Heavy gauge speaker wire versus ACD technology

inspiredsports

jcandy wrote: »

First of all, I think nobody disputes the fact that cables do in fact make a difference when they are in the "inadequate" territory of a length versus gauge chart. This was shown clearly in the ACD test. Moreover, the difference is magnified or reduced according to the other circuit elements (amp and speakers). In the ACD test, you see the coloration introduced by the long run of Dayton cable increase as the loudspeaker impedance decreases. So, looking at an impedance versus frequency chart, Z(f), should tell you right away what part of the frequency spectrum is most susceptible to problems. In a carefully-designed loudspeaker (meaning, not a white-van speaker), the impedance won't drop below about 3 to 4 Ohms. Even for a speaker which has a minimum impedance of 3 Ohms (not uncommon with DIY and paralleling low-impedance drivers) then for a 6m (20ft) run, 16AWG is the minimum acceptable gauge. If you have a badly-designed speaker that drops to 1 Ohm somewhere, then the only acceptable wire for this test would be 10 AWG. That's some massive cable ($56 for a 50 foot spool at parts express). In this application 16 AWG would be a disaster. However, if you have a quality loudspeaker that never drops below, say, 6 Ohms, 16AWG is just fine.

Also regarding the study, I find (1) the SPL graphs are impossible to read, (2) difference plots are not shown and differences are not clearly discussed, (3) features of the impedance load are not given.

While the data may be fine (I assume it is) the write-up is rather poor, making it difficult for me to get a real take-home message. For example, if the impedance load dropped to 1 or 2 Ohms somewhere, I would not be surprised at all to see differences even in 12 AWG cables. So, at some level, the article is simply not relevant the the greater question, which has to do with differences when gauge requirements are well-met.

I've had a question on my mind regarding Cables/IC's and what we currently have the ability to measure for quite some time.

We always see debates about Gauge, Material and Configuration (i.e.: 12/14/16 gauge, silver/oxygen free copper, solid/braided/hollow/twisted).

Speaking specifically to material (the actual elemental metal used) and the knowledge that there are smaller units of matter within the proton, are you aware of any research being done at the quark/hadron level to determine electrical response behaviors that may indicate why seemingly similar cable designs sound different?

F1nut

jcandy wrote: »

Oh, and please remind me which part of "my science" is confusing you. If you're not specific, I can't respond (which is your intention, I guess).

I'm not confused at all. I know bad science when I see it.

jcandy

F1nut wrote: »

I'm not confused at all. I know bad science when I see it.

And I know leprechauns when I see them, too. How about supporting your numerous assertions of "bad science" with some "good science" of your own?

DarqueKnight

jcandy wrote: »

First of all, I think nobody disputes the fact that cables do in fact make a difference when they are in the "inadequate" territory of a length versus gauge chart. This was shown clearly in the ACD test. Moreover, the difference is magnified or reduced according to the other circuit elements (amp and speakers). In the ACD test, you see the coloration introduced by the long run of Dayton cable increase as the loudspeaker impedance decreases. So, looking at an impedance versus frequency chart, Z(f), should tell you right away what part of the frequency spectrum is most susceptible to problems. In a carefully-designed loudspeaker (meaning, not a white-van speaker), the impedance won't drop below about 3 to 4 Ohms. Even for a speaker which has a minimum impedance of 3 Ohms (not uncommon with DIY and paralleling low-impedance drivers) then for a 6m (20ft) run, 16AWG is the minimum acceptable gauge. If you have a badly-designed speaker that drops to 1 Ohm somewhere, then the only acceptable wire for this test would be 10 AWG. That's some massive cable ($56 for a 50 foot spool at parts express). In this application 16 AWG would be a disaster. However, if you have a quality loudspeaker that never drops below, say, 6 Ohms, 16AWG is just fine.

Also regarding the study, I find (1) the SPL graphs are impossible to read, (2) difference plots are not shown and differences are not clearly discussed, (3) features of the impedance load are not given.

While the data may be fine (I assume it is) the write-up is rather poor, making it difficult for me to get a real take-home message. For example, if the impedance load dropped to 1 or 2 Ohms somewhere, I would not be surprised at all to see differences even in 12 AWG cables. So, at some level, the article is simply not relevant the the greater question, which has to do with differences when gauge requirements are well-met.

Even if the impedance dropped to 1 or two Ohms, what do you reasonably expect the maximum current drawn by the speakers to be in a typical home usage environment? Sixteen gauge wire has an ampacity of 22 amps for chassis wiring usage and 3.7 amps for power transmission usage.

TroyD

Let's see, I haven't bothered to wade through this thread but let me see if I can summarize.

Some people believe and think that they can prove that high dollar cables are basically snake oil.

Some people believe that is not a scientific fact.

Both groups think the other are charlatans.

That about it?

You know, I used to care but I just don't. Now, for me? I do know for a fact that I hear a difference and I sleep absolutely fine knowing that my investment in MIT cables yields me as much pleasure as tossing it to Heather Locklear used to.

I also believe that the 'science' end of it is not as 'definitive' as some would think....I don't believe 'measurements' = 'sound'. Put another way, I don't think everything that is audible has a corresponding measurement. Not interested in arguing or even debating. I'm not going to be swayed just like I don't think that this thread or the thousands like it on the internet are going to sway anyone.

Now, the OP probably believes his righteousness is divine providence and the masses just see another pompous windbag. Ain't life a ****?

Summation. Buy the gear you like. Listen to the gear you like. Don't worry what the other guy buys and listens to. It's his money and his life....worry about your own.

BDT

jcandy

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Even if the impedance dropped to 1 or two Ohms, what do you reasonably expect the maximum current drawn by the speakers to be in a typical home usage environment? Sixteen gauge wire has an ampacity of 22 amps for chassis wiring usage and 3.7 amps for power transmission usage.

Um, O.K. This is not the same issue, although there are connections.

10 to 15A RMS is a maximum even for the neighbourhood loon. Typical usage for married people is considerably lower (I am listening at I=0.55A RMS now, and idle is 0.5A on my Adcom). IIRC the usual dynamic range between peak and RMS is a factor of 10.

bikezappa

TroyD wrote: »

You know, I used to care but I just don't. Now, for me? I do know for a fact that I hear a difference and I sleep absolutely fine knowing that my investment in MIT cables yields me as much pleasure as tossing it to Heather Locklear used to.

I also believe that the 'science' end of it is not as 'definitive' as some would think....I don't believe 'measurements' = 'sound'. Put another way, I don't think everything that is audible has a corresponding measurement. Not interested in arguing or even debating. I'm not going to be swayed just like I don't think that this thread or the thousands like it on the internet are going to sway anyone.

Now, the OP probably believes his righteousness is divine providence and the masses just see another pompous windbag. Ain't life a ****?

Summation. Buy the gear you like. Listen to the gear you like. Don't worry what the other guy buys and listens to. It's his money and his life....worry about your own.

BDT

I agree with your statement. No one is going to change your opinion with any data. I have tried and it just gets into a pissing contest. My mistake. So live and let live.
I just object to bogus science to try to prove opinions and the value of some wacko audio equipment and tweeks. Maybe it's greed vs science that causes all this emotion.

Rigtheousness is a tough word. I and many engineers earn their living making decisions based on 1000s of years of science. These decisions allow the fabrication of planes and cars and most everything else. Why would we through this science out the window in the area of audio?

You and most others can believe anything without data. Your ears can be tricked.

What guides you to believe or make a decision to buy a car, chainsaw or just about anything non audio?

Data with units I hope.

drselect

bikezappa wrote: »

Listening tests are subjective and depend on many things: mood, source material, set up for example. Data for example would be measured power output and distortion to a known load. Other data would be features of the equipment: Number of channels and input and output jacks. You can get much data from the manufacturer. However, sometimes they lie.

If you liked the equipment and it serves your purpose then you are right. I'm not sure what you want in the equipment to make that judgement.

Scientific data always has units that can be measured like watts, inches, weight, color.....
I think you may have used subjective impressions to make your decision, not sure.
I am not trying to tell you how to make any decisions. Gave that up long ago.

I believe that there are microphones that can measure sound levels and frequency more accurately that our ears. Maybe jcandy can tell you how much more accurately.

I don't even want to try and remember the number of points on assignments or tests that I have had deducted as result of me forgetting the units or using the wrong units. Also you cant began to fathom my loathing of the pound (Brit. vs. U.S.). The unit of measure for my test was the dlu . The standard of which is kept in a secure location and is routinely measured for its accuracy. I have corrected my example below. I should have caught the fact about missing the units but was spending more time wondering if you would have issues with me using the term "data point" instead of the term "datum point" or "data points"

Listened to a Onkyo NR1007 = Data Point +1 dlu

Listened to Pioneer SC-27 = Data Point +2 dlu

Results: Data Point +2 dlu > Data Point +1 dlu

Proof of my results I latter purchased a Pioneer SC-27.

And as far as subjectivity goes I have a hypothesis that all science/scientist is/are subjective because with out subjectivity science/scientist would be too logical. I am still collecting data to support my hypothesis but I will try to use the correct unit of measure if I ever report my findings.:biggrin:

bikezappa

What is the definition of dlu?

How can you be too logical?

How is that a negative?

drselect

Another data point oops I mean datum point collected for my hypothesis :biggrin:

And as far as the definition of a dlu: please refer to my first post in this tread (#329).

bikezappa

There is no definition at #329

TroyD

bikezappa wrote: »

I agree with your statement. No one is going to change your opinion with any data. I have tried and it just gets into a pissing contest. My mistake. So live and let live.
I just object to bogus science to try to prove opinions and the value of some wacko audio equipment and tweeks. Maybe it's greed vs science that causes all this emotion.

Rigtheousness is a tough word. I and many engineers earn their living making decisions based on 1000s of years of science. These decisions allow the fabrication of planes and cars and most everything else. Why would we through this science out the window in the area of audio?

You and most others can believe anything without data. Your ears can be tricked.

What guides you to believe or make a decision to buy a car, chainsaw or just about anything non audio?

Data with units I hope.

I can dig that to an extent....however a couple of comments.

The emotion comes in because it's the equivalent of calling your baby ugly. Nobody likes that. Personally, I don't give a hoot one way or the other.

As far as the science goes as far as automobiles. Ok, let's take that. Buying an automobile is probably no less emotional than buying audio gear. Yeah, I can look at the MPG ratings and all that jazz.

However, one guy looks at car 'X' and the laquer black model turns his crank while the next guy, well, it's the canary yellow model that makes him go from 6 to 12. How do you account for that with your specs and data??

Further, while from an engineering standpoint, the new Camaro is doubtless a 'better' car in almost any way you wish to quantify it. That said, I'd give my left nut for a 1969 Camaro over a new one every day of the week and twice on Sunday. No data required in that decision.

BDT

steveinaz

I wouldn't believe if I hadn't heard it with my own ears. It's just that simple; and I'm no "golden ear" either, suffering from tinnitus and significant hearing loss in my left ear.

Science says an autistic child shouldn't be able to play the piano...yet many do, without a single lesson. So should we argue that a our eyes and ears are tricking us when we see/hear an autistic child play the piano with great skill?

Climb out of the box, it really is quite boring in there.

bikezappa

steveinaz wrote: »

Science says an autistic child shouldn't be able to play the piano...yet many do, without a single lesson. .

Who is the science that said that?

steveinaz

Likely the same science that claims cables cannot sound different, because the "numbers" don't add up.

If I may quote the great Mr. Spock:

"Logic dictates that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I believe this discussion is over. :biggrin:

steveinaz

I didn't want to play the Spock card, but y'all forced my hand.

bikezappa

steveinaz wrote: »

Likely the same science that claims cables cannot sound different, because the "numbers" don't add up.

If I may quote the great "Mr. Spock":

"Logic dictates that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I believe this discussion is over. :biggrin:

That quote was taken from Sherlock Holmes.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

Cables sound different but they sound less different than if you put a can of soda or beer on a speaker. Every thing will effect everything but it just may no all be audable. I think that is what jcandy's data shows. And I think Holmes and Spock would agree.

drselect

IIRC Spock actually stated he was quoting his ancient relative.

bikezappa

drselect wrote: »

IIRC Spock actually stated he was quoting his ancient relative.

Good point, I never knew that.

DarqueKnight

bikezappa wrote: »

Cables sound different but they sound less different than if you put a can of soda or beer on a speaker.

Why isn't this a case of simply stating the obvious? If I put a soda can on top of my speaker it changes the sound. If I slide down a few inches in my listening chair it changes the sound. If my listening room is a little chilly and I cover myself with a blanket it changes the sound. If I take the grilles off it changes the sound...and so on and so forth etc., etc.

I think just about everyone on this forum understands that anything brought into or taken out of the listening room will affect response in some way.

While placing a soda can (or beer can for you BZ) on top of a speaker may bring a higher degree of change than changing cables, does the can bring about a more desirable sound change than a change in cables?

Has the OP addressed this? Has the sound performance been compared with and without the can and the various speaker cables? Not to take anything away from measurements, after all, I am a huge tweako measurement audio cultist, but the sound and the listening are the most important things in this hobby...right? I have not read the entire thread because it is so cluttered with irrelevant noise, so I apologize if this has already been answered. If it has, I would appreciate being pointed to the relevant post.

In summary:

A. If someone says "I put a can on top of my speaker and it changed the sound more than changing speaker cables" that is not meaningful to me.

B. If someone says "I put a can on top of my speaker and I measured and heard a more positive improvement than switching to a more expensive and higher performance speaker cable", then that is very meaningful to me.

It is not clear that case B is being offered here. If only case A is being offered, then what is the point?

Jetmaker737

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In summary:

A. If someone says "I put a can on top of my speaker and it changed the sound more than changing speaker cables" that is not meaningful to me.

B. If someone says "I put a can on top of my speaker and I measured and heard a more positive improvement than switching to a more expensive and higher performance speaker cable", then that is very meaningful to me.

It is not clear that case B is being offered here. If only case A is being offered, then what is the point?

Exactly. It's an interesting science experiment in regards to affecting SPL, but is of limited value relative to sound quality.

bikezappa

Speaking for myself and not jcandy I think he has stated that the can of beer or soda changes the sound more than the cables. This change is very small and not audable.

I think he is trying do demostrate the small magnitude of change that a speaker cable has on the audio in the room. And that he is using measured data, graphs of the frequency response, in the room with different speaker cables and cans to show the small changes.

But I could be wrong.

inspiredsports

steveinaz wrote: »

Likely the same science that claims cables cannot sound different, because the "numbers" don't add up.

If I may quote the great Mr. Spock:

"Logic dictates that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I believe this discussion is over. :biggrin:

The Sci-Fi trump card has finally been laid.

I summon Godzilla to decide! :biggrin:

jcandy

inspiredsports wrote: »

the sci-fi trump card has finally been laid.

I summon godzilla to decide! :biggrin:

Dude, that's awesome! rotfl

inspiredsports

jcandy wrote: »

Dude, that's awesome! rotfl

Maybe we have more common ground than we think. A love of audio, albeit from different approaches, and godzilla rocks! It's time to lighten up around here and enjoy some tunes.

inspiredsports

bikezappa

inspiredsports wrote: »

Maybe we have more common ground than we think. A love of audio, albeit from different approaches, and godzilla rocks! It's time to lighten up around here and enjoy some tunes.

Agreed, "Music is the best", Zappa.

jcandy

inspiredsports wrote: »

Double rotfl. Your shooping has been the only positive aspect of my day today, which is otherwise a painful stress-bomb. If I ever write up the ACD data for my website, can I use this?

steveinaz

What fun is a hobby if you can't geek-out a little bit about it, right? We're audio geeks, it's what we do.

mossbacked

This is cool!