>>the higher the inductance and capacitance, the slower the signal will travel through the cable. This obviously impacts dynamics.<<
This is too general to be useful and also quite a leap.
How are you measuring dynamics?
At what point does an increase in inductance and capacitance cause an audible impact on dynamics?
What is the evidence for the audibility of this impact?
Are we talking about anecdotal testimonial or something more solid?
|
Sliver is slightly less resistive than copper, but you can overcome that by using a thicker gauge of copper. |
>>Lossy energy transfer can impact.<<
I don't dispute that low inductance and capacitance are desirable.
But, the question remains ---
How are you measuring dynamics?
At what point does an increase in inductance and capacitance cause an
audible impact on dynamics?
>>As to the evidence etc & alia, I believe Aball answered your questions<<
Uh.....no. Also, the poster asked about materials, not configuration. I'm not
sure how this relates to the original question.
|
>>the broadest spectrum be derived from the use of all three?<<
Are you looking for the broadest spectrum? Or, the flattest response over the audio spectrum?
Are you talking about at audio frequencies?
You can get flat signal response within the range of audibility with the use of copper. Silver has slightly less resistance, but you can overcome that with the use of thicker gauge copper. No one has ever proven that silver has a sonic signature. Never seen a study that shows people can identify a silver cable versus copper in a DBT or ABX as long as they are precisely level matched. |
Here's a chart comparing resistance, inductance, and capacitance between several popular cables -- you might be surprised to see which cables have the highest capacitance.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/speakercablereviewsfaceoff7.php |
My impression is that people like to throw myths and wive's tales together
with things that are half-true and extrapolate from that into the land of the
hypothetical based on hypothetical on top of wishful thinking.
I had a strong feeling that no one was going to be able to tell me anything
solid about this affect on dynamics, how it is measured, or if there is anything
to back any of this.
What isn't in dispute in this discussion is that it is desirable to have low
capacitance and inductance. But, we also know that several very expensive
cables exhibit far higher inductance and capacitance than 10 guage Zip Cord
(See table referenced above). If there *was* any solid proof that higher
capacitance and inductance -- at the levels exhibited by these expensive
cables -- degrade the performance of these cables with regard to dynamics
-- that would be interesting. Especially, perhaps, to the owners of those
cables. But, since there apparently isn't anything solid, "No one
knows for sure -- there are a lot of variables." We don't really have
anything.
Yes, we do know that the configuration matters most if one is attempting to
manipulate inductance and capacitance, but this just supports the counter-
point that materials -- silver versus copper -- matters least. And that's the
answer to the original question. If capacitance, resistance, and inductance
matter most with regard to dynamics, a whole lot of expensive speaker cables
do not measure as well as 10 guage Zip Cord (see table referenced above) nor
do they provide more linear frequency response (see frequency response
charts included in referenced article). |
>>most of the time, this is audible and sounds like sibilance on top of the high-frequency information in the music. Metal purity, choice of metals, cryo treatment and other factors affect this.<<
This is what I mean by myths and wive's tales. I predict no hard evidence will be offered to back the idea that any of this is true.
>>the dielectric material absorbs charge and releases it when transients occur.<<
Sounds like advertising from a cable site -- this has been debunked.
>>smearing will occur.<<
No one has ever been able to measure audible distortion caused by a speaker cable. No one. Zip, zilch, null set.
>>The effect of this is usually a loss of HF dynamics, often described as a roll-off, but technically it isn't.<<
This ought to be measurable. I predict we will not get any back-up for this, either. No way to quantify the loss of dynamics, no double blind listening tests to see if anyone can hear any such thing.
Basically, in the audio world, you can say anything you want about cables because standard of proof is completely absent. So people run around saying whatever they want, throw a few big words in there for good effect, people repeat it and pretty soon, you've got another urban audio myth -- and possibly another cable sale. |
From Audioholics Web-site ----
Dielectric Absorption in Cables Debunked
Before we debate the relevancy of Dielectric Absorption relating to speaker cables, and commonly perpetuated by many exotic cable vendors and cable cult hobbyists, let us first define the roll of a dielectric.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric) the definition a Dielectric material is an insulator. The ideal dielectric would be a vacuum or infinite impedance. However, real world dielectrics do NOT have infinite impedance and therefore are not perfect. As frequency increases, the Dielectric starts exhibiting shunt resistive losses which can be measured and quantified as signal loss across the termination load. Fortunately for our application (audio) these shunt losses don't begin to surface until frequencies much higher than the audio bandwidth.
At audio frequencies, even the worst dielectrics (IE. Polyvinyl Chloride, aka. PVC / plastic) used in cheap and many exotic speaker cables maintain shunt resistive impedances in the mega ohms or more. When dealing with a low termination impedance of a loudspeakers (usually in the order of several ohms) the dielectric shunt resistance is on the order of 10^6 greater, thus the parallel impedance remains virtually unaffected and we see no losses due to the dielectric at audio frequencies.
Cont'd....
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/dielectricabsorptioncables.php |
Perhaps this one of the reasons the 10 guage Zip Cord exhibits lower Capacitance and Inductance than many of the more expensive speaker cables in the chart referenced above and why none of the more expensive cables produce a more linear frequency response over the audio band. |
Sean -- sorry, buddy, but you know I don't care about your "roll-
off" that happens outside the range of audibility so it doesn't matter
how many times you bring it up, it ain't like fine wine and it doesn't get any
better with age.
In fact, it is the exact kind of half-truth I am talking about.
I challenge you to present the facts honestly and do not leave anything out.
Every time you talk about this "roll-off," I challenge you to post
the truth -- that it is outside the range of audibility. I think that is a pretty
important point.
I posted a reference to a whole chart of cables I do not own, but I am not
allowed to mention the Zip Cord listing? Not allowed to say anything good
about Zip Cord? Who made that rule? You?
Finally, next time, don't just reference what YOU wrote last time -- try to
recall what *I* tell you each time you bring up the bogus "roll-off" -- that
way, you can expect me to have the same answer as before.
Save us both time.
|
>>The only issue is whether this is audible or not,<<
I appreciate this bit of honesty -- you seldom see this mentioned.
The graph on your web-site confirms that this "roll-off" happens waaaaay
outside the range of audibility.
If you have DBT or ABX listening tests to back up your claim that people can
hear this, I would be most interested in seeing that data because it would
shock the scientific world.
I also appreciate that you've identified yourself as a cable manufacturer.
I suspect there are many people in cable sales who frequent sites such as this
and do not identify themselves as such. |
Some reality ---
The psycho-acoustic data shows that for pure tones at 16kHz the smallest average detectable difference in level is 3.05 dB. The findings were based on individuals 20 to 24 years old that had normal hearing to 20 kHz.
"Speaker cables: Measurements Vs Psycho-acoustic data," Audio, July 1994 |
A 10 foot length of 12AWG Zip Cord is 0.1dB down at 20kHz into a 4 ohm
load.
This is waaaaaay below the threshold of audibility -- see reference above.
>>If it was true or factual in the least, i would remember it.<<
Perhaps you should write it down.
>>The fact that i've refuted your past arguments using your own reference
materials<<
Dude -- you've never refuted anything, you simply claimed that people who
disagree with you really agree with you, but don't want to say it. Since I do
not believe you are Kreskin, I hardly find this a credible "refutation."
The evidence shows you are talking about .1db at 20Khz -- waaaaay
below the level of human audibility and yet you continually refer to a "
roll-off" without specifying the amount, which I've posted for you and
given you references to charts. Since you've been given this information, it is
highly irresponsible for you to refer to a "roll-off" without
mentioning that it is .1db at 20Khz into a 4 ohm load. Completely
misleading. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why you leave out
this information -- because if you include it, most folks would simply chuckle
at the notion and your urban myth would die. You also have information
about the limits of human audibility and it is irresponsible not to mention this
as well. At least the guy from Empirical gives a nod to this. If you were
honest, you'd say it is .1 db down at 20Khz, that available studies show that it
takes a 3.05 dB change to be audible at those frequencies and if you still
want to press the point, you could say it is "debatable" or as the Empirical guy
said, "there is some question" about whether or not anyone could possibly
hear such a thing. If anyone could, he/she would reject all cables because
every cable has .1db variations over the audio spectrum, so there really isn't
any debate or question, but at least it would sound a little more credible. |
>>According to that data, the zip cord showed a .25 dB drop just above 20
KHz at 8 ohms.<<
As usual, this is vague. "Just above 20Khz?" When you talk about
a .1 dB drop at 20Khz as if it is the Niagra Falls, who knows what "Just
above" means to you. But, even if this were true, .25 dB is still waaaaay
below the 3.05 dB change needed for detection WITHIN the audio band. |
>>i have to wonder where you obtained the figure of .1 dB at 4 ohms.<<
From ----
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/
SpeakerCableFaceoffp2.htm
Table 3 illustrates comparative insertion loss, total loss at 20 kHz, and
associated change in group delay within the audio band for 10ft lengths of
cables based on their measured RLC parameters all terminated into 4 ohm
loads.
Go there, look at the table, and you find that a 10 foot lngth of 12 AWG Zip
Cord measured .088 dB down at 20Khz when driven into 4 Ohms.
It's all the same stuff I've posted to you before. |
Dude -- try to stay focused. There's no need for me to repeat the work done
in the study I referenced. What, do you think I am going to listen to a few
cables and say, "by god, .1dB down at 20Khz *IS* audible. Sean is right to
give out incomplete information and half-truths!" That's the issue here. It
ain't gonna happen. Your insistence on "sighted" cable tests tells
me everything I need to know regarding your methodology. If I were to go
around telling people I know I can hear .1dB down at 20Khz because I passed
a sighted cable test, I would expect anyone with a modicum of intelligence to
laugh me out of the room.
Here's a better test.
We get ABX equipment. We arrange four test tones. One flat and one .1 db
down at 20Khz, one flat and .25 db down at 22 Khz. You show that you can
reliably tell them apart. We're talking pure test tones, which should make it
easier than listening to music over the entire spectrum. Masking from other
tones is completely removed. If you pass, then we book you on a tour of
County Faires this summer where you demonstrate your ability.
|
>>i'm simply saying that i think it provides a very audible contrast to the
sonics of zip cord.<<
That isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not .1 dB down at 20Khz or
.25dB down at 22 Khz is audible. You claim it is -- that if one has good ears,
one can hear this. I say that if you can pass such a test, you can make a lot of
money on the county fair circuit.
Nordost and Zip Cord may or may not sound different, but what would that
prove? This is a ridiculous way to test to see whether or not you -- SEAN --
can really hear .1dB down at 20Khz and .25 dB down at 22 Khz. It seems
obvious to me that you are trying to pull a switch -- trying to get others to
take an irrelevant test -- because you know that you can do no such thing.
In any case, I think it would at least be more responsible if you gave out
complete information and let people know that when you are talking about
this "roll-off" you are talking about .1dB down at 20Khz. I trust that few will
remain interested in your allegations if you give this information -- and I also
suspect this is why you leave this information out.
Now, if you want to compare Nordost and Zip Cord.
What are you comparing?
Where are the frequency response charts for the Nordost cables?
RLC?
Are we assuming the Nordost yield a perfectly flat response?
Based on what?
If they don't yield a perfectly flat response, then how is it relevant?
It isn't.
If you want to see if you can hear .1 db down, you need to measure it against
flat, you need exact level matching and you need to do it double-blind for it
to carry any weight.
Too many studies have shown that sighted tests are unreliable because of the
placebo effect. Any test that doesn't rule out the placebo effect carries no
weight. Similarly, anecdotal testimony carries no weight.
Conducting a sighted comparison against a cable with unknown
measurements without exact level matching and claiming it is a test to see
whether .1dB down at 20Khz is audible not only carries no weight, it is
pointless and silly. |
Sean --
You're like some guy on the internet claiming he can bench press 10,000 pounds. The idea that I question your claims because I cannot think for myself is rather humorous. Your answer to the challenge to prove your super human ability is to go all diffuse. I don't blame you. Any time you want to prove you can hear the difference between flat and .1db down at 20Khz, you'll have something and we'll book that tour of county fairs. |
|
>>I'm asking you to put your own listening skills and system to the test and
tell me the results.<<
You cannot test anyone's listening skills until you have proven there is
something to hear.
You don't have such proof.
Instead, you have an unproven claim.
You claimed you could hear .1 db down at 20Khz.
Your idea of how to test this is to send ME cables?
That's like sending me 10,000 pounds to see if YOU can lift it.
>>If the cables sound different and YOU<<
I could listen to those cables, fall on my knees and say, "wow -- these cables
sure do sound different!" And it won't do anything to help you back up your
claim that you can hear .1db down at 20Khz.
If you want to prove you can hear .1db down at 20Khz, it would be easy to
design a test, but YOU would obviously be the one taking it -- since YOU
made the claim.
Dude -- this is all just basic logic.
We're not debating whether cables can sound DIFFERENT. We're debating
whether you can hear .1db down at 20 Khz.
We both know you cannot.
It was a ridiculous claim.
Since you cannot hear .1db down at 20Khz, any theory based on this premise
is obviously flawed and must be revised because -- obviously -- the building
blocks of your theory must be provable or else you have nothing.
Back to the drawing board.
We've beaten this to death.
That's it for me.
Thanks for the chat. |
