Which speaker cable should I ........

[MAL01]

Originally Posted by ryan4blu

[ryan4blu]

Originally Posted by MAL01

[MAL01]

Originally Posted by ryan4blu

:d

[ryan4blu]

Originally Posted by MAL01

:d

so is this person going to get a kick out of this thread??

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by rwojtalewicz

Those products do help in cable management but are extremely expensive.

You can buy on the web a 100 ft, 200 ft, etc. spool of 14 gauge in-wall speaker cable having 4 separate 14 gauge conductors and terminate the ends with the connectors of your choice like banana plugs, spades, etc.

You can make the cables the exact length that you need which will also make cable management much easier.

You'll save a lot of $$ that way.

That thought had occurred to me but.... I've tried that with my current cables(AR 12awg w/bananas) and I think I've done a lousy job. Although they sound OK, they look horrible(not finished well). I guess I'm not a DIY'er. This is the main reason I'm looking into pre-fab cables

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by D_M

I have $30 Blue Jeans ICs next to $1000 Cardas ICs and I can't tell the difference audibly. There's your answer.

So the reason for spending $1000 was................

[D_M]

Originally Posted by ryan4blu

so why did spend $1000 on those cardas speaker cables if you thought they sound the same as regular 14 gauge wire?

I bought them years ago before my 'education'. This is all that matters in cables: resistance (R), capacitance (C), and inductance (L).

[D_M]

Here's another post I put on another thread:



The following is a mailing list posting by John Dunlavy, a well known audio designer. I stashed a copy of this posting because I wanted to cite it in my stereo equipment page, and at the time there were no good repository of the mailing list or usenet articles that was accessible via a stable URL. I would suggest you check out audio postings by dunlavy for even more information.
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:08:50 -0500
From: 102365.2026@compuserve.com (Dunlavy Audio Labs)
To: bass@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu (bass group)
Subject: Cable Nonsense (Long)

Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.

To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophile applications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.

The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.

Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).

While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) --- Caveat Emptor!

For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.

Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier - not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!

Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect - which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe - if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest!

Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.

Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist - if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc.

Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!)

So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve - in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize.

Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.

I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.

Best regards,
John Dunlavy

[D_M]

Here's another good one:

Dispelling audio myths, the cable lie


By: Sander Sassen

Audio, but especially high-end audio comes with its own strong following, and unlike with computers, where absurd performance claims can easily be debunked by running a set of benchmarks, there are no such benchmarks in audio. That is unfortunate as many manufacturers of audio equipment fool people into buying equipment or accessories based on claims that are simply false and in many cases blatant lies. Granted, that is a pretty bold claim to make on my behalf; but rest assured that I don not make such claims lightly. Unlike many of these manufacturer's customers I have a sound grasp of the underlying physics as I took the trouble of completing a Master's degree in electronics engineering.

Take cables for example, although there is some truth to buying good quality cables of sufficient gauge instead of hooking all your loudspeakers up with telephone cable, that is about as much as there is to it. The simple truth is that resistance (R), capacitance (C), and inductance (L) per foot and the length of cable used are the only parameters that have any effect in the audible spectrum, 20Hz to 20KHz, for which these cables are used. Other parameters that could affect the signal as it propagates through the cable, such as the often mentioned skin-effect, only come into effect at frequencies several magnitudes above this range, hence have no effect at all. The capacitance and inductance of generic speaker cables is neglectable, so only resistance will play a role. Therefore a good rule of thumb is that for runs up to 10-feet a 2x1.5mm^2 cable will do just fine, up to 50-feet 2x2.5mm^2 is sufficient, and for longer runs 2x4.0mm^2 is required.

And that is just for speaker cables, do not even get me started on interlinks, and especially digital interlinks meant to connect the digital output of a CD/DVD player to an amplifier. The digital signal is comprised of 0s and 1s, and all that you should care about is that these arrive at the other end of the cable in the same order as they were sent, regardless of whether you use a short two foot cable, or a 100-foot cable reel. That is the beauty and strength of digital; it takes a lot of parameters out of the equation, the quality of the cable being one of them. Therefore 0s and 1s are inherently incapable of being affected by cables in the signal path. But how about analog interlinks? Well, in essence the same applies as with speaker cables. A good rule of thumb is to use double shielded coaxial cable, with both a wire mesh and foil and a solid copper or tinned copper conductor. These are the same cables used for TV or satellite reception and hence work well up to several hundred MHz.

So the next time you are shopping for a set of speakers cables and the sales clerk recommends these brand X cables that feature pure silver strands, 99.999% pure oxygen free copper and Teflon insulation which have gotten rave reviews in a number of magazines think twice. You can also invite the salesman to do a double blind test, where someone else switches the cables for generic 2x1.5mm^2 cables and nothing else is changed about the system, not even the volume it plays at. You will notice that neither you nor he will be able to tell the difference, and that is not because you need a more expensive system to appreciate the qualities of these cables, but simply because there is no difference, period.

[D_M]

Here's a good article on resonance:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...able-resonance

[D_M]

So what have we learned from all of this?

* Some salesmen at hifi shops either have the education of a Looney Tunes character or the ethics of a sleazy used car salesman (or both)
* High end cables offer huge profit margins
* Audiophiles tend to be gullible and, thankfully, some have spouses to keep them practical.

Remember this lessen whenever you’re shopping for cables - there is an audiophool born every minute and an exotic cable vendor just waiting to lure them to their pot of gold. Don’t be fooled by the audio Leprechaun salesman, do your homework and read our cable articles before taking a fruitless journey to the end of a rainbow.

http://www.audioholics.com/education...e-about-cables

[D_M]

"A wire resistance of less than 5% of the nominal speaker impedance is chosen to work well with almost all speaker systems and can be considered conservative. Even a resistance of less than 10% of the nominal value could be used with some speakers and would not be audible. " -Roger Russel

[D_M]

This website is good for a good chuckle:

http://s88932719.onlinehome.us/audio_bs.htm

[Johnny Vinyl]

My my D_M! You're certainly on a roll here this morning!

John

[D_M]

lol hey John! Sorry couldn't help myself. I don't want to start a flame war, just present the other side of the coin.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by D_M

lol hey John! Sorry couldn't help myself. I don't want to start a flame war, just present the other side of the coin.

And there are always two sides to anything!

John

[D_M]

Originally Posted by John72953

And there are always two sides to anything!

John

And that's what makes life interesting! But in this case Truth is on my side.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by John72953

And there are always two sides to anything!

John

I'll second that !!

[D_M]

The 10 biggest lies in audio:

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

[kareface]

This thread makes me face palm as a physics guy. There are a few principles you could cite that would suggest that 1000$ cables might be better, but it would be less then 10% of a db's difference in sound. I'll direct you to a page written by one of the most respected mans in the field:

Roger Russell: Author, Artist, Engineer, Inventor, Photographer, Collector, and formerly, Director of Acoustic Research at McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and the originator of McIntosh Loudspeakers

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#house

We have been told by advertising that the exotic speaker wires offer fabulous advantages over ordinary lamp cord. It would seem reasonable that using this same wire for lamps would also enhance their performance. In the same vein as wire literature, you can have your lamp reproduce light with the full spectrum color fidelity of natural daylight, finally allowing you see light the way it should be seen and bring out the natural performance of your lamp. It could offer greater warmth, detail, brilliance, definition and speed by providing wider bandwidth and reduced skin effect. It can provide a distortion free illumination that reduces eye strain, resulting in clearer vision and optimal color perception. It can allow you to work for longer periods of time with less visual distraction or fatigue. Just imagine what it might do for your electric razor or microwave, etc.!

The article is huge, covers almost everything you could imagine. It also includes a max length guide for various gauge wiring at several ohm loads. I'd suggest anyone planing to spend more then what you pay at monoprice for cables should take the time to read that link first.