Few audio-related topics generate as much heated discussion as whether or not speaker cables make a significant difference in how a system sounds. Opinions on the topic vary wildly, as do the prices of the cables. There's seemingly no limit to how much an exotic speaker cable can cost, and anyone prepared to spend five figures for some copper cords has plenty of options to choose from. Furthermore, cheap speaker-cable options abound; decent cable is widely available for pennies per foot.
Much of the debate over speaker cables centers on whether exotic materials and manufacturing methods yield cables that offer superior sound quality, or at least somehow sound different from generic speaker cable of the same length and gauge.
Back in 2008, Engadget published an article titled "Audiophiles can't tell the difference between Monster Cable and coat hangers." Hardly a month goes by that I do not see that piece referenced in a forum discussion or reposted in a Facebook audio group. The story was actually based upon a post from an audio forum, but it took on a life of its own in the press. It claims that audiophiles are unable to hear the difference between Monster Cable and coat hangers used to connect the output of a power amp to speakers.
"The group was A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent." – Engadget
It is in the spirit of the evergreen Monster Cable versus coat hanger story that I came up with a new speaker-cable test, comparing Monster Cable's XP (16-gauge, 70 cents per foot) versus crumpled Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil (12 cents per foot). Furthermore, I made the aluminum-foil cables ultra-long (25 feet) while keeping the Monster cable as short as possible (4 feet).
Here I am making the two leads for the aluminum foil cable.
I'm not in a position to perform double-blind tests on these cables, so I opted for recording and analyzing the results instead. I used a measurement mic—the miniDSP UMIK-1 —to capture sine-wave sweeps. I positioned the mic in the nearfield, 1 foot away from the Uni-Q concentric driver in a KEF R500 speaker.
I used an M-Audio M-Track PC USB audio interface, connected to a Windows 10 laptop running Room EQ Wizard , as the audio source. I plugged the M-Track directly into a Rotel RB-1590 350-watt/channel stereo amp. I manually swapped the speaker cables, but changed nothing else between measurements.
I took three measurements with the aluminum cables connected, and three measurements with the Monster cable connected. The results are practically identical; it would be impossible to identify which cable was which based on the frequency response and output levels I measured—it's that close.
Here are the aluminum foil cables connecting the Rotel RB-1590 amp to the KEF R500 speakers.
Based on my measured result, as well as some subjective listening to music (in mono) using the two different cables, I've concluded there's no audible difference between four feet of Monster XP, an oxygen-free 16-gauge speaker cable, and a cable made from two 25-foot pieces of crumpled aluminum foil, hung from the ceiling with packing tape—aka Transparent Self-Positioning Speaker Wire Levitation Ribbon from the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing company.
Granted, this is not a scientific test—I'm just having some fun. All I did was measure the frequency response of a speaker, fed the same signal from the same amp using two vastly different speaker cables. Frankly, I expected the higher impedance of the aluminum foil to result in a noticeable drop in output, especially in the higher frequencies. Instead, there was no identifiable difference to be heard or seen—even the cable skeptic in me expected this experiment to produce some sort of measurable or audible difference, but that's not what happened. Given this result, it's hard to imagine two copper cables of the same gauge and length sounding appreciably different.
Nearfield measurements of sine wave sweeps showed no significant difference in SPL or frequency response between the cables.
The 25' aluminum foil cable had measurably higher impedance than the 4' copper cable, as expected.
Now I'm curious what would happen if I compared 100 feet of crumpled aluminum foil to a high-end copper speaker cable—preferably one that costs as much as a car. I wonder if that experiment would produce a measurable difference from the speaker. Let me know what you think in the forum comments.
Much of the debate over speaker cables centers on whether exotic materials and manufacturing methods yield cables that offer superior sound quality, or at least somehow sound different from generic speaker cable of the same length and gauge.
Back in 2008, Engadget published an article titled "Audiophiles can't tell the difference between Monster Cable and coat hangers." Hardly a month goes by that I do not see that piece referenced in a forum discussion or reposted in a Facebook audio group. The story was actually based upon a post from an audio forum, but it took on a life of its own in the press. It claims that audiophiles are unable to hear the difference between Monster Cable and coat hangers used to connect the output of a power amp to speakers.
"The group was A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent." – Engadget
It is in the spirit of the evergreen Monster Cable versus coat hanger story that I came up with a new speaker-cable test, comparing Monster Cable's XP (16-gauge, 70 cents per foot) versus crumpled Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil (12 cents per foot). Furthermore, I made the aluminum-foil cables ultra-long (25 feet) while keeping the Monster cable as short as possible (4 feet).
|
Here I am making the two leads for the aluminum foil cable.
I'm not in a position to perform double-blind tests on these cables, so I opted for recording and analyzing the results instead. I used a measurement mic—the miniDSP UMIK-1 —to capture sine-wave sweeps. I positioned the mic in the nearfield, 1 foot away from the Uni-Q concentric driver in a KEF R500 speaker.
I used an M-Audio M-Track PC USB audio interface, connected to a Windows 10 laptop running Room EQ Wizard , as the audio source. I plugged the M-Track directly into a Rotel RB-1590 350-watt/channel stereo amp. I manually swapped the speaker cables, but changed nothing else between measurements.
I took three measurements with the aluminum cables connected, and three measurements with the Monster cable connected. The results are practically identical; it would be impossible to identify which cable was which based on the frequency response and output levels I measured—it's that close.
|
Here are the aluminum foil cables connecting the Rotel RB-1590 amp to the KEF R500 speakers.
Based on my measured result, as well as some subjective listening to music (in mono) using the two different cables, I've concluded there's no audible difference between four feet of Monster XP, an oxygen-free 16-gauge speaker cable, and a cable made from two 25-foot pieces of crumpled aluminum foil, hung from the ceiling with packing tape—aka Transparent Self-Positioning Speaker Wire Levitation Ribbon from the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing company.
Granted, this is not a scientific test—I'm just having some fun. All I did was measure the frequency response of a speaker, fed the same signal from the same amp using two vastly different speaker cables. Frankly, I expected the higher impedance of the aluminum foil to result in a noticeable drop in output, especially in the higher frequencies. Instead, there was no identifiable difference to be heard or seen—even the cable skeptic in me expected this experiment to produce some sort of measurable or audible difference, but that's not what happened. Given this result, it's hard to imagine two copper cables of the same gauge and length sounding appreciably different.
Now I'm curious what would happen if I compared 100 feet of crumpled aluminum foil to a high-end copper speaker cable—preferably one that costs as much as a car. I wonder if that experiment would produce a measurable difference from the speaker. Let me know what you think in the forum comments.