Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bblackwood]

ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 14:22

Does this mean that we still don't have the techniques available to measure what the ear have known about cables for about 50 years or more?

I think it a fallacy to state this as if it is fact.

[danlavry]

ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 20:22

Dear Dan, In the beginning of this thread i asked this: Is it possible to scientifically explain the audible differences in let's say speaker cables? So far i have got this: Quote: Obviously cables have resistance, capacitance and inductance. Does any of it matter for audio frequencies? The capacitance matters least; the resistance does not matter much. The inductance seems to have a slightly higher impact, not much but enough to make me wonder why people buy the huge heavy wires with less resistance but higher inductance. I guess the answer is "marketing". And this: Quote: ...electrically speaking, copper is basically just copper, with very little variation. For example, an 18AWG hard drawn copper yields 6.385 Ohms per 1000ft at 20 degree C, and weighs 4.917 lb per 1000 ft. The same 18 AWG annealed copper yields 6.640 Ohms per 1000ft at 20 degree C, and weighs exactly the same - 4.917 lb per 1000 ft. The difference in resistance is 4%, which is less then the tolerance in wire dimensions (thus in resistance). The inductance is the same for hard drawn and annealed, the capacitance for identical mechanical configuration is also the same. Does this mean that we still don't have the techniques available to measure what the ear have known about cables for about 50 years or more? Best Regards

Does this mean that we still don't have the techniques available to measure what the ear have known about cables for about 50 years or more?

No it does not mean it at all ! We have the ability to measure and we do measure cables, not only in audio, but also in the GHz frequencies. We have great test gear, and some companies are very professional about cable manufacturing and engineering.

The various plots I submitted are a good first cut at understanding what is going on with the cable. One can go further. It is a relatively easy task to hook say an audio precision test system terminals to see the flatness response and phase response.

I do not know what you are referring to when taking about what we know for 50 years. I think that in the speaker cable case, a lot of “what we know” is a bunch of BS that was hammered into our heads over and over, to the point of such acceptance that we do not see the need to question it.  

I went for a quick spin on the web and “found out” that flat cables are the best, and also big thick oxygen free silver what ever are the best, and also that some other thing with a ratio of 1.602345…. is the best and also some other stuff… all are the greatest, wonderfully sounding stuff. Can they all be the best? It should be obvious for the non technical person that this is big time marketing.

Take a 6 foot 10 AWG cable made by just about anyone and you will be doing very fine!
Look at my plots, measure it and do a REAL ABX double blind, and you will find what we should have known for 50 years. Let’s not talk about cables as if we had a properly executed double blind test. Let’s talk AFTER the REAL ABX DOUBLE BLIND TEST!

I do not trust any tests (including double blind tests) by cable makers that come up with all sorts of non scientific bunch of BS.

Regards
Dan Lavry

[ammitsboel]

danlavry wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 20:58

I do not know what you are referring to when taking about what we know for 50 years. I think that in the speaker cable case, a lot of ?what we know? is a bunch of BS that was hammered into our heads over and over, to the point of such acceptance that we do not see the need to question it.

Haven't cable tests been done in almost every studio worldwide?

danlavry wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 20:58

Take a 6 foot 10 AWG cable made by just about anyone and you will be doing very fine! Look at my plots, measure it and do a REAL ABX double blind, and you will find what we should have known for 50 years. Let?s not talk about cables as if we had a properly executed double blind test. Let?s talk AFTER the REAL ABX DOUBLE BLIND TEST!

Dan you are making a mistake by telling me what i should find from a blind test!?!

Who is right?
The technician that doesn't use his ears or the Mastering Engineer that aren't a technician?


I think there's no point in continuing this thread before proper evidence have been showed to Dan Lavry about audible differences in cables.
The thing is that I don't have the time and space to do it at this time, I also think that it should be up to the technician, as the designer he is, to conduct the tests out of curiosity and interest in knowing these things more in depth.
Because this is common knowledge to ME's, there simply is no need for them at the time to prove something that have already been proved.

Best Regards

[danlavry]

Ah, you came in here telling me things such as "we all know something for 50 years". But you seem to have a problem with me telling you what I know!

you said:

Does this mean that we still don't have the techniques available to measure what the ear have known about cables for about 50 years or more?

now you are saying:

I think there's no point in continuing this thread before proper evidence have been showed to Dan Lavry about audible differences in cables.

Both of the statements are assertions. They are assumptions stated as fact. "Before we show Lavry about audibility" assumes that you will be able to show audibility. It does not leave the door open to the possibility that you will not be able to prove me wrong.

You want to do a test? Be my guest. You want to show a loss of .25dB with a certain wire? Look at my plots, I tell you how to do it - go for a thin wire and 50 feet of it.  

Did you consider the possibility that you are wrong? Did you note the fact that I am not arguing about audibility when comparing say an 20AWG to 12AWG?

By all means, go and test different cables, but to prove me wrong, you MUST use 10AWG or more copper, at 6 feet or less.
The test must be double blind by credible people. In fact I am a beliver in multiple tests, by different groups and locations.

Meanwhile, you are not required to agree with what I say. I will be very glad to stop talking about speaker wire, just as soon as you convince the other people including ALL the cable manufacturers of to stop advertising their BS, until after we can all have credible double blind ABX test.

BTW, as you can expect, there where many such tests that took place. Search the web and you will be surprised at the number and the quality of musicians composers, conductors that did not hear a difference between a 12AWG zip chord and very expansive speaker cables.

You came here insisting that I am wrong, and I should not talk until you find the time to do a test to prove me wrong, and then you said that by the way you are too busy to do the test.

Do you wish to reconsider your unreasonable position?

Regards
Dan Lavry

 

 

[ammitsboel]

danlavry wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 23:21

Ah, you came in here telling me things such as "we all know something for 50 years". But you seem to have a problem with me telling you what I know!

Yes because I believe that you are missing a parameter or two. My experience with cables tels me that If I based my choice of cables upon your notes here I would seriously compromise my systems capabilities.

danlavry wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 23:21

Meanwhile, you are not required to agree with what I say. I will be very glad to stop talking about speaker wire, just as soon as you convince the other people including ALL the cable manufacturers of to stop advertising their BS, until after we can all have credible double blind ABX test.

You are assuming that i agree with quoted notes from speaker cable manufactures in this thread, I don't.

Dan, I just find it ignorant that an experienced technician such as you, claims no audibility between different speaker cables.
Richard Cabot's notes was much more enlightening to me and he pretty much explained it:
I certainly believe that if something can be reliably heard-if the person really is hearing it-you can measure it if you know what to measure. But I would not swear that I could, with a simple set of measurements, automatically measure the right things. I would try to do a broad spectrum of measurements. There are a lot of measurements that we haven't figured out how to make yet. We aren't really measuring the right things.

Best Regards

[bblackwood]

ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 18:22

Dan, I just find it ignorant that an experienced technician such as you, claims no audibility between different speaker cables.

Henrik, I demand that you approach someone with Dan's credentials with respect. If/when you get to a point where your accomplishments and education approach Dan Lavry's, then we can talk. Until then you simply will not refer to him as 'ignorant'.

The fact is many accomplished designers and mastering engineers don't think cables matter if they are of sufficient quality and proper size. The burden of proof is on you for your claims, not everyone else.

[Loco]

ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 19:22

Dan, I just find it ignorant that an experienced technician such as you, claims no audibility between different speaker cables.

What do you recommend then? What brand? Why? Why not the other leading brand?

There's no audible difference between good cables. You simply don't need to spend a fortune on marketing hyphed brands.

[danlavry]

danlavry wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 23:21

Ah, you came in here telling me things such as "we all know something for 50 years... danlavry wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 23:21 Meanwhile, you are not required to agree with what I say. Dan, I just find it ignorant that an experienced technician such as you, claims no audibility between different speaker cables. Richard Cabot's notes was much more enlightening to me and he pretty much explained it: I certainly believe that if something can be reliably heard-if the person really is hearing it-you can measure it if you know what to measure. But I would not swear that I could, with a simple set of measurements, automatically measure the right things. I would try to do a broad spectrum of measurements. There are a lot of measurements that we haven't figured out how to make yet. We aren't really measuring the right things. Best Regards

My friend Richard Cabot said that "if something can be reliably heard-if the person really is hearing it"...

You have not passed through that big IF. To do so you will need to show an improvment over a 6 foot 10AWG with double blind tests. Until such time, why don't you hold your piece instead of asking me to.  

Do you think Rich Cabot belives in paralleling a 12AWG and a 14AWG to pass both high and low frequencies? Do you think that Rich believes a lot of that crock out there, including that magic number 1.6.... or the cable vibration theories or stories about fast vs slow drawn electrical (NOT MECHANICAL). properties?

Also, since you are insisting that you can hear cables so well, why not share with us what cables sound good to you and why they do. This is a technical forum! Are you a believer in cable capacitance issues? Inductance? Magic numbers?

Why not say something in addition to the stubborn repetitive insistence of the same statements.  

You said: "Dan, I just find it ignorant that an experienced technician such as you, claims no audibility between different speaker cables."

Disregarding the disrespectful tone of your comment, I did not claim no audibility in general! I places some plots showing that you could have audibility differences. My point about no audibility is regarding improvements over 6 feet of 10AWG wire. In all fairness, you should not re-convey my statement as a "general lack of audibility of cables".  

Dan Lavry

[ammitsboel]

danlavry wrote on Tue, 01 March 2005 16:41

My friend Richard Cabot said that "if something can be reliably heard-if the person really is hearing it"... You have not passed through that big IF. To do so you will need to show an improvment over a 6 foot 10AWG with double blind tests. Until such time, why don't you hold your piece instead of asking me to.

If you doubt the human race and consider numbers from instruments higher. Then I guess you have a point there.  

danlavry wrote on Tue, 01 March 2005 16:41

Do you think Rich Cabot belives in paralleling a 12AWG and a 14AWG to pass both high and low frequencies? Do you think that Rich believes a lot of that crock out there, including that magic number 1.6.... or the cable vibration theories or stories about fast vs slow drawn electrical (NOT MECHANICAL). properties?

I don't know and I also don't care.
What he stated simply tels me that he don't use science as religion. That's what his words meant to me.

danlavry wrote on Tue, 01 March 2005 16:41

Also, since you are insisting that you can hear cables so well, why not share with us what cables sound good to you and why they do. This is a technical forum! Are you a believer in cable capacitance issues? Inductance? Magic numbers?

Do you honestly think you can handle me starting to explain what I've experienced with cables without coming after me(or even just subconsciously) because I'm suggesting something different?

After all you've clearly stated that this is a strictly technical forum(nothing about what we hear with our ears is aloud), and the technical capabilities has proved themselves in their inability to measure what we hear... so what's the point?

I asked if it was possible to measure the audible differences in speaker cables and I got the answer.


Best Regards

[zetterstroem]

cool down guys.....

we must show some respect for eachother!

yes i believe that all of the voodoo links posted here is the most complete collection of utter BS.... every day i am amazed by the imagination of those cable manufacturers..... but it's understandable.... it's has always been hard to sell the emperor new clothes  

and i admire dan's abilities and his constant quest for knowledge..... one can NEVER know enough....

but i see a bit of a problem with statements like..."It is my considered opinion that such outrageously priced cables will not outperform an average ordinary 10AWG copper wire."

it makes the impression (although i'm sure it's not the case) that sometimes these theoreticcally based threads detach themselves a bit from what i consider the "real" world....

it is a bit hard to swallow as differences in cables are as much a truth to me as ohm's law!! and though i don't agree with "what we have known fo 50 years" i myself have known it for almost 20... i've done so many test that i have no doubt in my hearing at this point..... there's huge differences between cables....... and some of the worst sounding are 10awg pure copper!

but somehow i hope that dan finds out how to measure every aspect of cables... cause it would be nice to have at least some parameters to guide the purchasing of cables in the future.... who wants to pay $16.995 for something that can be achieved with lesser investments?

and remember this is not religion.... i think (hope) that we can have a relaxed debate.... and learn from eachother....

[Yannick Willox]

Just wanted to add this in a very respectful way :

we just finished a AD convertor shootout, and I have to say, the differences were in the same order as changing loudspeaker cables, sometimes even less ...

Yes we have a good room, a very transparant listening chain.
I was amazed myself. I spent five days with 6 different units.

I just can't see how something as complex as a AD convertor can actually give smaller audible differences than 3m of wire (mine are solid core copper, not too expensive ...).

[Terry Demol]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 01 March 2005 13:37

ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 18:22 Dan, I just find it ignorant that an experienced technician such as you, claims no audibility between different speaker cables. Henrik, I demand that you approach someone with Dan's credentials with respect. If/when you get to a point where your accomplishments and education approach Dan Lavry's, then we can talk. Until then you simply will not refer to him as 'ignorant'. The fact is many accomplished designers and mastering engineers don't think cables matter if they are of sufficient quality and proper size. The burden of proof is on you for your claims, not everyone else.

Brad,

Just in case you didn't know, many very experienced designers
do "listen" as Henrik suggested and also believe there exists
sonic differences between various cables that are not really
substantiated by the usual LCR / freq response / phase models.

Most just don't talk about it on public forums for obvious
reasons of credibility and time. A quick glance back at the
infamous wordclock thread (Big Ben) and we have a good
example of what to avoid like the plague.

I have read a paper by Prof. Malcolm Hawksford on reasons for
aupdible differences in cables. I'm trying to locate it (it was
years ago). I think it may have been accompanying another
publication and I have emailed a couple of friends who may be
able to help find it.

I recommend checking his archive out:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malcolms_publi cations.html

Make sure you get through them all tonight Brad (just kidding).

Very smart designer,  very *lateral* in his thinking and
concepts.

I especially recommend the papers that discuss error correction
and distortion cancelling for any analog designers here...
if you haven't already Dan, dig in, there's a smorgasboard of
ideas.

In fact the much heralded Halcro (lowest THD power amplifier
in the world) owes a lot to Hawksfords ideas.

Where were we... cables, from memory Ben Duncan also published
some info on and certainly had belief in the existance of sonic
differences between cables. He also qualifies in my books as
a designer with "cred".

Cheers,

Terry (no cred) Demol

[bblackwood]

Terry Demol wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 05:51

Brad, Just in case you didn't know, many very experienced designers do "listen" as Henrik suggested and also believe there exists sonic differences between various cables that are not really substantiated by the usual LCR / freq response / phase models.

Oh, I fully aware there are those who believe out there, but the question remains - have they done double-blind tests to substantiate they are actually hearing these differences among cables of proper size/capacitance, etc? I have.

If they have, how come I can't find their results?

Until someone can pass the DB test, it's purely a mind game, imo.

[Bob Olhsson]

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 06:33

...Until someone can pass the DB test, it's purely a mind game, imo.

Unfortunately in this case, passing a DB test is also a mind game. Consumer magazine-grade double-blind tests aren't sensitive enough for most people to tell the difference between a cassette and a CD. When there is no effective way to train people what to listen for, such tests will always produce random results and are hence meaningless. Double-blind listening tests are a powerful tool but when misapplied they become pseudoscience. In a way they are worse than subjective cable tests if they pose as offering a factual conclusion.

[danlavry]

[quote title=Terry Demol wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 11:51]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 01 March 2005 13:37

ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 18:22 Dan, I just find it ignorant that an experienced technician such as you, claims no audibility between different speaker cables. Henrik, I demand that you approach someone with Dan's credentials with respect.... I have read a paper by Prof. Malcolm Hawksford on reasons for aupdible differences in cables. I'm trying to locate it (it was years ago). I think it may have been accompanying another publication and I have emailed a couple of friends who may be able to help find it.... Cheers, Terry (no cred) Demol

I read Hawksford paper. I also talked to him about it. He made it very clear that he is only talking about the principles of signal conduction, getting back to the very basics about electrons flow, fields and so on). He made a clear statement to me that he DID NOT want to QUANTIFY his results. He wanted to shad light on the mechanism and in my opinion he did that very well.

As expected, even though he did not quantify the impact of the cables, there was some "following" by some makers to try and execute his guidlines.

Now, if someone says there is cable resistance, or some explains some field action, but does not quantify it, the paper has scientific value, and it invites the engineering types to see how much each effect matters. In my view, and based on what he said to me, he left that part to the engineering community.  

I like and respect Hawksford and his contributions, and that goes for some others that you mentioned and many that you did not. But I am not interested in having this forum be about how is credible and who is not. There are some very credible people that can make a mistake. There are people less well known that know a lot.

I want the forum to be educational, and that has more to do with content than who is important and who said what. The industry already has a ton of important telling you what to buy

BTW very often when you post here, you make a point about "engineers that listen". I hope you are not trying to imply that I am not a good musician, that I don't listen to acoustic and electronics almost daily. I am not going to state what I hear as data in this forum because this is a technical forum.

Regards
Dan Lavry