Does speaker wire length matter ?

jinjuku

quadzilla wrote: »

http://www.herronaudio.com/images/Measurements.pdf

Includes a statement from George Cardas stating he's able to measure the distortion in different cables. I'm more inclined to believe George, since he has actual numbers backing him up, as opposed to designing test conditions designed to fail.

Anything is measurable with a powerful enough micro-scope. What I want to know: Can you hear the difference between a -105dBa and -108dBa noise floor?

Also curious is what is the conversion of dBu (voltage) to dBa.

As far as the video you should really take it up with the Audio Engineering Society. If you are not sure that they are indeed actively or tacitly supporting that view point would be something for them to answer.

I would have to quote Mantis: After getting the signal from point A to B unmolested, what do you want a cable to do for you. Still not sure what real world, audible problem Cardas or AQ is solving that Mogami, Belden, etc are not. Buy what you want, pay for it as much as you want.

jinjuku

quadzilla wrote: »

http://www.herronaudio.com/images/Measurements.pdf
I'm more inclined to believe George, since he has actual numbers backing him up, as opposed to designing test conditions designed to fail.

Your statement leads me to believe that you didn't watch the presentation all the way through.

There are some solid #'s presented and demonstrated even. I even believe you can contact him from his home page if you have questions.

allstock

jinjuku wrote: »

Your statement leads me to believe that you didn't watch the presentation all the way through.

There are some solid #'s presented and demonstrated even. I even believe you can contact him from his home page if you have questions.

I've tried to watch that video all the way through, more than once. After about ten minutes in I feel like either A) Vomiting on my keyboard, or Tracking the "Whiner" down and slapping him silly. Few people I discredit in the industry, but he is one of them.:mad:

jinjuku

allstock wrote: »

I've tried to watch that video all the way through, more than once. After about ten minutes in I feel like either A) Vomiting on my keyboard, or Tracking the "Whiner" down and slapping him silly. Few people I discredit in the industry, but he is one of them.:mad:

In all seriousness that is kind of funny because I have seen some EE's call Mr. Cardas a hack.

Not sure if that is the reason comments are disabled on his Youtube videos or not.

DarqueKnight

larry777 wrote: »

I read an article that the length of your wire should be all the same for each speaker. The farthest distance to my Back Surrounds will be aprox 35 ft....due to going along a couple of walls at floor level before getting to the speaker etc. My front 3 lets say would only need 7 ft of length. Based on this article I would need 35 ft x 7 for my speaker setup. IS This True?

The point of the Article was that the Audio Signal would reach all your speakers at the same time if the speaker wire was the same length,and therefore give a better sound overall.

If the speakers at the ends of the identical length cables are not the same, the signal will still reach the speakers at different times due to differences in speaker impedance.

My front three channels each have 15 ft. cable lengths and the rear surrounds have 50 ft cable lengths (amp to wall, up through the wall, across the attic, down through the wall, wall to speaker) and the sound is great.

Unless you are running hundreds of feet of speaker cable, sonic differences due to cable length are negligible to inaudible. You would need 200 ft. of 12 gauge cable to equal an additional 1 ohm of resistance (0.005 ohms per foot). For the typical speaker cable lengths used in home audio systems, the speakers at the end of the cable and the type of signal received by the speakers will have a much greater influence on the sound than the length of the cable.

dorokusai wrote: »

It's far more madness than the audio suggestions I've seen here don't you think DK?

Lots of hobbies seem to have a very vocal minority who are hell bent on (1) "proving" that the high end enthusiasts in that hobby are delusional show-offs and (2) "saving" the innocent from being corrupted and parted with their cash.

heiney9 wrote: »

You can get excellent performance from these types of inexpensive audio products so whomever said good quality cable has to be expensive needs to do some experimenting.

The way some of these cable naysayers carry on, you'd think that every audiophile is raving that you have to have an expensive rig, along with expensive cables, to hear good audio.

jinjuku wrote: »

Here you go... Straight from a 2009 AES session on Audio Myths. It's an hour long (FYI).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ:biggrin:

Ethan is very entertaining. I wonder how many people at that seminar noticed the glaring contradiction in his presentation?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I would like someone to explain this apparent discrepancy to me.

At 9:56 in Mr. Winer's video, he presents a segment which demonstrated that students could not accurately identify the perpetrator of a staged purse snatching. The "thief" was only in the room for approximately 10 seconds. Yet, some of the students were sure that they could identify the "thief" from photos.

At 27:50 in Mr. Winer's video, which is from an October 2009 AES conference, he makes the statements:

"Double blind tests are the gold standard in every field of science."

and

"It amazes me when some people claim that double blind testing is not valid for assessing audio gear."

From his offering of the "purse snatching video", Mr. Winer clearly understands that short term visual memory is not reliable for the evaluation and accurate recollection of visual stimuli. However, he holds up a test that relies on short term hearing memory as the "gold standard". I wonder if Mr. Winer is of the opinion that short term visual memory is unreliable but short term aural memory is reliable and "golden".

Mr. Winer and his esteemed panelists refer to themselves as "scientists" and to audiophiles as "believers". I am not aware of any "science" that supports the idea that short term aural memory is statistically reliable. My short term aural memory certainly isn't reliable. I think that relying on short term aural memory in any type of evaluative exercise is evidence of "belief" and "faith" and it is not valid scientific experimental methodology.

jinjuku wrote: »

As far as the video you should really take it up with the Audio Engineering Society. If you are not sure that they are indeed actively or tacitly supporting that view point would be something for them to answer.

I also wonder how many people are aware that the AES takes no responsibility for the technical accuracy or content of its convention papers and presentations:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The AES accepts just about anything audio-related at their conventions and, unlike IEEE conferences, the AES does not accept any responsibility for the content of AES conference (convention) papers.

The following disclaimer is appended to every AES convention paper in my possession from the late 1990's and earlier:

"This preprint has been reproduced from the author's advance manuscript, without editing, corrections or consideration by the Review Board. The AES takes no responsibility for the contents."

The AES convention papers I have read dating from the early 2000's and onward all display the following disclaimer:

"The papers at this Convention have been selected on the basis of a submitted abstract and extended precis that have been peer reviewed by at least two qualified anonymous reviewers. This convention paper has been reproduced from the author's advance manuscript, without editing, corrections, or consideration by the Review Board."

In the second AES convention paper disclaimer above, I neglected to add this part at the end:

"The AES takes no responsibility for the contents"

DarqueKnight

jinjuku wrote: »

Your statement leads me to believe that you didn't watch the presentation all the way through.

There are some solid #'s presented and demonstrated even.

I did watch the presentation all the way through, but I don't recall this. Where is the solid quantitative analysis and demonstration?

heiney9

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The way some of these cable naysayers carry on, you'd think that every audiophile is raving that you have to have an expensive rig, along with expensive cables, to hear good audio.

You mean measure good audio? . Don't you? Cable naysayers don't listen, they want 100% iron clad emperical proof!!!!

It is hilarious that JuJu, now that a measurement has been presented for noise floor, (exactly what the cable naysayers want) a measure that shows a difference, and then asks "who can hear that difference anyway".

So you see, as you already know DK, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. :rolleyes:

A naysayer won't even believe emprical evidence unless it supports their already closed view. Then they just explain it away by stating "show me someone who can hear the measured differences" :rolleyes:

H9

jinjuku

The point of interest from that presentation for me was the noise floor demo. I think the point of the visual and auditory memory excerpts is that both are fickle things. I still have albums that I will go a listen too and after all these years on the same equipment pick out a nuance that I don't remember hearing before. Even with solid amplification and very much above average speakers, some of my most enjoyable listening comes in the form of some headphones.

heiney9

So you admit there are differences in cables? That's a new one. So now your contention is there are differences in cables but no one can hear those differences? That's even more absurd than those that say all copper cables are the same.

WOW!

H9

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

It is hilarious that JuJu, now that a measurement has been presented for noise floor, (exactly what the cable naysayers want) a measure that shows a difference, and then asks "who can hear that difference anyway".

Rather than asking "who can hear that difference anyway", wouldn't a true scientist say something along the lines of:

"Testing demonstrated a 1.3 dB noise improvement. However, scientific studies indicate that the human hearing threshold for detection difference for this type of stimulus is 2.6 dB, therefore, the improvement is most probably inaudible."

jinjuku

heiney9 wrote: »

So you admit there are differences in cables? That's a new one. So now your contention is there are differences in cables but no one can hear those differences? That's even more absurd than those that say all copper cables are the same.

WOW!

H9

You're being disingenuous, but hey we are all used to it. Again lets have a rational (if it's possible for you) conversation about your accusations:

Find a single post of mine where I ever said that there weren't measurable differences. That would be at HTS, HTGuide, AH, AVS, and here.

I believe people say that burned in cables sound better. We know how that went last time now don't we

inspiredsports

jinjuku wrote: »

Here you go... Straight from a 2009 AES session on Audio Myths. It's an hour long (FYI).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ:biggrin:

I turned it off after listening to the fictitious experiment "JJ Johnston" describes his "back when I was in college" experiment 3:20 into the video. Wow, he knew just what he was trying to prove way back then!

Credible?

-- he labeled a switch that did nothing but make a "clack" sound as "Tube" and "Transistor"
-- he had a "pretty crappy little Southwest Technical 30WPC transistor Tiger plastic amplifiers" that he used for the signal no matter which way it was thrown.
-- He "found a burnt out McIntosh tube amp in the 'junk bin'" that he claimed was in circuit when his dummy switch was set to "Tube"
-- The McIntosh was not operational; the transformers were "melted" / "half the resistors were gone" / "all of the capacitors had exploded"
-- he then collected a bunch of "EE's" and "Audiophiles" that he somehow knew (and this was "way back in college")
-- "all of the "Audiophiles" loved and chose as "best" the crappy little amp as being the McIntosh when the fake switch was set to "Tube".
-- "all but one of the EE's "chose" the solid state as sounding best.
-- one brialliant EE figured out his ruse.

So this charlatan's fictitious story is conjured up to show how stupid audiophiles are, how set in their ways EE's are, but the real genius there who figured it out was an EE.

His lie ended at 5:00 and that's when I turned it off.

Just try to imagine that at a Polkfest. Everyone in a freaking lovefest agreement that a crappy plastic 30w sand amp is a McIntosh because they heard a "Clack".

heiney9

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Rather than asking "who can hear that difference anyway", wouldn't a true scientist say something along the lines of:

"Testing demonstrated a 1.3 dB noise improvement. However, scientific studies indicate that the human hearing threshold for detection difference for this type of stimulus is 2.6 dB, therefore, the improvement is most probably inaudible."

Yes of course, but consider the source.

H9

jinjuku

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I did watch the presentation all the way through, but I don't recall this. Where is the solid quantitative analysis and demonstration?

Are you postulating that his noise floor demo can't be reproduced?

DarqueKnight

jinjuku wrote: »

I believe people say that burned in cables sound better. We know how that went last time now don't we

The way it went for me is that sometimes I heard a difference after burn in and sometimes I didn't. Sometimes I measured a difference in noise spectrum after burn in and sometimes I didn't. Don't you remember?

jinjuku

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The way it went for me is that sometimes I heard a difference after burn in and sometimes I didn't. Sometimes I measured a difference in noise spectrum after burn in and sometimes I didn't. Don't you remember?

I did read your presentation all the way through, but I don't recall this. Where is the solid quantitative analysis and demonstration?:biggrin:

DarqueKnight

jinjuku wrote: »

Are you postulating that his noise floor demo can't be reproduced?

I'm not postulating anything. I was simply asking for the location of the quantitative analysis and demo so that I could go back to it without wading through the whole video.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

jinjuku

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The way it went for me is that sometimes I heard a difference after burn in and sometimes I didn't. Sometimes I measured a difference in noise spectrum after burn in and sometimes I didn't. Don't you remember?

I remember 8 weeks going by... Before closing the door / moving on.

DarqueKnight

jinjuku wrote: »

I did read your presentation all the way through, but I don't recall this. Where is the solid quantitative analysis and demonstration?:biggrin:

I have several. Which one specifically are you referring to?

DarqueKnight

jinjuku wrote: »

I remember 8 weeks going by... Before closing the door / moving on.

That's because we were soooooooooo scared to take your cable challenge.:rolleyes:

But you really haven't moved on have you...because you keep bringing it up....right?:biggrin:

jinjuku

DarqueKnight wrote: »

That's because we were soooooooooo scared to take your cable challenge.:rolleyes:

LOL, I'll stand by the results of that experiment.

If an audiophile is scared s@#$less by a blindfold, if they don't trust their ears why should anyone else.

jinjuku

DarqueKnight wrote: »

That's because we were soooooooooo scared to take your cable challenge.:rolleyes:

But you really haven't moved on have you...because you keep bringing it up....right?:biggrin:

Damn straight. Pure gold delivered to me on a platter.

DarqueKnight

jinjuku wrote: »

If an audiophile is scared s@#$less by a blindfold, if they don't trust their ears why should anyone else.

I find it hard to believe that audiophiles are scared of blindfolds since many of them say they like to listen in completely dark or darkened rooms.

Are you postulating that listening with a blindfold is a better method of listening? If so, why is this?

jinjuku wrote: »

Damn straight. Pure gold delivered to me on a platter.

How is this "gold" and how does this "gold" enhance your enjoyment of audio?

Remember, Bruce Lee walked away from a lot of fights, not because he was "scared shitless", but because he didn't want to waste his time on some insecure, low self-esteem fool looking to make a name for himself. I imagine a fair number of these "challengers" went back to their friends bragging about how they "punked" Bruce Lee.

inspiredsports

jinjuku wrote: »

LOL, I'll stand by the results of that experiment.

If an audiophile is scared s@#$less by a blindfold, if they don't trust their ears why should anyone else.

Would you be willing to have a PolkFest at your house so we can do some listening tests??

I'll bring a "Clack" switch :biggrin:

quadzilla

jinjuku wrote: »

Anything is measurable with a powerful enough micro-scope. What I want to know: Can you hear the difference between a -105dBa and -108dBa noise floor?

Also curious is what is the conversion of dBu (voltage) to dBa.

Never heard of google? http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-db-volt.htm

As far as the video you should really take it up with the Audio Engineering Society. If you are not sure that they are indeed actively or tacitly supporting that view point would be something for them to answer.

Actually, Winer himself once answered one of my posts on that very video. He most definitely has a set-in-stone "knowledge" that he refuses to reconsider. That's the ultimate indicator, to me, or someone who stopped even trying to learn a long time ago. He is the literal definition of a zealot.

I would have to quote Mantis: After getting the signal from point A to B unmolested, what do you want a cable to do for you. Still not sure what real world, audible problem Cardas or AQ is solving that Mogami, Belden, etc are not. Buy what you want, pay for it as much as you want.

You're obviously assuming that the distortion they measure is inaudible. This does not suprise me. And that's George's point; if he's able to measure distortion in a cable, then the cable obviously doesn't get the signal there "unmolested". And since you seem especially dense today, that is the problem that George is trying to solve; getting the signal there as close to unmolested as possible. The ones you list just try to get "something" there.

Your statement leads me to believe that you didn't watch the presentation all the way through.

There are some solid #'s presented and demonstrated even. I even believe you can contact him from his home page if you have questions.

Their biggest problem is that they violate every standard of scientific inquiry they claim to uphold. They go into tests looking to prove something (the "myth" of high-end audio). This is obvious from Winer's attitue and history, and it makes all their test worthless*. I've seen that video before, and others from the same group and their ilk. They don't impress me. The guys who build some of the best stuff out there, however, do.

*Despite what you might think, I'm not attacking the person, I'm attacking the message coming out of his preconceived notions that he parades around as "facts", as well as his testing methodologies.

inspiredsports

So I couldn't resist and went back and watched the rest of the Winer AES YouTube video.

While talking about using euphonic distortion as "glue" to enhance a signal, Winer says things like, "But do we really need to spend thousands of dollars on boutique gear to get these effects? Are there other more practical, affordable ways to get the same or similar results?" I guess he's trying to tell us that while more expensive solutions work, we should not seek them out.

I also seemed to note he said at different points in the same presentation that distortion both IS additive, later IS NOT additive depending upon which viewpoint supported his argument at the time.

Also, I didn't quite understand how his dithering examples were to come across accurately on a youtube video, or in the presentation room which did hot have a anything more than a basic sound reproduction system. Then he simply states something to the effect, "Well, I can't hear differences on my personal home system."

Good Grief! Winer goes on record saying things like, "Even if you can tell the sound of a second generation recording is degraded, is it really that bad?". I guess we should all seek the LOWEST possible sound quality we can tolerate!

And that's what this whole forum and this specific thread is all about. Poster's ask questions, and those seeking the best chance of great sound reproduction are challenged by those seeking the 'least acceptable" sound reproduction. Bravo!


P.S.: Winer's panels are good stuff, but he should be kept somewhere in the back room gluing them together, and discouraged from communicating with the public.

jinjuku

quadzilla wrote: »

Never heard of google? http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-db-volt.htm

Ok, I give up. If I don't know how to use google (which I do, SEO anyone?) then you don't know how to read. That page, which I've been previously aware of, has no conversion for dBv to dBa that I'm aware of. I asked a question already knowing the answer. From the page you linked to:

Note - Comparing dBSPL and dBA: There is no conversion formula for
measured dBA values to sound pressure level dBSPL or vice versa.
Also you cannot convert "dBA to volts" and vice versa.

I just wonder (seriously) why distortion measurements are taken in dBu when I can't get a conversion for dBa. Just trying to close the loop on that.

quadzilla wrote: »

Actually, Winer himself once answered one of my posts on that very video. He most definitely has a set-in-stone "knowledge" that he refuses to reconsider. That's the ultimate indicator, to me, or someone who stopped even trying to learn a long time ago. He is the literal definition of a zealot.

Winer made some interesting points about noise floor (including full bit rate samples that you can play back on your reference gear). All I am saying is it's food for thought.

quadzilla wrote: »

You're obviously assuming that the distortion they measure is inaudible. This does not suprise me. And that's George's point; if he's able to measure distortion in a cable, then the cable obviously doesn't get the signal there "unmolested". And since you seem especially dense today, that is the problem that George is trying to solve; getting the signal there as close to unmolested as possible. The ones you list just try to get "something" there.

Well, until proven that it makes it's way into the sound coming from my speakers vs another quality cable that I can pick out unsighted...

Technically speaking there isn't a cable that doesn't alter the signal. Just like sunlight coming through earths atmosphere is altered. But we don't consider it 'molested'. It's just the norm and cost of doing business (that is having air we can breath). Now putting on a set of rose colored glasses...

I would have to disagree that some one like Mogami 'just tries to get something there'. I think that is a pretty crappy attitude for a cable that is respected industry wide and is the IC backbone of a lot of production studios out there. A little research would have you not making such a non-credible statement.

quadzilla wrote: »

*Despite what you might think, I'm not attacking the person, I'm attacking the message coming out of his preconceived notions that he parades around as "facts", as well as his testing methodologies.

Not even debating that. I simply posted the link with a big grin at the end as a reply to another poster. I still like the noise floor demo that he gave.

camp21178

ben62670 wrote: »

So camp please tell all the fine folks here at Club Polk your vast experiences with different gear and cables. Use your ears.
*SLAP*

Wow! People sure get riled up when somebody upsets your little apple cart. You wouldn't want to slap me in real life by the way. I've only been listening to Hi-Fi since 1975 so you're right, I had no real world experience before joining this forum because I have less than 1000 posts.

treitz3

Actually, knowing Ben the way I do? He probably would slap you in the face. Not that it would be the smartest thing to do but he'd probably do it anyway. :eek:

Just an FYI, these type of cable threads always get heated. Nothing new here.

Hawkeye

Ethan is over the top in his views on gear and associated tidbits. However, I will say he does know how to build room treatments. I have 10 of them in my living room ( I have an understanding wife) and he does provide a very nice product.

Gordon

By the way, I use Mogami Gold XLR's in my rig on an alternating basis. They really are a fine cable!!