Spearker cables..fact or fiction?

hearingimpared

Mapleshade makes some great stuff.

DarqueKnight

TECHNOKID wrote: »

In example, you or someone else could have led him (posted) to the link you have just provided me and then he could have possibly responded accordingly (depending on his willingness and ability to go that route) which then could have led this entire discussion toward a more positive result.

Thank you for you kind comments.

Most of us remember that we started out with zero knowledge in this hobby. Accordingly, most of us are eager to help others to better sound within their budget. However, when someone comes in with these kind of closed-minded and bitter statements, it discourages helpful discourse:

bobt wrote: »

The Stereophile mags review these....of course there not going to say anything bad about them..they get paid to do this...then sit there and try to tell you....oh yes we hear this one gives you more highs, or this one is more clear.....BULL...

bobt wrote: »

I have a 12 gauge speaker cable, I will not say which kind. I went and spent $250 (on sale)...some supposed great cable......NO DAM DIFFERENCE.

bobt wrote: »

If I changed cables on these "reviewers"...they would not have a clue............

bobt wrote: »

It's like Boats...if it's marine..you pay a ton....same crap you can buy for cheap...Audiophile.....the price goes up.....

bobt wrote: »

Most of this "sound" is precived..just because you spent..300 plus on a cable.

In this one post, the writer 1)Questions the integrity of a respected audiophile magazine by stating that they only write favorable reviews for money. 2) Implies that reviewers and others who hear differences in cables are only imagining things because of the amount of money spent. 3) Implies that the quality of all audiophile merchandise is non-existent and people are only paying for an audiophile brand name. The OP's comments might have been made out of simple frustration, but I don't see any reason why he could not have started off with something along these lines:

"I tried some $250 Audioquest cables in my audio system and didn't hear any improvement. I don't understand why these cables are so well liked."

From there, he would have gotten inquiries about his system and the music used...which would then have lead to helpful suggestions for higher resolution components.

TECHNOKID wrote: »

You nearly put your footh in your mouth with the audioquest comment (I am saying this with a big smile on my face meaning no accusation or harm)

People who have been reading me for a while knew this was one of my frequent inside jokes and that I have grown fond of Audioquest wire: AQ Everest review, AQ Volcano review, AQ Leopard review, AQ Niagara review, AQ Sky review.

TECHNOKID wrote: »

Yet this leads me to do some testing in a near future.

Excellent.

TECHNOKID wrote: »

I am leaving for Regina to take care of an event there and my planning isn't even completed

Have a safe and enjoyable trip.:)

heiney9

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Audioquest sucks.

I am an MIT man myself but he wanted technical info and who better to give it than the people who helped make the cables.

seafire

Hi as you can see I held back and let some others do the talking.Out of all I have met on here DK seems to be the most enthusiastic and methodical when it comes to testing and evaluating gear.Although I may not always agree with him,his posts always make for interesting reads.I therefore have a valid question for DK and PLEASE i am not trying to be nasty or funny but would really appreciate his take on the following questions.
I speak under correction but from what I gather here you are running speakers that are + 20 years old.My question to you is as follows.Do you really think that with these "outdated" speakers that you can make valid evaluations of differences with any/all audio gear given that loudspeakers are the end accumulation of all in your audio gear link?
From your posts I have gathered that you are a musician and that you play the saxophone?.It is a well known fact that live instruments (saxophone in particular) lead to threshold shift deafness.If so, don't you think that this changes a person's perception to sound?
Why I am asking this is because through the years I have noticed that some of my friends who are musicians,have a different take on what sounds good compared to for example myself.What I noticed was that their sensitivity was down, but they had a much more acute ear in terms of harmonics with regards to live instruments.Your take?

mrbigbluelight

seafire wrote: »

Hi as you can see I held back and let some others do the talking.Out of all I have met on here DK seems to be the most enthusiastic and methodical when it comes to testing and evaluating gear.Although I may not always agree with him,his posts always make for interesting reads.I therefore have a valid question for DK and PLEASE i am not trying to be nasty or funny but would really appreciate his take on the following questions.
I speak under correction but from what I gather here you are running speakers that are + 20 years old.My question to you is as follows.Do you really think that with these "outdated" speakers that you can make valid evaluations of differences with any/all audio gear given that loudspeakers are the end accumulation of all in your audio gear link?
From your posts I have gathered that you are a musician and that you play the saxophone?.It is a well known fact that live instruments (saxophone in particular) lead to threshold shift deafness.If so, don't you think that this changes a person's perception to sound?
Why I am asking this is because through the years I have noticed that some of my friends who are musicians,have a different take on what sounds good compared to for example myself.What I noticed was that their sensitivity was down, but they had a much more acute ear in terms of harmonics with regards to live instruments.Your take?

You know .... this whole thread gives one an appreciation of what Martin Luther endured at the Diet of Worms.

DK, keep enduring.

seafire

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

You know .... this whole thread gives one an appreciation of what Martin Luther endured at the Diet of Worms.

DK, keep enduring.

Sorry but why the sarcastic reply?.These questions are sincere and I will wait for DK to reply as I said I hold his opinion in high regard

tonyb

seafire wrote: »

Hi as you can see I held back and let some others do the talking.Out of all I have met on here DK seems to be the most enthusiastic and methodical when it comes to testing and evaluating gear.Although I may not always agree with him,his posts always make for interesting reads.I therefore have a valid question for DK and PLEASE i am not trying to be nasty or funny but would really appreciate his take on the following questions.
I speak under correction but from what I gather here you are running speakers that are + 20 years old.My question to you is as follows.Do you really think that with these "outdated" speakers that you can make valid evaluations of differences with any/all audio gear given that loudspeakers are the end accumulation of all in your audio gear link?
From your posts I have gathered that you are a musician and that you play the saxophone?.It is a well known fact that live instruments (saxophone in particular) lead to threshold shift deafness.If so, don't you think that this changes a person's perception to sound?
Why I am asking this is because through the years I have noticed that some of my friends who are musicians,have a different take on what sounds good compared to for example myself.What I noticed was that their sensitivity was down, but they had a much more acute ear in terms of harmonics with regards to live instruments.Your take?

I know your question was directed at someone else,but you pretty much answered your own question.Not everybody hears the same,which by itself can explain alot of this cable debate.Why some can't tell the difference between Bose and B&W....why a guy can listen to the sound of a car engine and think something doesn't sound right and another would have no clue something was wrong.
Can we put this sucker to bed allready?

heiney9

seafire wrote: »

From your posts I have gathered that you are a musician and that you play the saxophone?.It is a well known fact that live instruments (saxophone in particular) lead to threshold shift deafness.If so, don't you think that this changes a person's perception to sound?
Why I am asking this is because through the years I have noticed that some of my friends who are musicians,have a different take on what sounds good compared to for example myself.What I noticed was that their sensitivity was down, but they had a much more acute ear in terms of harmonics with regards to live instruments.Your take?

While I don't agree about threshold shift deafness in DK's case I do agree that a musician could have a different perspective (again not talking about DK) about what they listen for in music just like a beer connoisseur could have a different perspective about wine tasting per se.

One of my best friends is a musician and we totally are at opposite ends of what sounds good and why. I've attributed it to him looking for something different in the song. We have the same musical tastes as far as song composition, structure and the types of music we like. But he also doesn't have anywhere near the understanding I do about what makes a stellar sounding system. He doesn't get why separates in many cases are better, or the differences in analog stages of a cdp or dac, or the benefits of using proper cables, or differences in TT cartridges, etc.

When he listens to my system he makes lots of positive comments about clarity, bass definition and how centered and clear the vocals are but he doesn't seem to feel the need to have that at his house. He runs an HT receiver with Cerwin Vegas in a 7.1 configuration and listens mostly in neo 7.1 stereo setting. Completely, completely opposite of me. He couldn't understand why I thought my new amp was better than my old one and while we didn't A/B them I'm not sure he *would* not notice a difference.

I attribute some of the way he listens to music compared to me or my brother being because he is a very good musician and he might be wired differently and listening for something completely different than I am. Neither one of us is wrong. But we respect each others POV and I admit we don't talk a lot about audio equipment because we are in two different worlds. We simply talk about what moves us in the music we enjoy, not how it's delivered.

H9

P.s. I'll let DK answer about the speakers. I will ask this; is a Ferrari 250 GTO any less capable of getting around the Nurburgring than say an F430? It's probably better in some ways. Just because it's older doesn't mean they're not capable. Older Polks in almost all cases (IMO) are better than today's Polk's especially when talking about SDA's. The SDA's are equivalent to the Ferrari 250 GTO, IMO.

sucks2beme

Strange how this suddenly got more technical. I'm waiting for more!

bikezappa

treitz3 wrote: »

Joe, I wouldn't doubt that not one of the [you know who I'm talking about] folks just skipped right on past this one without a thought. Well, there was one.....

Look man, there are standard wires and then there are some with shielding, network boxes and still some with battery packs. Not to mention, build quality, types of wires, construction, soldering and wire materials, etc.. Did you ever for one moment think that these may change a few things? Was this thought about or even discussed during physics class?

I thought so.

A simple line cord regardless of the cost that plugs into 120v outline can not filter the signal. To do so would make Ohms law wrong. As long as it is of the correct size there is no differnce. It's a Series circuit from the power company. What ever noise is in the line will not go away with a simple line cord.

Now if you add capacitors and inductors in the line cord you can filter the noise out but this is allready done in the electronic equipment to below your ears sensitivity.

bikezappa

Flash21 wrote: »

Talking about double blind testing is fine...demanding that I do it in my home is unreasonable. Seriously, how would I set that up? It would be VERY difficult to do a proper DB test in my house...or yours for that matter.

Again, single blind is fine for my purposes. I am confident that bias is not present in any significant form in the tests I have done. Believe me, I am not motivated to enjoy spending money on cables.

The complexity of DBT is dependent on the item being tested. You don't want the switching network to bias the test. For example I encourage every one to compare two CD players which can be done by inputing them into tape 1 and tape 2 and using your remote to switch between the tape inputs while having each CD play the same CD. It's also very important to make sure each CD player is outputing the same loudness. This is difficult and time consuming and requires a good DB meter.

DBTs with speaker wires or line cord wires is more difficult.

bikezappa

seafire wrote: »

Sorry but why the sarcastic reply?.These questions are sincere and I will wait for DK to reply as I said I hold his opinion in high regard

The sarcastic replys are usually from people that don't understand the electrical engineering laws that make all the equipment we buy.

The usual response but not always is to start out with noting the small numbers of posts you have and questioning your ability to comment on anything audio.

Mybe you equipment will be challeged next.

If you persist with your viewpoint you will be called names, usually for members with many posts and they are usully one liners.

Many pople will now joint with more name calling.

You will then be told to leave if you don't like it here, we are a close knit club and watch out for each other as if new ideas can make you sick.

It goes down hill from there and you will be compared to others in the past that will seal your fate.

My advice is to ignore the sarcasim and remember there is some humor in sarcasime.

There are many people here that love music and want to help everyone enjoy it and save some money.

Also I am not a good speller.

comfortablycurt

Did you seriously just say that professional musicians likely have a decreased hearing ability?

I've been playing guitar for about 10 years now, and my stellar hearing is due in big part to that fact.

ben62670

BZ spell check is free. Again you are leaning on what scientist have the ability to measure. Your mind is shut tight about even acknowledging that there may be things that scientist can't measure.
Ben

WilliamM2

ben62670 wrote: »

Again you are leaning on what scientist have the ability to measure. Your mind is shut tight about even acknowledging that there may be things that scientist can't measure.
Ben

Seeking evidence of incredible claims is not close minded. Ignoring all evidence that disagrees with your position most certainly is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

ben62670

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Seeking evidence of incredible claims is not close minded. Ignoring all evidence that disagrees with your position most certainly is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

I fully agree with your first statement. There is no evidence that disagrees with what I have said. It would be nice to be able to prove what we can hear, but we can't. You are hung on the very few things that we can as of now measure.

DarqueKnight

bikezappa wrote: »

A simple line cord regardless of the cost that plugs into 120v outline can not filter the signal. To do so would make Ohms law wrong.

Now if you add capacitors and inductors in the line cord you can filter the noise out but this is allready done in the electronic equipment to below your ears sensitivity.

You are correct that a simple line cord cannot filter noise.

You are incorrect in your assumption, which is shared by most power cable naysayers, that all a high performance power cord contains is thicker wire.

Adding passive filter networks is not the only way to remove noise from a power cable. High performance power cords employ several technologies to remove noise such as (but not limited to):

1. Encasing the wire in a jacket impregnated with ferrite. Ferrite is a magnetic material which shields against external noise.

2. Metallic shielding to block external noise.

3. Specific winding geometry of individual conductors to reduce noise in the power signal induced by electromagnetic strand interaction.

4. The use of noise filtering composite materials in the cable connectors to filter noise from the power signal.

Legitimate high performance power cable usually provide some technical discussion of the noise reduction technologies used in their cables. I invite you to go to the websites of PS Audio, Shunyata Research, Audioquest, MIT, Virtual Dynamics, etc. and review the technical documentation on their power cable products.

Item #4 was pioneered by physicist Jack Bybee whose research for the US Navy resulted in a class of materials that removed noise from a signal at the quantum level! If you do some research on "Jack Bybee", "Bybee filters", or "quantum purifiers", you will find some exceptionally fascinating information on an efficient noise reduction technology that can be implemented in very small sized enclosures and components.

bikezappa

ben62670 wrote: »

BZ spell check is free. Again you are leaning on what scientist have the ability to measure. Your mind is shut tight about even acknowledging that there may be things that scientist can't measure.
Ben

Do you make this stuff up. Where did I say scientists can measure everything?

They may want to and they do try.

There is even a rule in science that states that you can never know the exact position and momentum of very small objects because the very act of measuring them distrubs them or changes them. This has no practical relationship to audio that I know of however. It realy states that some part of things are somewhat random and there maybe free will.

cnh

I think heiney9 has made some interesting points. I found myself arguing that musical sensibility and musicianship would be a 'plus' in assessing the quality of a system. And I, do, have to side with Curt above as well. I don't consider myself a great musician but I can play by 'ear', and I can hear the difference between what is 'good' and what is not.

That's why I am surprised by heiney's example. A musician whose system is less than stellar or who is not trying to perfect it, the reason is that I've read many an article about famous classical performers who have absolutely fabulous audio systems.

I guess what I would say is that if you have no 'musical ear' whatsoever, then it would be very hard to argue that you have the tools necessary to 'hear' subtle differences and make sound (pun intended?) decisions. But in addititon, I think what heiney is really saying is that an 'ear' is not, by itself, sufficient...some familiarity with audio and actual listening experience and intent/desire is also necessary in the making of a potential audiophile.

cnh

DarqueKnight

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

You know .... this whole thread gives one an appreciation of what Martin Luther endured at the Diet of Worms.

DK, keep enduring.

LOL! Those cats are deluxe.:)

I actually find it rather amusing all the mental twisting, turning, gyrating, and rationalizing naysayers will go through rather than simply trying out a few power cords to see if they work.

I also realize that, while some come to these kinds of discussions with closed minds and negative agendas, our comments are read by some with open minds who will find encouragement for experimentation.

WilliamM2

ben62670 wrote: »

I fully agree with your first statement. There is no evidence that disagrees with what I have said. It would be nice to be able to prove what we can hear, but we can't. You are hung on the very few things that we can as of now measure.

So there is no way to demonstrate scientifically that there is an audible difference between wires? It's just not possible?

And there has been no evidence showing that wires don't make an audible difference? No studies showing the errors of human perception? Sorry Ben, but you are as close minded as they come.

ben62670

WilliamM2 wrote: »

So there is no way to demonstrate scientifically that there is an audible difference between wires? It's just not possible?

And there has been no evidence showing that wires don't make an audible difference? No studies showing the errors of human perception? Sorry Ben, but you are as close minded as they come.

No there is no way presently to say how a cable sounds. Use your ears. If you don't hear a difference sell the cables and get your money back. Is that simple enough?

I used to be as close minded as you when I first joined, but then I did some swapping to prove the cable beleivers wrong. Guess what I was wrong, and found that cables do make a difference;)
Enjoy

bikezappa

DarqueKnight

As I understand it you need a resonate circuit with the proper amount of capacitance and inductance to filter the noise of a specific frequency. That is a filter. I was refering to line cords that have no filter network that cost $500 and they a fraud. That are basically resistive in nature with no capacitance or inductance.

If you have noise in the line on the street from the power companies the shielded line cord will not stop this noise front entering your equipment. If a simple series network has noise only a filter can block it. The shielded line cord can prevent additional noise from being induced into it for it's 5 foot length, but what about the 100 of miles of unshielded line suppling your power. The simple line cord can't prevent that noise from entering you equipment.

The simple line cord of proper gauge is all that is required for electronic equipment. All well designed electronic equipment has a noise filter built in it. Adding a second line filter is not needed.

I have read some of these web sites that sell $500 line cords and my head goes crazy with their logic.

Read the papers of the Society of Electrical Engieers for good data.

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

I'll let DK answer about the speakers.

I'll see what I can remember. I may have to dig up a few old threads to help me along.;)

heiney9 wrote: »

Older Polks in almost all cases (IMO) are better than today's Polk's especially when talking about SDA's. The SDA's are equivalent to the Ferrari 250 GTO, IMO.

That makes sense to me. Thanks for the excellent analogy. I would point out that the hotrodded, modified SDA's are the ones more analogous to Ferraris. We have been living in a world of hotrodded SDA's for so long that it is difficult to remember the dramatic performance difference between stock and modified SDA's.

bikezappa

[QUOTEI also realize that, while some come to these kinds of discussions with closed minds and negative agendas, our comments are read by some with open minds who will find encouragement for experimentation.[/QUOTE]


Why do you need to label people that disagree with you as close minded?

Your a EE, can you explain to me with mathamatics how a simple line cord can with no filter network acnfilter out noise or change the voltage to your equipment?

An isloation transformer will filter out noise because of it's large inductance. If there is RF noise all around you in your house you are probably screwed and may need to move.

bikezappa

ben62670 wrote: »

I fully agree with your first statement. There is no evidence that disagrees with what I have said. It would be nice to be able to prove what we can hear, but we can't. You are hung on the very few things that we can as of now measure.

Why can't you prove the things you hear? Have you tried to test your ability to hear differnces with DBTs? I can clearly tell between mono and stereo, balance controls, bass and treble controls with DBTing. There must be a method to prove you can hear these differnecs and I'm not yrying to bust you balls or anyone elses.

Just thinking I would believe that the humidty and/or temperature would affect the sound in your room.

I also believe that microphones can be set up in your room and be more accurate than your ears or any one else.

CoolJazz

bikezappa wrote: »

The shielded line cord can prevent additional noise from being induced into it for it's 5 foot length, but what about the 100 of miles of unshielded line suppling your power. The simple line cord can't prevent that noise from entering you equipment.

This often quoted logic of a 100 miles (or whatever distance) of power line coming to your house is really, really silly and ignores basic facts!

There is a power transformer just about right outside your house. It's a stepdown transformer. There are also other points in the grid where stepdown occurs. Noise and other disturbances are stepped down at that point, not to mention that the transformer naturally rolls off higher frequency information.

And, very importantly, the transformer secondary presents a low impedance source to your home service. The closer you can keep yourself to that low impedance, the less noise you will have. Which is why circuit separation and load balance are important.

So lower your "mileage" by about 99.99 miles and inject some common sense into your arguement!!

Cool Jazz

BlueFox

bikezappa wrote: »

[Your a EE, can you explain to me with mathamatics how a simple line cord can with no filter network acnfilter out noise or change the voltage to your equipment?

This is not the power cord thread. It is the speaker cable thread.

The math part is simple. The angle of the dangle equals the mass of the **** so long as the thrust of the bust remains constant.

DarqueKnight

bikezappa wrote: »

DarqueKnight

As I understand it you need a resonate circuit with the proper amount of capacitance and inductance to filter the noise of a specific frequency. That is a filter. I was refering to line cords that have no filter network that cost $500 and they a fraud. That are basically resistive in nature with no capacitance or inductance.

If you have noise in the line on the street from the power companies the shielded line cord will not stop this noise front entering your equipment. If a simple series network has noise only a filter can block it. The shielded line cord can prevent additional noise from being induced into it for it's 5 foot length, but what about the 100 of miles of unshielded line suppling your power. The simple line cord can't prevent that noise from entering you equipment.

The simple line cord of proper gauge is all that is required for electronic equipment. All well designed electronic equipment has a noise filter built in it. Adding a second line filter is not needed.

I have read some of these web sites that sell $500 line cords and my head goes crazy with their logic.

Read the papers of the Society of Electrical Engieers for good data.

You know what? I'm really sick of dealing with you and your pseudo scientific ignorance. I realize now that you have no sincere interest in learning about power cable technology and that you are just here to further the naysayers agenda.

Electronic filters come in all shapes, sizes, configurations, and materials.

I gave you valid references to an esteemed physicist's work in materials based noise filtering and you ignored it.

I gave you valid references to several companies whose power cable products are based on sound, verifiable, and in many cases patented noise reduction technologies and you responded with some **** about one manufacturer offering a junk cord for $500.

Why are you so focused on one junk, snake oil cord rather than the many which are based on sound engineering? In any successful market segment there are going to be unscrupulous manufacturers there to scam the consumer.

I know damn well that there are power cords that are junk, just as there is overpriced junk in every merchandise category. I just have sense enough to avoid the junk and buy the good stuff.

OK. Congratulations on finding an expensive piece of junk power cord. If the entire high performance power cord industry is invalidated in your mind by one or a few bad apples then I am glad that you found some joy. I prefer to find (audio) joy in products that produce sound that is pleasing to my ear.

The naysayers standard ignorant **** about the miles and miles of dirty utility company cable has been answered a million times on this forum. The power company's miles and miles of dirty cable does not matter. I addressed this recently in another thread:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The old, snide, tired naysayers "argument" about cheap Romex and miles and miles of cheap, dirty utility company wire conveniently ignores the fact that much can be done to clean the power signal once it comes from the wall...just as a good water filter can do a lot to remove contaminates from tap water after it has been processed by a multi-million dollar water treatment facility and traveled through miles and miles of water system piping.

I wish you much success and satisfaction in your witch hunt for fraudulent power cable products that support your agenda to prove that all power cable products are a scam. When you have completed that task, perhaps you will focus your considerable research and analytical skills on weeding out fraud in the diamond jewelry and expensive handbag industry.

I, on the other hand, will continue to hunt for products that facilitate my enjoyment of reproduced music.

DarqueKnight

bikezappa wrote: »

Your a EE, can you explain to me with mathamatics how a simple line cord can with no filter network acnfilter out noise or change the voltage to your equipment?

Yes I can, however, you seemingly cannot comprehend simple words. I think that going to the trouble of providing a detailed mathematical analysis would be wasted on you.

I gave you an overview of the noise reduction technologies used in power cords and some suggestions for further research in post #1243 and you conveniently ignored it.

Good luck with your career in Internet trolling.