Post by: xpulsar on May 27, 2009, 06:28:36 PM
There seems to be a lot of different opinions on this subject.There also seems to be a bunch of companies selling highly priced cable. The owner of the studio I work for tends to lean on the hi fi side of things.He buys those Monster Cable AC power cords,Kimber cable interconnects for his Hi Fi. I tend to lean on the pragmatic or poor side of things and think that you really can't here a big enough of a difference in cabling to see spending $100 and up on a meter of stereo audio cable.
Hell ,I doubt Classical recordings made back in the 60's where made using cable that is as expensive as some of these cables are?
Is there any real science behind these expensive cables?
Is it worth upgrading the whole studio's multi-pair wire for all the audio signal from Mogami to some more (hi end) cable?
Thoughts ?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on May 27, 2009, 07:28:28 PM
I've heard huge differences between wires, especially shielded vs. unshielded power cords when a grounding system wasn't up to snuff. I don't hear much, if any difference when the AC system is really solid all the way to the service entrance.
Post by: Barry Hufker on May 27, 2009, 07:48:48 PM
Barry
Post by: xpulsar on May 27, 2009, 09:26:37 PM
Such as their special $60 AC IEC connectors,or wiring your AC of your studio with $25/foot "high fidelity" AC wire. Does this stuff really make sense when there is miles and miles of non "high fidelity" AC cable between my studio and the power station?
Also would you not have to really replace every single AC socket on all of your equipment and the walls and buy all of these IEC cables from these companies in order to really see a benefit from it?
Which would cost thousands of dollars!
-Collin
Post by: Barry Hufker on May 27, 2009, 09:37:45 PM
So many other things, such as the musicianship of the players, the quality of the instruments, the placement of the mics, etc. make a difference long before something like A.C. wire.
A friend of mine has earned a slew of Grammys
Post by: Jon Hodgson on May 27, 2009, 10:28:37 PM
| xpulsar wrote on Thu, 28 May 2009 02:26 |
I agree that things like inductance and capacitance of wire and really clean connections makes a difference. But there are all kinds of stuff that I have read by many different companies trying to sell "high end" cable. Such as their special $60 AC IEC connectors,or wiring your AC of your studio with $25/foot "high fidelity" AC wire. Does this stuff really make sense when there is miles and miles of non "high fidelity" AC cable between my studio and the power station? Also would you not have to really replace every single AC socket on all of your equipment and the walls and buy all of these IEC cables from these companies in order to really see a benefit from it? Which would cost thousands of dollars! -Collin |
When you ocnsider the amount of electrical crap that the power supply has to filter out on even a very clean mains circuit compared to the minute (often unmeasurable) differences in performance of these cables, I'm with John Watkinson on this one (paraphrasing what I recall he said in an article I read some years ago)... if you can hear the difference between the cables, repair or replace your gear, because the power supply needs to make MUCH bigger differences inaudible.
Post by: xpulsar on May 28, 2009, 01:27:25 AM
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 27 May 2009 21:28 | ||
When you ocnsider the amount of electrical crap that the power supply has to filter out on even a very clean mains circuit compared to the minute (often unmeasurable) differences in performance of these cables, I'm with John Watkinson on this one (paraphrasing what I recall he said in an article I read some years ago)... if you can hear the difference between the cables, repair or replace your gear, because the power supply needs to make MUCH bigger differences inaudible. |
I would have to agree. This is why I have posted this question. It is makes no sense that you would spend thousands of dollars on cabling if your AC is full of noise and your studio is near a Radio Tower.
-Collin
Post by: mukul on May 28, 2009, 02:41:51 AM
For AC power cords, in my view, the fundamental aspects of copper quality/resistivity, voltage drop in long interconnection lengths, good insulation material, shielding, and finally secure and snug-fitting connections are critical (some of these already mentioned in above discussion). Apart from these basics, high priced cables may not lead to a significant improvement in sound quality.
When it comes to interconnects and speaker wires, I think one has to be cautious before damning well-designed and carefully crafted cables. It may not be necessary to go for $25/ft kind of expense, but there is a huge variety and I would characterize the cacophony as 75% science and 25% voodoo (now try sorting out which is which!!).
Regards.
Mukul
P.S. If your studio is near a radio tower, it is critical that all your cabling come with good solid shielding and that is properly grounded.
Post by: xpulsar on May 28, 2009, 03:24:16 AM
| mukul wrote on Thu, 28 May 2009 01:41 |
I would separate the power cords from other signal cables in this discussion. For AC power cords, in my view, the fundamental aspects of copper quality/resistivity, voltage drop in long interconnection lengths, good insulation material, shielding, and finally secure and snug-fitting connections are critical (some of these already mentioned in above discussion). Apart from these basics, high priced cables may not lead to a significant improvement in sound quality. When it comes to interconnects and speaker wires, I think one has to be cautious before damning well-designed and carefully crafted cables. It may not be necessary to go for $25/ft kind of expense, but there is a huge variety and I would characterize the cacophony as 75% science and 25% voodoo (now try sorting out which is which!!). Regards. Mukul P.S. If your studio is near a radio tower, it is critical that all your cabling come with good solid shielding and that is properly grounded. |
Yes much agreed! Though, I have yet to see a voltage drop across any AC interconnect cable in any situation measured with my Fluke multi-meter.
I mean seriously, I measure a voltage of 124-128v in our studio which is a little on the high side. How much voltage drop can I expect to see across a 6 foot IEC power cable? Will it really effect a well designed power supply,such as the one I find in my Bryston or Crown Reference amps or my Prism ADA converters, I think not! If a company such as Prism or Weiss thought that a using a $250 AC cable would improve their converter they would be trying to sell me it when I bought it.
My 2 cents
-Collin
Post by: Dan Kennedy on May 28, 2009, 08:55:33 AM
In systems with properly implemented balanced interconnects the differences become negligible.
With all the crap coming in on the mains lines, I think it is a matter of keeping it out of the audio lines as much as possible that helps.
Post by: Bob Olhsson on May 28, 2009, 01:10:33 PM
My suspicion is that it's mostly about the effect of the wire on RFI. Measures that reduce overall RFI from the AC system seem to also reduce the effect that wire has on sound.
Post by: amorris on May 28, 2009, 02:17:06 PM
Post by: johnR on May 29, 2009, 08:48:29 AM
| amorris wrote on Thu, 28 May 2009 19:17 |
one place you can is from a gtr to a tube amp. |
That's mainly due to the capacitance of the cable. Electric guitar pickups usually have a very high impedance compared to a microphone or line output, so a relatively small capacitance will roll off the high frequencies audibly.
To complicate matters further, the inductance of the pickup and the cable capacitance form a resonant circuit. The frequency of the resulting resonant peak will be different with different cables.
Post by: Jim Williams on May 29, 2009, 10:59:22 AM
| johnR wrote on Fri, 29 May 2009 05:48 | ||
That's mainly due to the capacitance of the cable. Electric guitar pickups usually have a very high impedance compared to a microphone or line output, so a relatively small capacitance will roll off the high frequencies audibly. To complicate matters further, the inductance of the pickup and the cable capacitance form a resonant circuit. The frequency of the resulting resonant peak will be different with different cables. |
This is true. A passive high impedance guitar pickup run through a couple hundred pf's of cable capacitance plus the inductance of the coils creates resonant peaks. It's a classic low pass filter function.
If I run a passive guitar into a 1 meg ohm input impedance and measure the frequency response on the Audio Precision, it shows the droop from resonance, usually around 3~5k hz. Some is caused by the loading effects of the passive volume and tone controls.
If you eliminate the cable to under 2 feet of low loss, low capacitance wire and sweep the pickups without the passive volume/tone controls one will see the actual frequency response of the pickup also showing it's self resonant peak. Those peaks will vary in Q with Fenders being on the high Q side. Typical resonant peaks of 2 to 3 db at 8 to 10k hz are normal. Once one re-inserts the passive volume/tone controls and the 20' cable, that peak is gone and response droops after 1k hz. You will not get that 8~10k hz signal to the amp. It has been absorbed, permanently. This is why all my guitars are active with low impedance outputs.
On another note, replacing 2 inches of copper/teflon wire inside of a quality condenser mic with pure solid core silver/teflon wire, the tops do open up nicely.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 29, 2009, 11:09:02 AM
As someone already mentioned, if an after market line cord makes an audible difference you have a faulty product design.
There are a few real, and many imagined phenomena around conductors that sellers tap to merchandise their wares. A lot of hyperbole. caveat emptor
JR
Post by: Bob Olhsson on May 29, 2009, 05:11:15 PM
The thing is that you don't need to spend a fortune and just adding some caps across the AC connector can often help a lot.
Post by: Dan Kennedy on May 29, 2009, 10:22:07 PM
Oh yeah, this is assuming somebody's already put an IEC connector or similar wiring scheme on the incomming line with or without filtering.
As much as I don't like extra circuitry in the way, I've become a firm believer in balanced in's, and the Pin 1 problem.
Post by: chrisdoremus on May 30, 2009, 03:26:41 AM
Post by: bruno putzeys on May 30, 2009, 09:56:14 AM
Post by: dcollins on May 30, 2009, 03:11:07 PM
| Jim Williams wrote on Fri, 29 May 2009 07:59 |
On another note, replacing 2 inches of copper/teflon wire inside of a quality condenser mic with pure solid core silver/teflon wire, the tops do open up nicely. |
Obviously the mic can't be of any quality, or the manufacturer could afford that 2" of Silver wire in the first place.
I guess they just don't care, or can't hear the difference.
DC
Post by: chrisdoremus on May 30, 2009, 05:28:54 PM
Post by: dcollins on May 30, 2009, 06:37:54 PM
| chrisdoremus wrote on Sat, 30 May 2009 14:28 |
Can anybody explain the difference that might be heard? Not trying to be snotty just really curious. |
An authoritative bottom, scintillating top, and midrange so liquid you need an oar.
And that's just with Copper.
DC
Post by: Andy Peters on May 31, 2009, 12:14:44 AM
| chrisdoremus wrote on Sat, 30 May 2009 00:26 |
What are you guys hearing???? |
"The sound of people chasing money,
and money
getting away."
(Uncle Tupelo, "Whiskey Bottle")
-a
Post by: JGreenslade on June 01, 2009, 09:11:25 AM
I kid not...
Justin
Post by: Jim Williams on June 01, 2009, 10:52:02 AM
| dcollins wrote on Sat, 30 May 2009 12:11 | ||
Obviously the mic can't be of any quality, or the manufacturer could afford that 2" of Silver wire in the first place. I guess they just don't care, or can't hear the difference. DC |
Neumann, AKG, Beyer, etc. all use copper/teflon wire. They can afford the silver, but they don't think you care enough to demand it. So copper it is. The bean counters like copper.
For doubting Tom's, just drop $12 for a foot of Kimber Black Pearls, put it in and report back, I have.
Post by: EP on June 01, 2009, 11:24:09 AM
Regarding the mic cable mod (mentioned earlier in this thread- and yes it is not referring to power cables...) it would be nice if this improvement could be correlated to the change in the circuit in a tangible way. I'm inclined to be more concerned with wire in the case of mics and phono cartridges due to their natures but still it should be a matter of measurements, no? So what opens up the top end with silver wire? (and I'm not baiting, this is a serious question).
Cheers,
Erik
PS: one of the brands my store sells was notorious for supplying only modest (by hifi standards) cables for all their gear. Now they have changed their tune and are selling a $700 powercord
Its become the favorite tweak at the shop. I took one apart. hmm.
Post by: dcollins on June 01, 2009, 05:48:38 PM
| JGreenslade wrote on Mon, 01 June 2009 06:11 |
The World's Best USB Cable, Made Specifically for Audio! I kid not... |
Don't ridicule just because you can't hear the difference.
Where is the audiophile USB receiver chip set?
DC
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 01, 2009, 09:45:30 PM
| chrisdoremus wrote on Sat, 30 May 2009 16:28 |
Can anybody explain the difference that might be heard? Not trying to be snotty just really curious. |
I think the example Bruno was trying to give of an interconnect company who twisted their power cable but not their audio lines, was that twisting the power cable would reduce the magnetic field generated that could interfere with the audio lines.
A faulty signal interface like poorly shielded cables could likewise be more susceptible to noise coming from a power cord.
I am inclined to suggest that the entire class of two circuit audio interfaces used by typical hifi gear is compromised since at least one conductor can be corrupted by shield and or ground noise current.
In that environment a shielded line cord might help a susceptible design, but adding a shield to a line cord doesn't cost $1000, or $100. Anyone charging that much is capitalizing on consumer's ignorance,
JR
Post by: volki on June 02, 2009, 08:45:26 AM
Here we go...POWER CABLE:
Here, the problem is power noise making it's way through to the audio lines. Can either be the rubbish superimposed on our 50Hz/60Hz power sine, leaking through a device's PSU into the audio circuit - or both noise and the sine itself (the latter labelled as "hum" in this case) coupling from the mains into audio cables.
-- Special power cables simply inserted between mains outlet and gear will not make a difference in a balanced environment with a good wiring scheme, since the major noise contribution is coming from outside the studio, and a piece of passive cable will do nothing to remove it before it enters your gear's PSU.
-- In an environment with unbalanced lines and/or poor wiring scheme, you may get coupling of AC hum & noise into your audio lines, thus a special power cord migh help if it is twisted-pair, wich reduces the electromagnetic field.
-- If you have a central power conditioning device in your studio (reducing incoming noise), a special power cable between that device and your gear might prevent noise from within your studio from contaminating your (now relatively clean) mains power - and thus from entering your gear's PSU. Depending on the functional scheme of the power conditioner, you may however not notice an improvement by fancy cable if the conditioner filters both incoming mains AND the output to your studio.
Bottom line: Special power cabling may have an effect in audio systems containing compromised (or at least non-optimal) wiring or gear's PSU's, but it's rather unlikely to improve systems containing properly designed gear and wiring schemes in the first place.
AUDIO CABLE:
Here, the main problem is a possible degradation in sound quality due to interaction of devices' output- and input impedance (Z) with the cable's parasitic impedances (= ohmic resistance, inductance, capacitance).
-- High impedance sources, especially those with inductive components as found in pickups (e.g. guitars, basses, rhodes pianos etc.) will interact heavily with the cable capacitance, with effects already explained in this thread. The less cable capacitance, the shorter the cable, and the higher the i/p Z of the following device, the more of the original HF content will be transmitted.
-- The lower Z.in & Z.out, the disproportionally longer a cable would have to be for the cable capacitance to sum up to an amount as to produce an audible HF roll-off. For a roll-off at 20KHz in a low impedance line (Z.out < 50 R, Z.in < 1K), this would have to be around 100m for a good quality cable.
-- With cable runs as long as described above, transformer-coupled gear (= a good deal of the Z being inductive), even though low-impedance, may exhibit HF peaks, due to the mechanism described for high Z lines. Depends on the individual transformer construction, though.
-- The resistive part of a cable's impedance is negligible for mic/line/instrument applications, since Z.in/out of the connected devices form the dominant parts in this respect.
A side-note to noise rejection of audio cables regarding construction of twisted pair and shielding:
--The level of CMRR is mainly provided by the i/p & o/p devices, but may be affected by the cable to some degree. The higher the ratio of twists (of the hot&cold leads) per length unit, the less the degrading of CMRR by the cable. Beyond a certain point, though, this becomes economically unjustifiable
--In areas with high RFI, noise might enter through the cable into devices with high impedance internal circuits (e.g. tube mic's) although their Z.out itself is medium (around 200 R). Therefore, even around the 1950/60ies, e.g. manufacturers like Neumann came up with a double shielded cable, with the two shield layers being woven differently.
PS.
Jim, regarding your 2 inch wire replacement in condenser mic's -- that would have to be between capsule and fet/tube input? So you're talking about the dielectric properties of the cable's insulation, with the capacitive parts formed by the wire and the metal surroundings that the cable runs through?
Regards
Post by: volki on June 02, 2009, 08:48:55 AM
A good read in this regard is: Giddings, "Audio Systems Design & Installation", together with white papers on grounding & shielding by guys like Bill Whitlock (Jensen) et al.
Post by: Jim Williams on June 02, 2009, 11:36:39 AM
| volki wrote on Tue, 02 June 2009 05:45 |
Jim, regarding your 2 inch wire replacement in condenser mic's -- that would have to be between capsule and fet/tube input? So you're talking about the dielectric properties of the cable's insulation, with the capacitive parts formed by the wire and the metal surroundings that the cable runs through? Regards |
Yes and yes. The Kimber uses 10,000 volt high purity teflon insulation. It's drawn over the wire creating a vacuum seal to keep oxygen out. I'm careful to route it away from metal surfaces. Most mics have a route allowing that. All flux and oils are removed and a non-conformal polystyrene coating is applied afterwards. Some customers after hearing silver wire request it on other mics. They hear the difference and are willing to pay for it.
Post by: EP on June 02, 2009, 01:29:09 PM
Erik
Post by: Andy Peters on June 03, 2009, 01:33:36 AM
| JGreenslade wrote on Mon, 01 June 2009 06:11 |
The World's Best USB Cable, Made Specifically for Audio! I kid not... |
And if it's not built according to the USB spec, it's not a USB cable.
Such baloney.
-a
Post by: mukul on June 03, 2009, 02:07:48 AM
| Jim Williams wrote on Tue, 02 June 2009 21:06 |
... The Kimber uses 10,000 volt high purity teflon insulation. It's drawn over the wire creating a vacuum seal to keep oxygen out. ... |
Jim,
I have to say this - many people (even cable manufacturers) are not specific which Teflon they are referring to. DuPont uses Teflon brand name for its PTFE (Poly Tetra Fluoro Ethylene), for FEP (Fluorinated Ethylene Propylene), as well as for PFA (Per Fluoro Alcoxy). The 3 thermo-plastics have very different dielectric properties, processing methods and applications. For most audio signal purposes, I would think PTFE is the best (low dielectric constant, low dissipation factor, very high volume & surface resistivities), even though FEP is sometimes used.
If "10,000 volt teflon insulation" refers to its break-down voltage (BDV), yes, even 0.010" (0.25 mm) radial wall thickness of PTFE insulation will have BDV in excess of 10,000 volts, less or more depending on insulation thickness. But, is BDV of much relevance in this discussion?
As regards keeping oxygen out when processing insulation over the wire, every well-made wire should be so. Something I have said before in another thread, in my 23 years' experience of putting PTFE insulation over Silver Plated copper conductors, I have never come across tarnished silver plating when I strip the insulation years, even decades, later.
Regards.
Mukul
Post by: bruno putzeys on June 03, 2009, 05:54:33 AM
@Jim, you're talking about condenser mic wiring but no mention of insulation resistance. Any chance that this, and not all that oxygen talk might be important?
In my younger days I used to scavenge parts from military equipment from the 50's that had lain exposed to the elements for over two decades. The silver plating under the insulation (both FEP and PTFE) was still absolutely pristine. So I don't think Kimber has invented hot water. He might've invented bottled hot water though, for all I know. I mean, unshielded unbalanced "interconnects", "Audiophile USB cable"...
Post by: volki on June 03, 2009, 08:47:39 AM
@Jim: What would interest me is the difference of overall capacitance of capsule plus wire - meaning, capsule + standard wire vs. capsule + teflon/silver wire. Have you ever performed such measurement in situ?
Measuring just the cable wouldn't yield precise results, since the mere placement of the cable / proximity of other metal parts may already mean a few pF change in capacitance...
Post by: dcollins on June 03, 2009, 06:37:57 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 03 June 2009 02:54 |
He might've invented bottled hot water though, for all I know. I mean, unshielded unbalanced "interconnects", "Audiophile USB cable"... |
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_ id=46&pagestring=Signal+in+an+Audio+Cable
DC
Post by: Andy Peters on June 03, 2009, 11:47:40 PM
| dcollins wrote on Wed, 03 June 2009 15:37 | ||
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_ id=46&pagestring=Signal+in+an+Audio+Cable |
Some problems with that ...
First, those 'scope traces don't have any scale markings, so who knows what kind of signal he's putting into his wire?
Second, he says, "In a matched propagation conductor, the signal's speed is matched to the speed of the dielectric and like the boat illustrated below, leaves little wake turbulence." The only problem here is that at audio frequencies, we don't use matched impedances -- outputs are low impedance and inputs are high impedance, a bridging condition for best voltage transfer. So while an unterminated transmission line does some really ugly things, none of it is relevant.
And the rest of his web site is typical audiophool nonsense, about cable break-in, "golden ratio constant 'Q' stranding" in cables, cable resonance, etc. All bullshit.
-a
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on June 04, 2009, 01:15:06 AM
| Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 03 June 2009 23:47 |
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_ id=46&pagestring=Signal+in+an+Audio+Cable Some problems with that ... First, those 'scope traces don't have any scale markings, so who knows what kind of signal he's putting into his wire? |
Well. It's a pulse, though we don't know the time scale. Still,
it shouldn't matter as long as the only thing that changed between scopings was the interconnect, right? (:
| Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 03 June 2009 23:47 |
Second, he says, "In a matched propagation conductor, the signal's speed is matched to the speed of the dielectric and like the boat illustrated below, leaves little wake turbulence." The only problem here is that at audio frequencies, we don't use matched impedances... |
Your zeal to quash audiophoolery has you swatting at harmless flies. We no longer use impedance matching, since no one can find good 600 Ohm interconnect anymore (;. But even George will admit that we do use _voltage_ matching. His video on cable resonance in rising impedance networks reveals this much...
Nevertheless, it reads to me as if the "matching" Cardas is referring to (whether or not he deserves ridicule for it) is the matching between the speed of the parallel capacitance to ground (allowed by the dielectric) and the speed of serial propagation of the signal (one electron to another) along the conductor . Both will always be slower than Einstein's "c." When the parallel path severely lags the direct (serial) path, you get the pictured ringing (or "turbulence"). This is how it reads to me. This is why he writes about the "matched propagation conductor." This is different from a "matched propagation network."
| Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 03 June 2009 23:47 |
And the rest of his web site is typical audiophool nonsense, about cable break-in, "golden ratio constant 'Q' stranding" in cables, cable resonance, etc. All bullshit. |
Have you tried the Golden cuboid speaker position formula? It might read like hoodoo, but it seems to work, nicely. At least it's based on math, standing wave theory, and the time-honored equi-lateral triangle monitor/listener configuration.
Oh, and I thought stranding was a good thing for speaker cable...
Andrew
Post by: JGreenslade on June 04, 2009, 07:42:29 AM
| dcollins wrote on Mon, 01 June 2009 22:48 | ||
Don't ridicule just because you can't hear the difference. Where is the audiophile USB receiver chip set? DC |
I'll have you know I can hear a difference. I can even give an objective appraisal of how it sounds...
...ker-ching!
Justin
Post by: JGreenslade on June 04, 2009, 07:47:00 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 03 June 2009 10:54 |
It's amazing the sort of subject that gets people posting... @Jim, you're talking about condenser mic wiring but no mention of insulation resistance. Any chance that this, and not all that oxygen talk might be important? In my younger days I used to scavenge parts from military equipment from the 50's that had lain exposed to the elements for over two decades. The silver plating under the insulation (both FEP and PTFE) was still absolutely pristine. So I don't think Kimber has invented hot water. He might've invented bottled hot water though, for all I know. I mean, unshielded unbalanced "interconnects", "Audiophile USB cable"... |
His partners here in the UK certainly have managed to 'invent' some interest amongst the Advertising Standards Authority with regards to how Kimber products are promoted: http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44177. htm
(we've covered the above link before - just thought I'd post it here for anyone unaware)
Justin
Post by: Jim Williams on June 04, 2009, 10:38:01 AM
| volki wrote on Wed, 03 June 2009 05:47 |
while we're at it... @Jim: What would interest me is the difference of overall capacitance of capsule plus wire - meaning, capsule + standard wire vs. capsule + teflon/silver wire. Have you ever performed such measurement in situ? Measuring just the cable wouldn't yield precise results, since the mere placement of the cable / proximity of other metal parts may already mean a few pF change in capacitance... |
If the wire is dressed away from metal surfaces and to other wires, wire capacitance is extremely low. I couldn't measure that without specialized test rigs as it would probably be 1 pf or less added capacitance = not important. It also does not address the existing capacitance generated by the original teflon/copper wire. Insulation resistance is as good as it gets with PTFE teflon. FEP teflon is not as good and is found in less expensive cable. In this application, the wire is more important than the insulation.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 04, 2009, 12:39:49 PM
| Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 04 June 2009 09:38 | ||
If the wire is dressed away from metal surfaces and to other wires, wire capacitance is extremely low. I couldn't measure that without specialized test rigs as it would probably be 1 pf or less added capacitance = not important. It also does not address the existing capacitance generated by the original teflon/copper wire. Insulation resistance is as good as it gets with PTFE teflon. FEP teflon is not as good and is found in less expensive cable. In this application, the wire is more important than the insulation. |
You state that it isn't capacitance. Presumably this wire is located in a relatively high impedance circuit node where currents should be small so wire conductivity should likewise have small effect.
If it isn't capacitance, or some charge related interaction with the wire's insulation, what do you think the mechanism is for your reported sonic difference?
Is the wire somehow part of the mechanical system so physical properties of the wire might matter?
Just curious.
JR
Post by: David Bock on June 04, 2009, 03:15:04 PM
| Quote: |
Is the wire somehow part of the mechanical system so physical properties of the wire might matter? |
yes. there are commercial examples of this all around. the Communist CMV mics share an M7 capsule with Neumann counterparts and sound nothing alike. I'm citing this as a gross example, and yes, I know the amplifiers are different etc so don't waste any words criticizing that but the mechanical systems at play in an LDC are critical, wire included. I've done the research.
Post by: bruno putzeys on June 04, 2009, 05:08:15 PM
Post by: Jim Williams on June 05, 2009, 10:11:32 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 04 June 2009 14:08 |
Interesting suggestion, dbock. @Jim: were you referring to center fed capsules too? |
Those and ring connected capsules, it really doesn't matter. The pure silver is the sonic difference that I hear over copper. As usual, it's just one of those things you have to check out yourself to understand. The differences are not hard to hear. Some customers after trying it request it for each mic. I trust their reaction as well. With the feeble signal coming off a capacitor transducer a 7% improvement in conductivity should be audible.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 05, 2009, 02:09:46 PM
| Jim Williams wrote on Fri, 05 June 2009 09:11 |
Those and ring connected capsules, it really doesn't matter. The pure silver is the sonic difference that I hear over copper. As usual, it's just one of those things you have to check out yourself to understand. The differences are not hard to hear. Some customers after trying it request it for each mic. I trust their reaction as well. With the feeble signal coming off a capacitor transducer a 7% improvement in conductivity should be audible. |
For the sake of understanding is that 7% change in conductivity relative to the wire you replaced? If wiki is to be trusted the nominal difference for equal cross sectional area is < 6% and presumably well less than 1dB for simple amplitude change.
How is this audible to you? It isn't obvious to me that 7% change in conductivity should be so plainly audible.
JR
Post by: Andy Peters on June 06, 2009, 02:22:06 AM
Of course you all should own copies of both. Just sayin'.
Milling through the grinder, and grinding through the mill,
-a
Post by: volki on June 06, 2009, 07:09:26 AM
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 06, 2009, 05:27:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Flag
JR
Post by: dcollins on June 06, 2009, 05:34:18 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 05 June 2009 23:22 |
At the risk of dragging this thread down, I should point out that anyone with even modestly-functioning ears can tell the difference between Wire's Pink Flag elpee and their later Ideal Copy. |
Is the difference due to the Vp of the cables in use?
DC
Post by: Darius van H on June 06, 2009, 06:13:40 PM
Post by: dcollins on June 06, 2009, 06:55:46 PM
| Darius van H wrote on Sat, 06 June 2009 15:13 |
All this tech talk is complete japanese to me - but i always find it interesting that these "differences" are usually "not subtle" or "night & day" or whatever...........i never see anyone saying: "the difference, if any, was extremely small and it could also be that i imagined it" |
Or:
"My mod was worse than stock, the original designers must have known what they were doing."
DC
Post by: Andy Peters on June 07, 2009, 12:38:12 AM
| dcollins wrote on Sat, 06 June 2009 14:34 | ||
Is the difference due to the Vp of the cables in use? |
No, the songs were longer on the later material.
-a
Post by: bruno putzeys on June 07, 2009, 02:49:34 AM
| Darius van H wrote on Sun, 07 June 2009 00:13 |
All this tech talk is complete japanese to me - but i always find it interesting that these "differences" are usually "not subtle" or "night & day" or whatever...........i never see anyone saying: "the difference, if any, was extremely small and it could also be that i imagined it" |
It's something I find myself reporting quite often. I don't always have the time for a proper DBT but I do keep mindful of how large a difference a five minute break makes to perceived quality and anything smaller than that gets ruthlessly classified as "below the psychology barrier". If I really must know whether something makes a small but real difference (as in a bypass test), it's worth organising a controlled test anyway.
Anyone used to "day and night differences" should do the following: run a 1.5 minute snippet of orchestral music three times back to back. Have 5 minutes silence. Rerun the music. Guaranteed better defined stereo image, more fluid, less distorted sound. Etc.
| dcollins wrote on Sun, 07 June 2009 00:55 |
Or: "My mod was worse than stock, the original designers must have known what they were doing." DC |
That's happened a few times too, having to take back a mod because the result wasn't to my liking.
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 07, 2009, 11:55:21 AM
I have the best listening system ever!
Barry
Post by: David Bock on June 07, 2009, 05:39:09 PM
| Quote: |
Darius van H wrote on Sun, 07 June 2009 00:13 All this tech talk is complete japanese to me - but i always find it interesting that these "differences" are usually "not subtle" or "night & day" or whatever...........i never see anyone saying: "the difference, if any, was extremely small and it could also be that i imagined it" |
Ummm.....true it doesn't make the headlines but I have seen it happen, but only by the most educated users.
| Quote: |
dcollins wrote on Sun, 07 June 2009 00:55 Or: "My mod was worse than stock, the original designers must have known what they were doing." DC |
Post by: zmix on June 08, 2009, 11:33:34 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Sat, 06 June 2009 02:22 |
At the risk of dragging this thread down, I should point out that anyone with even modestly-functioning ears can tell the difference between Wire's Pink Flag elpee and their later Ideal Copy. Of course you all should own copies of both. Just sayin'. Milling through the grinder, and grinding through the mill, -a |
Well, I've always felt that there was a greater difference between Pink Flag and 154, though both were produced by Mike Thorne...
Post by: Larrchild on June 12, 2009, 09:52:08 AM
Post by: MDM, on June 13, 2009, 10:16:20 AM
I believe that the problem lies in the fact that the thin strands which are bunched up are connected to each other because they are touching but they are subject to false contact throughout the length of the wire, because of oxidization, dirt and other reasons.
in the end, you get the sum of the various contact-distortion caused by each individual strand.
you can hear this on old guitar cables which 'crunch' when you handle them.
solid copper does not have these problems
I have yet to try silver but I probably will.
one very quick way of hearing a difference in imaging when changing wire on speakers is to try ordinary phone wire, or multi strand phone wire..
you can also wire three or four (or more) insulated phone wires in parallel to get a lower impedance.
I've found that it is superior to run-of-the-mill multi-strand 'speaker wire'
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 13, 2009, 12:03:49 PM
| MDM, wrote on Sat, 13 June 2009 09:16 |
the big difference in my experience is to stay away from multi-strand wire. I believe that the problem lies in the fact that the thin strands which are bunched up are connected to each other because they are touching but they are subject to false contact throughout the length of the wire, because of oxidization, dirt and other reasons. in the end, you get the sum of the various contact-distortion caused by each individual strand. you can hear this on old guitar cables which 'crunch' when you handle them. solid copper does not have these problems I have yet to try silver but I probably will. one very quick way of hearing a difference in imaging when changing wire on speakers is to try ordinary phone wire, or multi strand phone wire.. you can also wire three or four (or more) insulated phone wires in parallel to get a lower impedance. I've found that it is superior to run-of-the-mill multi-strand 'speaker wire' |
NO..
When doing your personal experiments, make sure the different wires you are comparing have the exact same DC resistance or you may be creating audible frequency response variations due to the impedance of the loudspeaker, forming a simple divider with the impedance of the wire.
This isn't really unexplored ground. Behavior in and around electrical conductors have been very well understood for a very long time.
JR
Post by: zmix on June 13, 2009, 04:01:15 PM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Sat, 13 June 2009 12:03 |
....this isn't really unexplored ground. |
Post by: Jim Williams on June 14, 2009, 11:43:01 AM
JR
[/quote]
Years ago the AES had an article on speaker wire and sonic diffences. They used lot's of stuff to listen to and test. They even included 12 awg auto battery cables!
The winner was a 32 strand data cable of solid core copper (no silver wire was evaluated in the article).
Interested readers should look it up.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 14, 2009, 04:06:47 PM
| Jim Williams wrote on Sun, 14 June 2009 10:43 | ||
Years ago the AES had an article on speaker wire and sonic diffences. They used lot's of stuff to listen to and test. They even included 12 awg auto battery cables! The winner was a 32 strand data cable of solid core copper (no silver wire was evaluated in the article). Interested readers should look it up. |
I dedicated one of my "Audio Mythology" columns back in the '80s to the subject of speaker wire and as I recall I referenced an AES Journal Paper by Greiner http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2892
My recollection from his paper was that it was simple DCR and zip cord was just as good as funny wire.
Are you thinking of a different paper, since I don't recall anything remotely like that from his paper?
I am too lazy to dig out my original of his AES paper and too cheap to buy it, From a later BAS article
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ocuog58vu-oJ:www.bostona udiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-08-07-8004.pdf+aes+journal+spe aker+wire+Greiner&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
starting on page 25
| From BAS |
These data support our original contention that a speaker cable should be as large as possibleto minimize resistive losses, constructed in such a way as to minimize capacitance, and as shortas possible. Regular No. 12 or No. 10 stranded wire fits this description well |
JR
Post by: Tomas Danko on June 14, 2009, 04:19:54 PM
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Sun, 14 June 2009 21:06 | ||||||
I dedicated one of my "Audio Mythology" columns back in the '80s to the subject of speaker wire and as I recall I referenced an AES Journal Paper by Greiner http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2892 My recollection from his paper was that it was simple DCR and zip cord was just as good as funny wire. Are you thinking of a different paper, since I don't recall anything remotely like that from his paper? I am too lazy to dig out my original of his AES paper and too cheap to buy it, From a later BAS article http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ocuog58vu-oJ:www.bostona udiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-08-07-8004.pdf+aes+journal+spe aker+wire+Greiner&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us starting on page 25
JR |
Dan Lavry once took some time to spend figuring out some similar issues, and you can read about it here:
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/3979/2699/
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 14, 2009, 05:50:53 PM
Some myths are hard to kill when there are companies that profit so handsomely from consumer ignorance. These companies promote these myths out of simple self interest and are rewarded for their duplicitous misdirection.
It is much harder to get wealthy selling generic zip cord, and consumers don't enjoy learning that they were fooled.
JR
PS: Now horsey just stay dead, and well stop flogging you.
Post by: bruno putzeys on June 15, 2009, 03:17:24 AM
Post by: xpulsar on June 20, 2009, 03:50:10 AM
This question Always gets everyone going. I constantly have a back a forth about overpriced cable with the studio owner I work for. Based on many of my own experiences that almost all of the other things in your signal path make up most of the quality of what your are hearing.(I.E. Acoustics,Mic,Pre,Recorder,Mixer,amp,speaker,Acoustics).
I simply cannot believe that spending $300 and up on 3 meteres of inter connect cable will make enough of a difference over putting that money towards improvements in : (Acoustics,Mic,Pre,Recorder,Mixer,amp,speakers,Acoustics.
-Collin
Post by: Jim Williams on June 20, 2009, 10:43:24 AM
Then again, after one has done all they can to improve circuits, power supplies, etc, the wire is last. Then it becomes important. Wire changes make little differences in low end audio gear.
Post by: EP on June 20, 2009, 01:08:54 PM
| Jim Williams wrote on Sat, 20 June 2009 07:43 |
-snip- Wire changes make little differences in low end audio gear. |
The beguiling thing is that basically the exact opposite has already been stated here by those taking say 'the other side of the argument'. (ie that wire may alter a poorly designed, 'low-end', audio circuit or interface but is irrelevant in a high-end well implemented audio circuit or interface). That's why these threads get so much action...
Erik
Post by: bruno putzeys on June 21, 2009, 01:29:40 PM
The first camp will say that what matters is the kind of conductor and insulator, and never mention how the construction might be involved in determining the circuit parameters of the cable.
The second camp says that what matters most is the electrical/electromagnetic behaviour of the cable (and perhaps electromechanical too), as resulting from the actual geometry and basic physics, and might note that material properties hardly figure in the equations.
The first camp will indeed conclude that if the material makes the sound, the difference between two cables will always be the same regardless of the context in which they're used, in which case you won't be able to hear it through a low-quality signal chain. Usually they won't be able to say what the physical specifications of the conductor and insulator are other than directly concluding (for no apparent reason) that they have to be solid-core silver with "teflon" .
By contrast, having identified the relevant parameters, the second camp will note that good circuit design can immunise equipment against most types of interference coming in via a less than perfectly constructed cable. Usually they'll also be able to say exactly what those design techniques are and why they work.
Had expensive equipment necessarily always been well-designed, and cheap equipment badly done, the issue would've been settled long ago. However, it is precisely boutique gear that often flouts proper design practice, and a significant fraction of mastering studios use unbalanced wiring "for reasons of minimalism". Go figure.
Post by: Kees de Visser on July 09, 2009, 03:54:56 AM
I don't know the origin of the pictures. It could be an older version since this model looks a bit different on the transparentcable.com website.
FYI, their speaker cable retail prices vary between $200 and $43000.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on July 09, 2009, 10:31:56 AM
JR
Post by: KSTR on July 09, 2009, 06:28:41 PM
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6453/biwiringad2modemfd8. jpg
Post by: David Bock on July 11, 2009, 02:47:47 PM
Post by: KSTR on July 11, 2009, 08:45:50 PM
This RC, when it sits at the speaker end of the cable, can function (if properly designed and the speaker doesn't spoil it) as a RF termination of the cable. An unterminated cable happens to be sort of a "chaotic" impededance at RF as it cycles from inductive to capacitive behaviour all the time above a certain frequency -- and the capacitive part is the problem, the equivalent peak value can be much higher that the lumped capacitance value of the cable. Now some HiFi-Amps don't like capacitance at their output and if you have bad luck then just a certain length of the cable will load the amp capacitvely at frequencies where it doesn't like that at all, putting the amp on the edge of oscillation, which might indeed affect the sound of the amp. With that RC installed the amps sees a benign RF load and may sound different. Of course the real problem is the amp's construction, but the effect as it manifests itself to the user is that this amp will sound different with certain cables.
This was discussed at DIYaudio.com:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1343565 #post1343565
The topic continues over the next few pages, with occasional breaks as the original thread topic was different, my main contribution is the following post:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1345824 #post1345824
For non-DIYaudio members I attach the plot I've shown there.
- Klaus
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 12, 2009, 12:06:57 AM
For people such as myself, would you explain what is being shown in the graph?
Thank you,
Barry
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on July 12, 2009, 11:04:51 AM
| KSTR wrote on Sat, 11 July 2009 19:45 |
IHMO that cable is a perfect example how to "sound" a cable (that is, the complete system of amp+cable+loudpeaker) under a given speciific condition. This RC, when it sits at the speaker end of the cable, can function (if properly designed and the speaker doesn't spoil it) as a RF termination of the cable. An unterminated cable happens to be sort of a "chaotic" impededance at RF as it cycles from inductive to capacitive behaviour all the time above a certain frequency -- and the capacitive part is the problem, the equivalent peak value can be much higher that the lumped capacitance value of the cable. Now some HiFi-Amps don't like capacitance at their output and if you have bad luck then just a certain length of the cable will load the amp capacitvely at frequencies where it doesn't like that at all, putting the amp on the edge of oscillation, which might indeed affect the sound of the amp. With that RC installed the amps sees a benign RF load and may sound different. Of course the real problem is the amp's construction, but the effect as it manifests itself to the user is that this amp will sound different with certain cables. Klaus |
If I understand your post.. This wire treatment to properly terminate speaker wire at RF, is to mitigate the (capacitive) loading impact on amp designs that are unstable at those RF.
Having some exposure to amplifier design, if an amp sounds different with different speaker wire, IMO the amp is defective (Same goes for line cords, etc). Prudent amplifier designers routinely bench test amps with capacitive (and inductive) loads well in excess of that expected from good loads and wire. For the last couple decades we also test for what we might encounter from oddball speaker wire and even poorly designed speaker crossovers.
JR
PS: Thanks for the links it was nice to see Bob Cordell is still active. He is (IMO) also worth listening to (and reading).
Post by: KSTR on July 12, 2009, 12:05:50 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 11 July 2009 23:06 |
Klaus, For people such as myself, would you explain what is being shown in the graph? |
), but with an RF impedance analyzer one will see what's really going on which surely would be close -- and that has been done by people.@John:
One problem that can still arise with bench testing is that one can happen to miss that specific problematic capacitance, unless you have close enough spacing between the tested values. A 1-3-10 or 1-2-5-10 ratio sequence could easlily miss that critical values. This is a place where simulations can come handy and today's delevopers ususally have pretty good sims of their amps generated and optimized by "iterative feedback" from sims-vs.-measurements cycles.
Of course I completely agree that any amp shall not be sensitive to any reasonable cable parameters, but in "HiEnd" realms this is not always the case.
- Klaus
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on July 12, 2009, 12:22:28 PM
| KSTR wrote on Sun, 12 July 2009 11:05 |
@John: One problem that can still arise with bench testing is that one can happen to miss that specific problematic capacitance, unless you have close enough spacing between the tested values. A 1-3-10 or 1-2-5-10 ratio sequence could easlily miss that critical values. This is a place where simulations can come handy and today's delevopers ususally have pretty good sims of their amps generated and optimized by "iterative feedback" from sims-vs.-measurements cycles. Of course I completely agree that any amp shall not be sensitive to any reasonable cable parameters, but in "HiEnd" realms this is not always the case. - Klaus |
Another reason I have avoided audio esoterica for decades.
Many high power amplifiers include an inductor in series with the output to isolate load capacitance from the amplifier's HF feedback path.
Another real issue is to protect amplifiers from speaker wires acting like antennas and pumping RF back onto the amplifier via the output end of the feedback network. Again this is known to those skilled in amplifier design. As long as we avoid rectification there are no audible artifacts.
JR
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 12, 2009, 12:44:13 PM
| KSTR wrote on Sun, 12 July 2009 11:05 | ||
Hi,
), but with an RF impedance analyzer one will see what's really going on which surely would be close -- and that has been done by people.@John: One problem that can still arise with bench testing is that one can happen to miss that specific problematic capacitance, unless you have close enough spacing between the tested values. A 1-3-10 or 1-2-5-10 ratio sequence could easlily miss that critical values. This is a place where simulations can come handy and today's delevopers ususally have pretty good sims of their amps generated and optimized by "iterative feedback" from sims-vs.-measurements cycles. Of course I completely agree that any amp shall not be sensitive to any reasonable cable parameters, but in "HiEnd" realms this is not always the case. - Klaus |
Thank you Klaus. Most (if not all)of the people participating in this thread are capable of a much deeper discussion than I. I appreciate the education and the possibility of keeping up with what's being said.
Barry