Rsbeck: We've been through this before. The test results published for frequency response do not take into account impedance variations whatsoever. As i've posted before based on figures extrapolated from the data that they provided, "zip cord" can introduce very measurable treble roll-off starting within the upper midrange / lower treble region on some speakers. Your refusal to see or acknowledge this potential problem, yet quote the same crap over and over again, makes me question your agenda. The fact that you keep promoting zip cord yet chose other wires to run in your own system speaks volumes in itself. Make us proud and put your money where your mouth is. Doing so and selling your "fancy cabling" will buy you another couple of discs and tell us that you really do believe what you post. Saying one thing and doing something completely different doesn't set much of an example, nor will it sway anybody to believe what you are promoting. Once you swap those cables out of your system, you can keep telling yourself that it sounds exactly the same and that you are happy with your decision. Sean > |
Rsbeck: The measurements that you initially referenced showed roll-off starting at appr 22 KHz if i remember correctly. This frequency is based on an 8 ohm load. Using a 4 ohm load, roll-off would occur at half that frequency i.e. 11 khz. At a 2 ohm load, roll-off would occur at appr 5.5 KHz. With a 1 ohm load, roll-off would occur at appr 2.75 KHz. Given that impedance varies with frequency on most every speaker known to man, the associated roll-off's and phase shifts are quite audible when one has both good listening ability and a reasonably transparent system. It should be noted that there is a BIG difference between having "good hearing" and being a "good listener". For the record, i have several sets of speakers that drop below 2 ohms, hence my concern over such matters. Obviously, the zip cord only works "acceptably" with a theoretically non-reactive speaker that maintains an impedance of 8 ohms or higher. It should also be noted that not all zip cord is of the same inductance level or nominal impedance, so these figures are based on best case scenarios. As length of the cabling is increased and / or the inductance climbs higher, the effects will become even more pronounced and severe in amplitude. The fact that the nominal impedance of the cable is 100 ohms or more, and will negatively effect power transfer characteristics from the amp to the speaker, is true regardless of the length used. As to what you've told me, i forgot all of that. If it was true or factual in the least, i would remember it. You keep painting pictures but you leave out the most important details i.e. the ones that discredit your point of view and the message that you are trying to promote. The fact that i've refuted your past arguments using your own reference materials shows that those you rely on to do your homework for you also paint "half pictures". Like i said, put your money where your mouth is. If zip cord works as well as you've said, you'll hear no difference, can continue to enjoy your system as you know it and can actually put a few dollars in your pocket from the sales of the "snake oil" cables that you're currently using. Until you actually do as you suggest that others do, you will be thought of as the boy who cried wolf. Over and over again. Sean > PS... Nelson Pass demonstrated that different cables affect power transfer, transient response and even the ability to make or break a system in terms of operating or shutting down simply by changing speaker cabling. He did so 25+ years ago and that evidence is still posted today. The fact that Nelson does not market ANY type of cabling and only did this because of the differences in how amplifiers were responding to specific loads doesn't seem to phase those that wish to promote a specific agenda i.e. that such things can and do alter what we hear and how the system responds. |
I extrapolated the figures that i posted from the original data that you were referencing. According to that data, the zip cord showed a .25 dB drop just above 20 KHz at 8 ohms. There was no mention of results into a 4 ohm load there, so i have to wonder where you obtained the figure of .1 dB at 4 ohms. Obviously, these figures don't jive mathematically, so there is some disparity in terms of testing methods and / or materials used. Sean > |
I specifically mentioned 22 KHz at 8 ohms in my previous post. Is that specific enough for you? If it isn't, please refer to the article that you based your entire argument on. Other than that, anyone that can do the math should have been able to extrapolate the center frequency at 8 ohms based on the divisible factor of .5 as impedance is halved. Sorry if this is too complex for you. Sean > |
Why not conduct some simple "non blind folded" listening tests and see what you find? I'll send you some inexpensive Nordost cabling and you can listen to it in comparison to both zip cord and to your Canare's. Given that the zip cord and Nordost are both quite high in nominal impedance, this should be a relatively "apples to apples" comparison in your eyes. I would be willing to accept your findings, regardless of the outcome. This will either confirm the ideas that you've been promoting on-line or open up your eyes, ears and thought process to a whole different world. Sean > |
"Dude", your inability to trust your own senses is what scares me. If there is the obvious difference in sonics that i'm telling you there is between zip cord and Nordost, you won't need blinders or a switch box to tell what's what. Like i said, i have enough faith in your listening skills and integrity to honestly report the results of your own "sighted but flawed" listening tests. Using these two cables within the confines of your own system, which you should be very familiar with, should resolve the situation once and for all. That is, if your system is as neutral as you think it is. The testing that i've conducted here has given me enough faith to make this offer to you and be quite positive in the outcome. Sean > PS... This is a legit offer, not part of a sideshow at the local amusement park. If the differences are as small as you say, you can blame the LACK of audible differences on the fact that the cables measured the same, not on the poorer quality of your components or your lack of listening skills. I've performed the same tests here and others passed with flying colours. |
Audioengr: Everyone can claim to hear differences that don't exist, at least according to Rsbeck and the data that he cites. That's why i want him to perform such tests for himself, even if they are "flawed" in his eyes. This way, he can be in the same boat as the rest of us i.e. first hand experience either "proving" his past theories wrong OR at least causing him to question such teachings and not accepting them as "fact" rather than a hypothesized theory based on limited research. After performing such tests and hearing the differences, which i'm confident that he will, he'll either have to question those "facts" or his own aural senses and processing center of the brain. Personally, i know which one i would believe if i conducted such a test and was easily able to identify one product from another. This is true even if others that i used to trust laughed at me and stated that my first-hand experiences were based on "flawed" test conditions. Sean > PS... I picked Nordost to compare to zip cord for obvious reasons. That is, they share a high nominal impedance, neither of them is "radical" in terms of electrical characteristics, etc... At the same time, their sonic characteristics are different enough to produce opposite tonal balances, which is the most obvious difference that one can notice. Anything else would be a matter of subjectivity and harder to discern for an unskilled listener. I'm NOT saying that Rsbeck is an unskilled listener, only that i wanted to assure a "positive" test result under these specific circumstances. |
Ultraviolet: You are right in the fact that it is not me vs Rsbeck. It is Rsbeck vs himself. If he had "true faith" in his "scientific doctrine", he wouldn't be afraid to put it to a simple test that would cost absolutely nothing. As mentioned, i said that i would send him the necessary materials to do so. While he has criticized me for stating that a lack of a response is a response in itself, he seems to be the only missing link in this equation now. The last time i made an offer like this, it was to Extra Class Amateur radio operators, which is the highest class / most knowledgeable level of RF enthusiast that one can achieve. After 2+ years of debating on the net with these guys, and having them refute my statements by quoting the books where i learned what i did as evidence against my statements, one of them finally gave in and performed testing. Needless to say and after this amount of time, it was like pulling teeth in order to get one of them to actually do this instead of them just reading about such things. Like this "test", i sent all the necessary supplies and the tester compared the results with both his and my gear. While this is different in the fact that he actually took empirical measurements and the results of this test would be subjective, he confirmed everything that i had stated. He did so even though it went against all of his preconcieved notions and "data" that he had read up until that point. The point is, what i had stated for two years DID NOT go against theory. I only knew what i did and what the outcome of such testing would be because i understood the theory and actual component interaction to begin with. There's no "hocus pocus" going on here and that's why i want Rsbeck to conduct the simple tests that i've proposed. I have enough faith in both his integrity and listening skills to report his outcome, good or bad from my point of view. Once he sees what that outcome is, it would only encourage him to seek out the truth of the matter, which is soundly based on fully understanding the theory of the circuit at hand. I'm encouraging mental growth here, not challenging Rsbeck's "intestinal fortitude" to stick to his guns. The fact that others can learn and grow from this experience is simply icing on the cake. Sean > |
El: The simpler the speaker i.e. the lack of a crossover or less complex of a crossover, the more apparent changes are in speaker cables. The more demanding the load of the speaker on the amp ( i.e. very low impedances ), the more apparent the changes are in speaker cables. The more complex the speaker system i.e. number of drivers and / or crossover parts, the more meaningless signal purity and differences in impedances become. Other than that, i don't have a problem with forwarding these cables to you to check out in your system. Having said that, i would like to wait until i get some type of formal response from Rsbeck on the matter. He's accused me of jumping to conclusions in the past due to a lack of responses, so i'll wait it out a while. It is possible that he's simply been too busy to log onto Agon and follow up on the threads that he's involved in. We all know how that can be. As such, i don't want to "ass-u-me" anything one way or the other. If there's no response from him by this coming Sunday night ( 05/11/05 ), i can have them in the mail to you on Monday. This will have given him a week to publicly confirm or deny his willingness to participate in such "testing". He's been so adamant that there are no audible differences in speaker cabling ( unless the cabling is defective or of phenomenally poor design ), that i'd really like him to be the guinea pig. This way, he and the other "cable naysayers" can't cry foul about the lack of integrity in choosing an individual to make such a comparison. Then again, these folks are already crying foul due to the lack of an ABX box and blind listening condititions for this type of "test". Having said that, i'm willing to overlook the negative bias factor that Rsbeck has already made quite public about the lack of sonic differences in cabling and accept his findings as they may come after such a comparison has been made on his own terms, in his own system and at his convenience. I think that this is more than fair and shows that i'm more than willing to meet the "naysayers" half-way. For sake of clarity, my comments are based on comparing some inexpensive Nordost to standard heavy gauge zip cord. Any other comparisons will only complicate the matter and possibly corrupt the findings due to a lack of auditory memory. For sake of compatibility, would you prefer spades or bananas ( aka Nordost "Z plugs" )? I have both types of cabling. By the way, both sets are 3 meters in length ( appr 10' ), so i hope that this is long enough for you and / or Rsbeck to be able to use within the confines of their normal system installation. Sean > |
El: You can try them one way or the other. The only variable is when that will occur. Even if Rsbeck responds and says "yes", so long as he wants spades, i can send the bananas to you. As a side note, take a look at the Nordost version of banana plugs ( Z plugs ) as found in the picture near the bottom of the page to see if you think they will work okay for you. Out of curiosity, what speaker cables are you using now? If you tell me reasonably heavy zip cord, i'll be somewhat elated : ) Deckhous: You can find a multitude of posts about speaker cable bandwidth, linearity, power transfer characteristics, transient response, etc... in the AA and Agon archives. Interconnects are somewhat different as the input and output impedances between the mating gear can vary quite drastically. As such, the design parameters for interconnects are a little more less specific depending on the circumstances involved. The use of high quality materials is always of benefit though. Sean > |
El: It doesn't look like Rsbeck is going to accept my invitation to put his own theories to the test and provide us with his own unbiased testimony as to the outcome. As such, i can send you both sets of cabling, which would allow you to continue to bi-wire the system as you are now. Only thing is, one set would have spades and the other would have bananas. Would this work with your specific amplifier and speaker connections? Sean > |
Rsbeck: You aren't looking at the big picture and apparently refuse to do so. The amplifier is not driving the speaker cables independently of the loudspeaker load, it is driving / responding to the complex impedance that each individual cable / speaker combo presents to the amp on the whole. This is why there are sonic differences in cabling i.e. the complex impedances vary with frequency and each amp responds accordingly to that load. Based upon how stable the amp is into various loads, not only can frequency response be altered, but so can transient response, distortion characteristics, etc... Nelson Pass has had all of this data publicly available and documented for appr 27 years now. Then again, i guess it takes a long time for news to go from one corner of the flat earth over to the other corner. As such, i will not waste any more of your or my time debating our very different points of view. You are obviously stuck in one mode of operation and afraid to think for yourself beyond what someone else has told you to be the "truth". Studying something as simple as Thevenin's Theory might be to your benefit in the long run though. The fact that the nominal impedance of speaker cabling can vary from a few Ohm's to well beyond 100 Ohm's should be enough to make one wonder how they could perform equivalently in a very low impedance circuit. Such silly things as voltage to current ratios might explain a few things too. Then again, that was alluded to in the 27 year old article that Pass published too. El: Sorry for not contacting you sooner, but as noted elsewhere, i was having major computer problems and decided to enjoy the nice weather rather than try and fix the computer. Drop me an email with your mailing address. Sorry for the delay, but i probably won't get these out until Tuesday morning. Sean > |
Rsbeck: I'm not claiming anything regarding facts and figures. I'm asking you to put your own listening skills and system to the test and tell me the results. If the cables sound different and YOU can identify these differences, yet those that you trust can't explain those differences scientifically, who are you going to believe? Will it be your ears and brain or their flawed testing procedures? Unfortunately, you refuse to do something simple to test your own beliefs within the confines of your own system and listening methodology in order to either confirm or deny those beliefs. I'm not the one with something to hide, hence my offer to you to provide the necessary materials to conduct the testing as you see fit in an environment that you think is suitable for such things. The fact that you continue to babble on about my so called listening abilities when you won't even put yours to the test using your own system that you are familiar with only demonstrates why discussing this subject in public is near useless. That is, those that run their mouth the most don't even use what they tell others to, nor will they put their beliefs to the test. I said i was done here, yet you feel the need to keep egging things on. In case anyone was wondering, i'm not the one running away from a simple listening test as conducted under a no-stress scenario. That privilege belongs to Rsbeck. JNeutron: What's the matter, got an "audiophile jones" for a forum to expound all the "facts & figures"? AA down again??? : ) Other than that, Nordost claims a velocity of propogation higher than i've ever seen for ANY coaxial type cable. They claim 94%, which is a phenomenally high figure. Most coaxial designs range from appr 66% ( poly & teflon ) up to 78% ( foam ) on average. Those utilizing a higher percentage of "air dielectric" can range up to appr 84% from what i've seen as used in a coaxial form. Given that a coaxial design requires more dielectric involvement and a contained field, i can see how things would slow down compared to an openly spaced design conducting within free space and / or minimal dielectric involvement. As to your comment "As it turns out, the point of minimal line storage occurs when the characteristic impedance of the cable matches the load..so, in theory, an 8 ohm speaker would work best with an 8 ohm cable impedance", I agree. Not only does it work best in theory, but also in reality. That's why i've been "preaching" the use of impedance matched cabling for years now. It is also why i've stressed that one should select their loudspeaker cabling prior to any other cabling in the system as we already know what the specific impedance ratios are that we'll be working with. Given the varying input / output impedances of some components, selecting the proper impedance for an interconnect becomes a crap-shoot. Sean > |
Jneutron: Yes, most all of the posts are moderated prior to posting. There are a select few that bypass this part of posting though. I used to be one of those, but i've raised too much hell in the past to be fully trusted anymore : ) As to AA, hopefully Rod has gotten things straightened out over there. I can't believe how much time, effort and energy that he personally devotes to keeping that forum running. He deserves more than a pat on the back for what he does and i hope his efforts don't go unrewarded forever. Sean > |
Rsbeck: If the cables measure the same, they'll sound the same. If they sound different, and you are honest about hearing a difference, then there must be some way to quantify what you hear. It is that simple and my method keeps it simple. Your method introduces other variables such as some type of a switchbox and additional cabling necessary to perform such a task into the equation. Not only can this taint the results due to "contaminating" the circuit, it alters the impedance and current distribution along the signal path. Since cabling does introduce distributed electrical characteristics along the conducting path, adding a switchbox and a different type of cable before the switchbox into the listening path DEFINITELY changes what one would measure and potentially hear without such variables into the signal path. That's because the switchbox and connecting cable will all introduce their unique impedances and multiple additional connections into the equation whereas they wouldn't be there normally. All of this is verifiable and measurable IF you have the right equipment( Time Domain Reflectometer ). Obviously, the people believing that an ABX box introduces no variables into such a situation are lacking the proper test equipment and knowledge to verify such things and / or have been lying to the general public on purpose about such things. Swapping cables manually at the amp one at a time definitely keeps the path "purer" for such a comparison with the only variable being one's own listening skills, auditory memory and level of integrity. As mentioned above, i'm willing to trust your listening skills and integrity under the conditions that YOU choose to make when conducting such a test using equipment that you are very familiar with in a room that you are very familiar with using a recording that you are familiar with. Sean > |
