Spearker cables..fact or fiction?

DarqueKnight

It always tickles me to see these naysayer "savants" call performance enthusiasts "fools" and "suckers" for investing in well engineered and well constructed cables that are designed for the preservation of audio signal integrity, then turn right around and run something worse than coat hanger wire between their amp and speakers. "Hey look everybody...I grabbed some cheap computer cable and made speaker cable with it". It seems that the ones who cry loudest about cable snake oil are always the ones that turn right around and indulge in this type of voodoo.

I'm just curious...are there any double blind studies out there that confirm that kitty kat kable sounds as good as, or better than a proper speaker cable?

Are there any peer reviewed studies out there that have verified with rigorous scientific methods that kitty kat kable performs as good as, or better than a proper speaker cable with regard to audio frequency response and noise characteristics?

I don't worry about these fools leading (too many) others astray. Anyone who keeps an open mind and who is willing to invest the proper amount of time in serious study will come to a good understanding...and to good sound.:)

Wiley Coyote...how appropriate.

BlueFox

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I'm just curious...are there any double blind studies out there that confirm that kitty kat kable sounds as good as, or better than a proper speaker cable?

"kitty kat kable"; sounds like a good name for a company. Of course, you need to be careful how you use the acronym.

CoolJazz

I especially got a kick and a good laugh out of the "I used Cat 6 because it's better than Cat 5"! What a hoot!

What makes 6 "better" than 5? Cause the designation number is bigger?

Cat 6 is spec'ed to a higher speed data transfer than Cat 5. If your trying to get above 100mb transfer speed, then that's cool. But what does this have to do with use as speaker cable??

They achieve the greater throughput by a number of little things, the primary of which is probably tighter tolerance on the twist rate and keeping the twist more uniform. This is all important stuff for what is essentially balanced transmission line theory. But not much to do with audio coupling.

Which brings up something else I haven't seen mentioned here....the twist rate is different for each pair of a Cat cable!! So if you use all four pair as it comes, then you've got a very nice time smear built into the cable by nature of having very different lengths of cable!! I counted the twist rate one time and if I recall correctly, the lowest rate was something like 27 twists a foot and the highest something like 43 a foot.

Also, the comment above about shielded cable. Did you wonder why typical speaker cable isn't shielded? Maybe you figured out something all the experts don't know??? Maybe you figured out how to neutralize the extra capacitance the shielding would add???

And....I've seen no mention above about concern of the type of jacket is used on the wire. It will vary a bit depending on manufacturer and the cost level the wire was made to. A tip would be to look into plenium rated wire and it's teflon jacket.

CoolJazz

seafire

F1nut wrote: »

An audio friend sent this to me awhile back and I forgot to post it, so here it is.

Having read this post my response.
1 Specified voltage drop is what is allowed for but not actual.Typical losses are at about 2-4% tested
2 Amps per strand are also "allowed for" in terms of a safety guideline.A single piece of cat 5 can easily handle 5 amps but is not recommended as it was not designed for this originally.This doesnt matter anyway because I use multiple strands that can comfortably handle the current in question.
3 I never advocated braiding.I will use multiple pieces of cat 5 still in their jackets. .
4 My speaker cables are no more than 8 feet long
5 Just how much current do you think a mid and tweeter draw?
6 Soldering of cat 5 is not recommended for computer network installations.This has no relevance with regards to using it in audio.
7 My best cat 5 cables use multiple strands of solid core twisted pairs for highs and mids(above 220hz) and thick gauge ofc copper multistrand on the lows(under 220hz).
8 Speaker phasing can still be out even using the best cable in the world depending on room acoustics speaker location room volume etc.Part of the joy of DIY cable is tweeking it until it sounds perfect with more ore less strands which directly affects phasing.
9 Bend radius is a specified installation guidline so that your cat 5 cable does not get damaged while installing through tight turns and nicks and so compromise signal strength and purity.It has no relevance to me because I do not braid the wires.
10 Cat 5 recommended termination length is directly related to maximizing noise rejection from the twisted pair.If terminated to long you lose the noise rejection because the wire is no longer in twisted pair,This is much more applicable in network applications where low voltage dc current is used and is very sensitive to noise interference.
Some food for thought.
Are the tracks on your xovers made from multi strand cable? Answer NO
Are voice coils in all our speakers wound with multistrand cable or silver for that matter? Answer NO
My theory is to try and transfer the signal from the amp(solid copper foil track) to the speaker xover(solid copper foil track and solid core wire) to the speaker coil (solid core copper wire).
My theory is tainted in that for maximum bass response heavy gauge ofc copper multistrand sounds better.However the opposite is true for the high end.I find solid core there gives faster and cleaner response
So in the end I sit with a midstream situation.
Ultimately I would love to use something like a 10-15 mm solid core"buss bar" on the bass but this is to damm unpractical

seafire

CoolJazz wrote: »

I especially got a kick and a good laugh out of the "I used Cat 6 because it's better than Cat 5"! What a hoot!

What makes 6 "better" than 5? Cause the designation number is bigger?

Cat 6 is spec'ed to a higher speed data transfer than Cat 5. If your trying to get above 100mb transfer speed, then that's cool. But what does this have to do with use as speaker cable??

They achieve the greater throughput by a number of little things, the primary of which is probably tighter tolerance on the twist rate and keeping the twist more uniform. This is all important stuff for what is essentially balanced transmission line theory. But not much to do with audio coupling.

Which brings up something else I haven't seen mentioned here....the twist rate is different for each pair of a Cat cable!! So if you use all four pair as it comes, then you've got a very nice time smear built into the cable by nature of having very different lengths of cable!! I counted the twist rate one time and if I recall correctly, the lowest rate was something like 27 twists a foot and the highest something like 43 a foot.

Also, the comment above about shielded cable. Did you wonder why typical speaker cable isn't shielded? Maybe you figured out something all the experts don't know??? Maybe you figured out how to neutralize the extra capacitance the shielding would add???

And....I've seen no mention above about concern of the type of jacket is used on the wire. It will vary a bit depending on manufacturer and the cost level the wire was made to. A tip would be to look into plenium rated wire and it's teflon jacket.

CoolJazz

In CAT5 the twists on all pairs are equal.I admit that on some cheaper cable this is not so.I therefore only use Gov spec tested cable from a reputable supplier and make all my cable from one batch.One also has to be very careful in not pulling to hard on the cable as this can stretch the twisted pairs putting them out of sync

lightman1

seafire wrote: »

In CAT5 the twists on all pairs are equal.I admit that on some cheaper cable this is not so.I therefore only use Gov spec tested cable from a reputable supplier and make all my cable from one batch.One also has to be very careful in not pulling to hard on the cable as this can stretch the twisted pairs putting them out of sync

How 'bout Gov-Specin' yer **** outta here?

treitz3

Yo' Seafart......You never read the posts that dispute your POV do you?

Who cares? Carry on wiff yo' bad self.

treitz3

She must be the pride of her homeroom. :rolleyes:

seafire

It's amazing.Laughable to say the least.
Your childish insults are the best.
I must be a big thorn in your side hehehehehe

ben62670

Report the troll.

Flash21

I can't believe 5 of you posted useless, pointless complaints after seafire posted something actually addressing the subject of the thread (whatever your opinion of it's accuracy)...you guys are just as big a problem in this thread as he is IMHO...

Lowell_M

I just swapped out my Canare Star-Quad wires in my 2-channel with the Signal Ultra Bi-wire cables from my HT. Don't know why I never did this before... Frank did an excellent job with the Signals. I like the sound of the Canare, but the Signals opened up the detail in my 2-channel rig a little more and solidified the soundstage a little bit in all directions. Very nice and easy tweak... and my ears can hear the difference. Bite me haters!

treitz3

Flash21 wrote: »

I can't believe 5 of you posted useless, pointless complaints after seafire posted something actually addressing the subject of the thread (whatever your opinion of it's accuracy)...you guys are just as big a problem in this thread as he is IMHO...

No, not at all. We have been there and done that with this jackass. We have given good input and good advice. We have asked the hard and simple questions.

Did he and some other loons actually read, comprehend and answer? Nope. They just keep spewing out the same crap that we have heard from countless others over the years. It gets old.

Now if he and others would actually like to have a gentleman's discussion about "spearker" cables, then that's one thing that would be welcome.....always, BUT when asked questions? They are deflected as if they weren't written. When asked for proof? Again, it's as if it wasn't asked.

All we get is the same old "shove it down everybody's throats" BS with nothing to back it up when we have done so on our part. Why wouldn't you expect us to toy with his sorry ****?

If you have noticed, the "sheep" of this forum hold a vast amount of experience and audio knowledge and at the same time, help when the situation is genuine. With this thread? Pffft!

If you don't know what I'm referring too, go back and review the entire thread again.

DarqueKnight

a_mattison wrote: »

Bite me haters!

Be careful of what you wish for...;)

Lowell_M

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Be careful of what you wish for...;)

I really tried to start out just a regular ol' positive thread about my cable swap but threw that in for good measure.

I'm on my third CD after the cable swap and couldn't be happier. I've listened to hours and hours of these same CD's in the old setup and can tell everybody without a doubt that the Signal Ultra Bi-wires blow my Canare wires away (and they really aren't bad wires either)

DarqueKnight

The differences are all in your mind.:p

Kex

a_mattison wrote: »

... Bite me haters!

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Be careful of what you wish for...;)

Are we to understand that you, by this statement, are admitting to a thus far undeclared fetish for some part of a_mattison's anatomy? If so (if I may be so bold), which part would that be?

Lowell_M

:eek:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The differences are all in your mind.:p

My mind is pretty creative then. :cool::rolleyes:

The reason the Signals were in my HT is because I got them at a Polkfest and didn't really know anything about them. this was before I had my 2-channel rig and before I knew much about this. then I put together the LSi rig and built some CAnare Star Quad cables. that was a while ago and I just decided I'd try the Signal's up in the living room 2-channel. So it was a free tweak and i didn't expect much because nobody talks about the Signal speaker cables much. I'm telling you they are great wires!!

Lowell_M

Kex wrote: »

Are we to understand that you, by this statement, are admitting to a thus far undeclared fetish for some part of a_mattison's anatomy? If so (if I may be so bold), which part would that be?

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:;)

DarqueKnight

Keiko wrote: »

I really was hoping he had drowned.

C'mon...now. I know trolls can be annoying. But are they really any worse than ants at a picnic? Is being a pest worthy of death?

---

I have several cell phone videos of you stomping some poor hungry ants who dared infringe on your al fresco dining experiences. Were those pests worthy of death?

I don't think you can compare stomping insects to drowning a...tro...hmmmm....maybe Keiko a point.

Lowell_M

DarqueKnight wrote: »

C'mon...now. I know trolls can be annoying. But are they really any worse than ants at a picnic? Is being a pest worthy of death?

---

I have several cell phone videos of you stomping some poor hungry ants who dared infringe on your al fresco dining experiences. Were those pests worthy of death?

I don't think you can compare stomping insects to drowning a...tro...hmmmm....maybe Keiko a point.

Yea... It's more fun to dump water on them and watch them try to swim around to dry land.... or burn them with a magnifying glass.

DarqueKnight

Kex wrote: »

Are we to understand that you, by this statement, are admitting to a thus far undeclared fetish for some part of a_mattison's anatomy? If so (if I may be so bold), which part would that be?

This is one of the pitfalls of coming into a conversation at the end.

If you had been paying attention you would know that I am not one of the "haters" a_mattison is asking to "bite" him.;)

I hope this explanation will suffice. Let me know if you require further clarification.

DarqueKnight

a_mattison wrote: »

Yea... It's more fun to dump water on them and watch them try to swim around to dry land.... or burn them with a magnifying glass.

Trolls are a masochistic species. They thrive on pain and humiliation. The activities you describe would actually be "fun" to them. Enjoy.

Lowell_M

Have you heard the Signal Ultra cables, DK? They really are pretty sweet. I haven't tried a great deal of cables in my rig, but they are definately a step up from the Canare. H9 had some MIT's at our last get together but we never worked them into my rig.

DarqueKnight

I haven't tried, or heard, any of the Signal speaker cables. I currently use Signal power cables and Analog II interconnects in my HT. I also used Signal Silver Resolution XLR interconnects in my two channel system prior to upgrading to Audioquest Sky.

treitz3

There was reference in some other thread about other forums "talking" about Polkies and the aura of the sheep stuff. That may have something to do with it.

DarqueKnight

Keiko wrote: »

I can only speculate as to where and why all these individuals have decided to show their asses on CP at once.

1. They are starved for attention.
2. They have gotten kicked out of other forums.

seafire

After reading that some members had actually posted complaints against me the following.
I came to this forum site as a owner of Polk speakers in my HT setup.From the beginning it was obvious that a certain"pack mentality" rules here.I can name most of this pack but in the interests of the forum I'm not even going to go there.In this thread the heading is '' speaker cable fact or myth".I responded by stating that there are alternatives to expensive cable by making your own with cat 5 or a combo of cat 5 and thick gauge multi thread.This statement was met with a barrage of insults , name calling and general slander mostly directed at me directly.At one stage I was so frustrated that I threatened to phone Polk head office.After some careful thought I decided not too as this was not in the interests of this forum.This pack of individuals wait till I appear the pm each other and the next thing the insults start flying here.If you scroll back I have been called names and insulted more than 30 times in this thread alone! Furthermore I am not alone as many members have pm'd and emailed me with the same complaint privately!Never have I reported anyone! THANK GOODNESS FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE HERE WITH A FOND SPIRIT FOR HEALTHY DEBATE. I FOR ONE WILL NEVER JOIN THE PACK MENTALITY!
Seafire

F1nut

seafire wrote: »

After reading that some members had actually posted complaints against me the following.
I came to this forum site as a owner of Polk speakers in my HT setup.From the beginning it was obvious that a certain"pack mentality" rules here.I can name most of this pack but in the interests of the forum I'm not even going to go there.In this thread the heading is '' speaker cable fact or myth".I responded by stating that there are alternatives to expensive cable by making your own with cat 5 or a combo of cat 5 and thick gauge multi thread.This statement was met with a barrage of insults , name calling and general slander mostly directed at me directly.At one stage I was so frustrated that I threatened to phone Polk head office.After some careful thought I decided not too as this was not in the interests of this forum.This pack of individuals wait till I appear the pm each other and the next thing the insults start flying here.If you scroll back I have been called names and insulted more than 30 times in this thread alone! Furthermore I am not alone as many members have pm'd and emailed me with the same complaint privately!Never have I reported anyone! THANK GOODNESS FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE HERE WITH A FOND SPIRIT FOR HEALTHY DEBATE. I FOR ONE WILL NEVER JOIN THE PACK MENTALITY!
Seafire

Another with the, people are sending me PM's stuff....hilarious!!!

The paranoia/conspiracy angle is always a good one too.

It doesn't matter how often you try to paint yourself as some sort of victim, it's blatantly obvious that your only purpose here is to troll, so please stop fooling yourself. I saw thru you along time ago.

Kex

seafire wrote: »

... If you scroll back I have been called names and insulted more than 30 times in this thread alone! ...

My dear fellow! I can assure you that I, for one, would never dream of such a thing!

I may, however, have used some creative descriptions that seemed most appropriate at the time!

Nonetheless, perhaps you might consider some degree of mea culpa at this point, and reflect on your social skills, tact and talented diplomacy ... especially as a new member here, if you will permit me to be so bold?!

You should also note that people can be very forgiving here, in my experience, but respect is something that must be earned. It cannot be simply demanded.

For my part, however, I will never be able to find it in my heart to forgive you for enabling this thread to surpass Ricardo's most excellent Emotiva Story. In this regard, I must conclude by stating that you, Sir, are nothing less than a downright cad and an utter scoundrel!