. Here we must exercise extreme caution with reflections.

What happens when the cable's impedance does not match the poer source impedance though, the amp in this case? Amp impedances of .01 is a few orders of magnitude different from the cable so there is a mismatch there.

There may well be a mismatch but it’s a mismatch in the ‘right’ direction for a power supply (amp) and a load neglecting transmission line effects. As mentioned, transmission line effects are insignificant below a certain portion of the wavelength of the frequencies of interest. There can be some debate about where to draw the line of insignificance, but even if you consider the most conservative, and times that by 10, it would still be 100s of feet of transmission line length for audio frequencies given the known properties of common cable materials and construction. At audio frequencies and normal household cable lengths, I believe just the DCR of the cable would be much more of a factor than the 20Khz AC Z would be and then only for low impedance loads like a speaker.

It’s also not uncommon for low output impeadance amplifiers or drivers to be ‘impedance matched’ to the transmission line and the load and have a resultant balance.

Small series resistance is added at the source such that the impedance as seen by the load or transmission line is equal. If the output impedance of the amp or driver is 5 ohm, and the transmission line and load is 75, a 70 ohm series source termination would balance it. We can easily route >100Mhz video over dozens of feet with this common transmission line method with common cabling. 20Khz?

Dave

effects scale.. the net effect for radar is NOT the same at audio frequencies and interconnect power levels.

Arguments CAN be made for speaker levels far before IC's

Grellberg, I see your point, but I think that's taking my analogy too far. I think rsbeck wanted to help the poster, too, but it's not his fault that the OP didn't like the help---he went into it limiting the options he was willing to hear.

On the other hand, your personal experience and your test problem might have been more welcome by Ken---and yet it probably didn't apply! After all, his amps have an input impedance of 50kOhms balanced (100kOhms unbalanced) and an output impedance of <0.05 Ohms; his preamp has an output impedance of 47 Ohms. I doubt interconnect capacitance is the issue.

Anyway, I'd love to have discussions with you and anyone else on the level you're delivering them now. But let's be fair: usually you limit your comments to snark about how the objectivists don't have the kind of equipment you do :) It is frankly refreshing to think that some sort of common ground could be scoped out. I know some objectivists won't enjoy navigating that middle ground, because they think it means they have to concede something. I don't think so at all!

Guilty as charged on the snark factor, but this is a easy fall back when I'm on an audio forum and someone defends Redbook:eek:.

I think it is obvious that electrical and acoustic theory will explain everything (ok-most everything, gotta allow for the occasional magic dot) we can hear-it is the question of what matters and why that we should be yearning to understand (those other factors)-and form the basis of a cooperative and productive debate. For example-I see a lot of arguments with DBT as a panacea, yet not a lot about how one can train or increase sensitivity for a DBT. As an aside-have you ever heard the story about the wine critic Robert Parker going to a Chateau that he had given low scores to? They asked for a re-taste and he agreed that the wine he was tasting was better than he had written-but then correctly informed them it was because he was tasting a different vintage. So yes, I suspect some can do better in these circumstances than others-yet where is the discussion of "trained palates"?

In my experience it is the subjectivists that lead the way to better sound, because they are willing to try stuff based primarily on observation. The same poster above claims vinyl has some distortion that adds ambience. Yet in my experience it is vinyl that has the larger range of ambience retrieval (bad recordings bad, good recordings good), not digital (sorry, redbook). I remember having the honor of listening to the Johnny Hartman/John Coltrane master tapes at the Mo-fi studio in Sebastapool. We heard the feed, then the level matched output in redbook, then 24/96, then the original vinyl. I know what I heard, and would like to explore why the analog signal had a commonality that the digital didn't, and why the 24/96 sounded obviously superior to redbook. There's a lot of really smart guys lurking about here, and I'm not at their level. But I do know what I hear, and telling me I really don't hear it 'cuz you can't explain it is not what I'm after.

Fine, but the question is how much; specifically, how much of an impact occurs on the voltage waveform delivered to the speaker.

We agree. (seems we always do) The question is how much of an effect.

Also, from my previous discussion, it is clear that we disagree on the importance of energy storage per se. It is not a concern simply because it exists, but only if it impacts the power delivered to the speaker.

No..i disagree with that statement:p...we do agree on the importance of energy storage..and we both ask the question "how much and what impact"..

Glimmie, dlarsen: From my experience, it is very easy to get drawn into a long discussion with John on this stuff. Furthermore, his views are somewhat unorthodox. For instance, this page on Audioholics (http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/bi-wiring-from-amplifier-to-loudspeaker/bi-wiring-modulation-muddle) discusses his theories. I would encourage any of us who wishes to pursue this with him to take it elsewhere.

Actually, my views are absolutely orthodox...I have always been capable of doing the analysis exactly as you, exactly as Leseuf, a huge slew of people..

The problem YOU and all the others have, is you cannot view the problem from a perspective outside your experience..that of analyzing the system in question from the perspective of conservation of energy at all instants in time. You are far too comfortable with the techniques you have learned, and I have to shake the tree you guys are sleeping in...because you have lost the desire to question what you have learned..

It is so enjoyable playing devils advocate..against people with whom I have high regard..

You also missed another forum discussion at AH, one which I had recently with, umm, some guy I can't recall his moniker...he opened a thread that had been dead for over a year just to badger me.. It was interesting, but his intent was rather clear from the start so I refused to engage him...especially when he claimed all speakers were essentially resistive in nature, with no reactive component to worry about in an analysis..(I hope I never have the misfortune to purchase or use a power amp he designed..)

It was also about that time that I found Microcap 9 produced interesting artifacts when I modelled both biwiring and monowiring and ran a transient time analysis. It shows clearly that there are differences between monowiring and biwiring EXACTLY WHERE I EXPECT THEM TO BE... That really raised my eyebrows. Further analysis with the package shows that Microcap 9 will produce a different output when I alter components which are not directly connected to the circuit under examination, so that CLEARLY shows that the package is producing results which cannot be trusted. (proof that if you get results which you expect, look even closer).

It also helped that I found I suddenly could not post any jpegs. So I could post no pictures, no schematics, no diagrams, not even the waveforms or schematic I was simulating.... The restriction on total file storage size was suddenly 1/5th of what I already had there...interesting coincidence...

I see the simple model shown in the link you provided confirms my assumption that this was poised from a first-order single ended model with the return path ignored. No sense doing transmission line models as there isn’t really a stationary fixed ‘ground’ or reference in a real transmission line with propagating wavefronts.
Agreed for the analysis linked..that was strictly a resistive analysis, all reactance is in the crossover.
SI and EMC guys know there is no such real component as a GND symbol much like they know that everything has some LCR but for the most part these are considered parasitic and ignored. For audio frequencies and <0.1db of effect, it seems very reasonable to consider them as such to me.
Actually, I believe the just noticeable differences (jnd) that are bandied about is somewhere in the .5dB range. Unfortunately, that is .5dB difference two channel, and not interchannel.. Much work still needs to be done with respect to two channel reproduction and imaging, as even .1dB interchannel may be an issue.

What happens when the cable's impedance does not match the poer source impedance though, the amp in this case? Amp impedances of .01 is a few orders of magnitude different from the cable so there is a mismatch there.
Dave answered nicely..

Cheers, John

The problem YOU and all the others have, is you cannot view the problem from a perspective outside your experience..that of analyzing the system in question from the perspective of conservation of energy at all instants in time. You are far too comfortable with the techniques you have learned, and I have to shake the tree you guys are sleeping in...because you have lost the desire to question what you have learned..Sigh. Like I said, Glimmie, dlarsen, this is what you're dealing with.

You shook my tree plenty, John, and you exposed absolutely nothing I didn't know. You touted differences in internal, instantaneous power dissipation between two linear circuits as some earth-shattering discovery, when it was an entirely ordinary consequence of superposition.

The bottom line is that you didn't end up disproving my position. You said you were going to, by running some experiments, but by your own admission you never did them. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind that you never got to the experiment, we both have better things to do. But don't mischaracterize our debate as you have done so above. Nothing you presented was the least bit revolutionary to me, as much as you wanted it to be.

Or do you want me to post the email of yours where you admitted a mistake in your analysis and admitted we agreed on a large part of what remained?

Sigh. Like I said, Glimmie, dlarsen, this is what you're dealing with.
Sigh indeed.

You posted before I edited..I added the simulation verbage..

Cheers, John

You shook my tree plenty, John, and you exposed absolutely nothing I didn't know. You touted differences in internal, instantaneous power dissipation between two linear circuits as some earth-shattering discovery, when it was an entirely ordinary consequence of superposition.

The bottom line is that you didn't end up disproving my position. You said you were going to, by running some experiments, but by your own admission you never did them. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind that you never got to the experiment, we both have better things to do.

Yep, it seems we both enjoy a life...


But don't mischaracterize our debate as you have done so above. Nothing you presented was the least bit revolutionary, as much as you wanted it to be.

Actually, I don't think I mischaracterized our debate.

1. I approach the problem from a strictly instantaneous energy perspective.
2. You approach the problem from analysis rules that have been accepted as accurate for about 100 years.
3. It is entirely up to me to prove any assertions I've made to you and others...both by analysis, and test, and the tests have to be repeatable.
4. I enjoyed the discussions I've had with you and others in this regard, but much to my chagrin, so far nobody has countered the energy analysis with anything that is a brick upside my head...the "oh yah, that explains it" moment I wish somebody could provide...I already understood the analysis' provided to counter what I stated..
5. Simulation using microcap 9 supported my assertions, so I looked deeper and found that the results (which were to my advantage) cannot be trusted. I questioned and discarded results which agreed with me because I did not like the way the simulation "felt".

When discussing this with anybody, do you not find it strange that I will provide links to analysis' which disagree with my assertions?? That is academically correct, and the only way I will operate.



and I'm confident we will again cross post...:(

Cheers, John

Actually, I don't think I mischaracterized our debate.Well, I don't know. I mean, it may very well be true that I am not able to view the problem "outside of my experience." But that's only a "problem", as you put it, if I'm wrong. And you haven't proven that. So until you do, I consider it a mischaracterization for you to say I have a problem.You approach the problem from analysis rules that have been accepted as accurate for about 100 years.At least. Conservation of energy goes back a bit further.

Glimmie, dlarsen, you do see the problem now, I hope: if you intend to apply such classic principles as superposition, conservation of energy, etc. to your analysis, you're going to be accused of standing in the way of the revolution.

You're welcome to construct a test circuit of some sort for which these antiquated principles fail to hold. I haven't seen one from you yet.

Or do you want me to post the email of yours where you admitted a mistake in your analysis and admitted we agreed on a large part of what remained?

I do not consider our discussion as secretive...you are welcome to post it if you wish..

Well, I don't know. I mean, it may very well be true that I am not able to view the problem "outside of my experience." But that's only a "problem", as you put it, if I'm wrong. And you haven't proven that. So until you do, I consider that a mischaracterization.

You approached the problem as all others do, so did not consider it from the energy perspective.

And you keep beating a dead horse...I have not proven me right, nor you wrong, the weight of proof is on me do to so.

And it is not my intent to mis-characterize your intent, understanding, or intelligence..I apologize if you feel that I have done so.
[B]
Conservation of energy goes back a bit further.

I'll say...:p
[B]
Glimmie, dlarsen, you do see the problem now, I hope: if you intend to apply such classic principles as superposition, conservation of energy, etc. to your analysis, you're going to be accused of standing in the way of the revolution.
Revolution? Don't be silly.

Cheers, John

You approached the problem as all others do, so did not consider it from the energy perspective.Of course I did. Got the same results, too.And it is not my intent to mis-characterize your intent, understanding, or intelligence..I apologize if you feel that I have done so.I appreciate that, thanks.

By the way, if you're using Microcap 9 to simulate your assertions, I know for sure you're not going to come up with anything that deviates from what I, Glimmie, or dlarsen would expect. I mean, yes, it's not perfect, as is the case with many numerical simulators. But by design it is going to perform an entirely linear analysis for the kinds of circuits we've been examining.

You're welcome to construct a test circuit of some sort for which these antiquated principles fail to hold. I haven't seen one from you yet.

Hmmm..I think this precept requires discussion.

I am not contending that superposition fails, nor linear circuit analysis.

My "contention" is that the assumption that both circuits produce the exact same output at both drivers may be an incorrect one. I've not made the direct statement that linear analysis fails.

Hmm, I posted the test schematic I used somewhere, I thought here.:confused:

Does anybody else have a copy of microcap 9...to duplicate what I believe to be an incorrect simulation result?

Cheers, John

Sounds like one of the variants of 'acid' that was around in the '70's.

[For the uninitiated: we're talking about differences between biwiring and monowiring now.]

John, remember:
--- The scenario you shared with me had zero output impedance and ideal (lossless) crossovers. That makes a difference. Under those ideal conditions the monowire and biwire cases produced identical results at the drivers.
--- I told you at the time that if you incorporated non-ideal elements, differences might prop up. I never claimed they'd be identical in more realistic scenarios.
--- Lessuf's analysis (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/biwire/Page2.html) confirms a difference between monowiring and biwiring, but he had a nonzero output impedance.
--- He does not do an energy analysis, but I did, and the results agreed. EDIT: Well, he did one, sort of, here (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/biwire2/page1.html) and here. (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/biwire2/page2.html)

By the way, if you're using Microcap 9 to simulate your assertions, I know for sure you're not going to come up with anything that deviates from what I, Glimmie, or dlarsen would expect. I mean, yes, it's not perfect, as is the case with many numerical simulators. But by design it is going to perform an entirely linear analysis for the kinds of circuits we've been examining.

Oh trust me, it did. And not small either. I HAVE to assume it's some kinda bug in the program, and it's not a small one...

I'll try to post some waveforms to show..it's on another computer, so I guess I'll have to do a screen capture...once I find that darn dongle..

Cheers, John

Well, you'll have to post something then. The last time you showed me something you thought would be counter my expectation, it didn't.

Oh trust me, it did. And not small either. I HAVE to assume it's some kinda bug in the program, and it's not a small one...

...once I find that darn dongle..

Cheers, John

Should I. . . no . . . maybe . . .
I'm sorry I can't help myself . . .

Can we really trust a man who doesn't know where to find his dongle? :D

[For the uninitiated: we're talking about differences between biwiring and monowiring now.]

John, remember:
--- The scenario you shared with me had zero output impedance and ideal (lossless) crossovers. That makes a difference. Under those ideal conditions the monowire and biwire cases produced identical results at the drivers.

We have always concurred with that particular analysis..

--- I told you at the time that if you incorporated non-ideal elements, differences might prop up. I never claimed they'd be identical in more realistic scenarios.

We agreed that non-linearities are an added burden to the discussion...there, but not significant to what we discuss..

--- He does not do an energy analysis, but I did, and the results agreed. EDIT: Well, he did one, sort of, here (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/biwire2/page1.html) and here. (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/biwire2/page2.html)

The last link points to the relevant part. Within it he shows exactly the differences in dissipation and storage/retreival I have been stating all along.

Here's the relevent quotes, and my concern...


That although the monowired and bi-wired cases show patterns of cable energy dissipation levels which vary with time in different ways, this difference is equal and opposite to the difference in their patterns of energy storage and release in the reactances of the filter networks. In reality, the two arrangements differ in the details of temporary energy storage and release, and this alters the time variations in the power dissipation in the cables.

He confirms that bi and mono dissipate energy in the cables differently, so confirms my initial statement...

As a result, the two behaviours cancel out, and the two arrangements behave identically so far as the amplifier and speaker units are concerned. Thus if out interest is in comparing the arrangements for the task of conveying signals from the amplifier to the speaker units, then they are indistinguishable. The ‘internal’ details differ in terms of how energy is stored or dissipated, but this has no consequence so far as using the system is concerned.

The two behaviours do indeed cancel out...I stated at the very beginning that there is NO average dissipation difference, that there is no difference in the average power that reaches the driver, no average difference in how the crossover stores or releases energy...

And here, he makes wild statements which are NOT what I have been saying

The ‘conundrum’ outlined earlier – that the systems are the same so far as amplifier and speaker units are concerned, but the cable dissipation patterns differ – can now be seen in terms of the way the filter networks temporarily store and release energy as a consequence of their defined properties. No energy is mysteriously ‘lost’ or created out of nothing. All that is happening is that, as is usual with circuit elements with frequency dependent behaviour, some energy storage and release is involved.
Nowhere have I said energy is mysteriously lost or created out of nothing..

Comments like that are for an audience, were not stated by myself, and belong on the cutting room floor.

Given the same amplifier drive and "" a difference in wire dissipations"" as Jim concurs happens, how does a reactive element compensate exactly in phase...to wit, if the crossovers are storing and returning energy in a different fashion, they must do so as a consequence of their terminal conditions.

Jim points out that the crossovers do indeed store energy differently between mono and bi, equal to and opposite of the wires so as to cancel, but ...in phase?

Cheers, John

Michael, always a pleasure, you've always been a gentleman...

I found the dongle, now I'm re-creating the analysis.

Should I. . . no . . . maybe . . .
I'm sorry I can't help myself . . .

Can we really trust a man who doesn't know where to find his dongle? :D

That is indeed one of the funniest things I've seen on this forum....:p:p:p

Cheers, John

We agreed that non-linearities are an added burden to the discussion...there, but not significant to what we discuss..I'm not just talking about nonlinearities. Indeed, I don't think we've ever talked about nonlinearities. I'm talking about, for instance, internal resistance within the crossovers and nonzero output impedance of the amplifier. Even with those components in place the system behaves in a linear fahsion.The last link points to the relevant part. Within it he shows exactly the differences in dissipation and storage/retreival I have been stating all along.Right. But none of us disputes their existence. You keep coming back to that as if it's some sort of revolutionary discovery but it's not.The two behaviours do indeed cancel out...I stated at the very beginning that there is NO average dissipation difference, that there is no difference in the average power that reaches the driver, no average difference in how the crossover stores or releases energy...No. Lessuf is not talking about average behavior, and neither was I when you suggested I of doing so. You think we are taking the easy way out and doing some sort of RMS analysis, but that is not the case. We are talking about instantaneous behavior.Given the same amplifier drive and "" a difference in wire dissipations"" as Jim concurs happens, how does a reactive element compensate exactly in phase...This is exactly the same conceptual obstacle you encountered before. What in the world is so odd about it? Energy released from the capacitor is accumulated in the inductor, and vice versa...to wit, if the crossovers are storing and returning energy in a different fashion, they must do so as a consequence of their terminal conditions.Sure, but those terminal conditions are interrelated.Jim points out that the crossovers do indeed store energy differently between mono and bi, equal to and opposite of the wires so as to cancel, but ...in phase?Yes. In phase.I found the dongle, now I'm re-creating the analysis.Great!

I'm not just talking about nonlinearities. I'm talking about, for instance, internal resistance within the crossovers and nonzero output impedance of the amplifier.
I know.


You keep coming back to that as if it's some sort of revolutionary discovery but it's not.
Uh, no ..more of a thorn..


You think we are taking the easy way out and doing some sort of RMS analysis, but that is not the case.

I've never accused you of taking the easy way out.


We are talking about instantaneous behavior.This is exactly the same conceptual obstacle you encountered before. What's so odd about it? Energy released from the capacitor is accumulated in the inductor, and vice versa.

Contrast the energy within the mono cap and the bi cap.

Since they are storing and releasing energy differently, they can only do so via the current at their terminals. So you are saying the current at the two capacitor's terminals are different, no?

That current can only arrive through the tweeters.

Cheers, John

That current can only arrive through the tweeters.It arrives or departs from either terminal. The tweeter is connected to only one of the terminals. The current "through" the capacitor is the difference between the charges delivered or departing from either terminal.

The energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to the square of the accumulated charge, or the voltage across it. It is entirely possible for the tweeter's voltage to remain identical in both cases but for the capacitor's voltage and energy storage to be different.

Sorry, did a lot of editing there to make my point, which is this: equal current does not mean equal energy. For a resistor, yes, but not for a capacitor.

Incorrect. It arrives or departs from either terminal. The tweeter is connected to only one of the terminals. So the difference in charge delivery or departure can come entirely from the other terminal......Sorry, did a lot of editing there to make my point.

Ah, no problem. I'll wait a coupla minutes, the posts got weird...

I'm fixin the simu..

Cheers, John

Yeah, did a lot of editing there, sorry. Please see my edits above.

I am reminded of Morbius V Alimental IV

Is anything we are talking about here even remotely audible?

Nah, Jimmy Neutron and I are much cooler than that.

As for whether this is audible: it all depends on the numbers, really. The linear analysis tells us that biwiring can introduce a bump in the frequency response right at the crossover frequency. It probably isn't audible in most cases, but crossover frequencies do tend to be in the range of hearing where we're reasonably sensitive. Besides, even if there is a change, then you're choosing between the frequency response chosen by the speaker designer and one that you've altered by connecting it in a novel way.

John, on the other hand, suspects that more is going on because of the differences in instananeous energy distribution within the crossover itself. I don't think it's consequential. That's where our disagreement lies.