Good, Neutral, Reasonably Priced Cables?

I beleive Darrylhifi meant maggots as a joke from the infamous magnet thread. Hey aside from the uproar over the religious connotation, putting that aside, did any A goners ever try/feel that theory was useful. And Sean I love your posts because of your knowlege and passion, but I wish you would not attack a cable manufacturer that joins in a thread, only because I feel that discourages manufacturers from joining our discussions , where we may gain additional resources for information. Even though Im not a fan of Audio Asylum {except for their search engine which is great} I enjoy when gentleman like Ray Kimber and others add to the postings.

Sean,
I have the following thoughts/queries about your stance:
(bear with me if you've already addressed any of them in past posts):
1. Do you have to intellectually have a picture of what measurable specs you are listening to and what the physical characteristics of the components are before you can enjoy the music? (I think you've said an emphatic yes)
2. When you say specs, do you mean running an oscilloscope so that you can measure dynamic range at each frequency?
3. I accept that the appreciation of a stanza of music is an interaction between the brain and the ear, melding perceived sound, expectations, emotions, and past experiences to result in a net quantum of enjoyment/sadness/fulfillment/discord. None of us understand how that works, technically, exactly as none of us can explain physically or in terms of any measurable specs on any medical device, how anybody thinks. So it is with the appreciation of music, which is why there are so many thousands of differing posts on the same component, piece of music and composer. Are you saying that in your particular case you cannot or will not bypass the the "measuring/analytical/physicist" part of your brain to just listen to the music, because it is unacceptable to you intellectually to not understand why you are hearing something? If so, this is, IMHO, perfectly valid, but I think you are fairly unique in that respect. I personally dont give a rat's ass what makes the music sound good/exciting/bad/mediocre - its all in what I hear. Period.
I think many of us non Engineer-types are like that.
4. I am ignorant of the known physics of sound conduction via interconnects. Is there a primer to read? Is there data on cables showing dynamic range, as there are on speakers, at different frequencies? What other data (forget about inductance, volts, amps, etc since there is no known (to me) sonic/auditory correlation)can you get on cables?
5. Is it not unreasonable for you to expect a small (one-man) manufacturer to divulge his formula in a very competitive market-place, particularly against the big boys, who spend fortunes on marketing, when the bottom line is simply, to most of us, the result of the product? That is, how does it sound? The only, to me, reason to do so would be the physical reliability and longevity of the product; if it were made of a metal/conductor/insulator that has a half-life of a few months, then that would be a concern. This point is valid and rational, even to a non-measuring-dunce like me. That point should be addressed and guaranteed by any seller/manufacturer/inventor.
Thanks for your attention. This is not a troll - I am interested in your answers.

Darrylhifi, is that typo maggots or magnets?

Sean

That's why I've said "don't blame the cables" if you don't like what you hear. While you can shoot the messenger, that doesn't change the message. Sean

Does this mean that if I prefer my system with Purist Audio or Elrod rather than Goertz that all my equipment should be changed out rather than continue to listen to what is working? I have excellent gear, doubt it needs a band aid.

Psychic, I will soon be on a plane to Sweden. Probably no posts until first of October.

The job begins Sept 7th and much of the reason for that thread was to announce Audiogon's commitment to European audio shows. Also explains my slow (or non) response to questions or offers on my Audiogon ads during that time.

Well Robert of Ridge Street Audio I certainly dont trust. He is using magots in his cables. Although I do own 4 pair of various Poeima interconnects and Speaker Cables and the perceived neutral resolution in conjunction with My Audio Magic Eclipse, feeding My Sim Audio Eclipse is spot on. In fact , for the first time ever while re listening to The Beatles "She came in through the Bathroom Window , I actaully at the very end heard the toilet flush.

Robert: My comments about the thread being interrupted were not geared towards your customers "coming to your rescue", but more-so as a general comment pertaining to a specific group of Audiogon regulars that dislike my "brutish" methods of communications i.e. those that have cried foul in the past about asking manufacturers, distributors, dealers, etc.. for pertinent facts, asking them to support their statements and / or asking for honesty and disclosure of affiliations.

As far as being a "watchdog", i call 'em as i see 'em. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, has webbed feet, etc... it's probably a duck. Just because i'm not shy about pointing the duck out to others and telling them what it is and how to identify it by its' characteristics, it doesn't make me a "watchdog". Having said that, if what i post helps someone to avoid making costly errors or explains why certain situations ( sonic or otherwise ) have arisen surrounding "duck-like" products, so be it. People can call me whatever it is they want to. You don't have to like me to understand or even respect the information and / or perspective that i provide.

With that in mind, i have NO idea of what your cables are like. I have third party information on them that is far less than technical in nature and that's all. Neither your website nor your posts here have given me or anyone else anything to go on. As such, i'm not attacking your product so much as i'm commenting on the lack of information available concerning your products and your unwillingness to provide even a few lines of information after 4 or 5 posts and thousands of words.

While it's quite possible i may be a great fan of your products once i had the chance to really get to know them ( technically and sonically ), the only way that i could do that would be to buy them, use them, disect them and analyze them for myself. Given that i'm not buying any more cabling from someone that won't tell me what it is that they are selling ( i've been ripped off enough as it is ) and i'm not about to "gut" someone else's property that might be kind enough to let me borrow them, the chances of that happening are slim to none. The bottom line is that more info specifically about the products themselves with less background about the company could result in more potential sales.

PS... I don't have a "kingdom", nor am i a king. I am a working class pauper that can't afford your hundreds of dollars per meter products, so please take pity on me and throw me some of the scraps from your table. Maybe then i'll have some idea of the "flavours" that you and a few others make mention of since you won't even describe what it is on the table to begin with.

Psychic: I'm glad that you guys had an enjoyable and educational get together. These types of situations can be fun, but they can also be misleading. That is, unless certain precautions are taken to try and keep the playing field level. I'm NOT talking about DBT's ( Double Blind Listening Test's ) or anything like that, just similar conditions in terms of all of the gear being allowed to thermally and physically stabilize. This takes time though and most impromptu meetings / listening sessions don't really allow this.

With that in mind, one can get basic ideas about differences in performance and whether or not components interface reasonably well together, but i wouldn't say that such "testing" is all-inclusive in terms of the observed results.

On top of all of that, unless one has some type of baseline to compare things to, it's possible that none of the products being compared are actually "accurate". As such, which one was perceived as being "better" boils down to subjective opinons that are based on personal preferences. We all know how that works. Since there are no reference points to judge things by and even personal preferences change, the only conclusions that can be drawn from such impromptu listening sessions is what one liked at that time with that system in that room. Sometimes that's all that counts i.e. when you're listening in your room with your system and you're familiar with what to expect. Other than that, anybody not in the same situation is listening with a great handicap due to lack of familiarity and expectations. This handicap is exactly why most DBT's provide negative results. Obviously, this is just my opinion and others are certainly open to agree / disagree.

Albert: Certain measurements are "better" with mass-produced gear for certain reasons. That is, mass-producers build cheap components using low grade parts. They "band-aid" their circuitry so that it measures better by relying on inexpensive forms of error correction that introduce further side-effects into the equation. They do this trying to "fix" things, but in effect, make things worse most of the time.

As i've said before, unless you can see the whole picture and understand what the spec's mean and how they were derived, spec's can mean very little.

Having said that, a full array of spec's can tell you quite a bit, if the spec's were properly derived AND one knows how to interpret them. If such were not the case, i wouldn't have known that the Goertz speaker cables were going to "best" all of the others in that test. I knew what i did because the spec's that i read and understood confirmed what my ears had told me several years ago.

In this respect, the spec's are verified by the test results and the test results are verified by the sonics. That is, what you put in is what you get out. It's called measurable accuracy and it achieves this with no form of error correction applied. As such, the margin of error as to what the spec's say and what you actually hear is non-existent. That's why i've said "don't blame the cables" if you don't like what you hear. While you can shoot the messenger, that doesn't change the message. Sean
>

Albert, you said "No posting from me for a while". I was hoping you'd aleady be in Sweden taking some of the *special* pictures I requested. Remember, not everything is audio...

I was already thinking about buying you a bottle of Barrilito "cuatro estrellas", pretty gourmet stuff!

With psychic power and primal intensity,

Albert...
Now I feel sort of bad. After looking at that statement again I think I see exactly how someone else might interpret that differently than what I intended.

Here was my thought process: The context was oxidation and I know humidity is a very good carrier for cables to oxidize under and if they're not protected, in time they will oxidize. Our cables could have been very susceptible to that but, like I mentioned, we've thoroughly addressed that. So much so that (and here's where my joke begins) I play with our cables in the bath tub and low...they float! Hey, what a marketing campaign we could build from this! Plaster it all over our web site and thousands of consumers now own cables that not only perform great but they float in the tub too!

I thought that imagery was kind of comical and thought I said just enough that one could form their own similar imagery. Looks like I gave too much leeway.

Again, I apologize. Am I off the hook?

Kind Regards,
Robert

Hi Albert.

Forgive me for leaving a door open that could appear I was making fun of Purist Audio. That was not my intention at all. I was just trying to be a little light hearted and I didn't forsee that it could look like fun at the expense of Purist Audio. I have a lot of respect for their innovation and approach.

Kind Regards,
Robert

Albert, Purist is not the only company making audio cables using fluid. Creative Cable Concepts is another.

Brian

Robert, regarding your post containing the following:

Marketing ploy: Our cables float in water. So far, that marketing approach has not worked for us...LOL!

Is this directed at Purist Audio? They are the only company I know using fluid. In spite of how they look, the conductors in Purist do not come in contact with the liquid (I do their photography).

Regarding this entire subject and all the technical data posted (by everyone). I enjoy specifications as much as the next guy. However, it is not infrequent that a Yamaha or Denon's technical specifications "prove" them to be superior in the (all important) distortion and signal to noise specifications. Much superior to a VTL 750, Audio Research VT200 or (at signal level) an Aesthetix Callisto.

Problem is, the audiophile gear keeps kicking the cheap stuffs ass when it comes down to listening to the music.

This afternoon RX8man came over to meet me and bring some of his goodies. We listened to his Audio Logic DAC, some pretty expensive Shunyata snakes (had about six!), modded B&K monoblocks and Cardas Hexlink 5C interconnects (two pairs). We compared them to my MSE Gen II's and it wasn't funny. My 20 yr old neighbor came over and he was nodding his head. The MSE is superior in all respects--and by no small margin. We listened to a Liuba Maria Hevia recording--solo singer and grand piano. This was recorded in Cuba in one of their state of the art all tube studios. It was like there were two entirely different audio systems. RX8man *experienced* the ultra low noise floor & beef of a 220V isolation transformer based system and cotton insulated silver cables. My psychic prediction is that Rx8man will be contacting Robert and Sean soon. Treat him well, guys...

***

...and schooled again I am. Sorry you're not able to appreciate what I am willing to share Sean. Like I suggested if you want more facts and so forth, then go on your own mission and start your own business if you find your product has something of value to offer. Like it or not, I bet your position would change from serving an agenda to protecting your interests while trying to be helpful at the same time.

What I posted is about as good as I'm willing to let it get. Otherwise, it's like I said, everything turns into challenges, debate and who's the most right. As a result a few players get to have x amount of champions in their little corner and the champions get to parade around their "god on a stick". Meanwhile too much stays stuck for the wrong reasons.

I believe what I posted did a credible job of communicating that Ridge Street is not another "me too" Mfgr who simply shoves wire through a Teflon tube, braids it, posts a few favorable numbers, waves their hand over it and proclaims the latest and greatest has arrived. I believe I communicated that there is real thought, innovation and purpose behind what we do. As for numbers, graphs, white papers, facts, facts and more facts to appease those who base their judgments on such…forget about it. For everyone who wags and doesn't "agree" with the numbers, there will be a hundred who do or don't care. For everyone who wags and does "agree" with the numbers, there will be another hundred who don't or don't care. This type of camp usually drives me up the wall to some extent. Music is usually and mostly an intellectual exercise for them that also affirms for them they have really cool gear. I've never had anyone report back to us and say "Man! I've never heard such good inductance (or D factor or whatever)! My system's inductance has never sounded so good!" Our customers usually just say who much more they're enjoying their music. Not very technical, I know. Which reminds me….

Customers coming to our rescue? Sean, please! Who said that? Why did you interpret what I said that way? Well, really, I think I already know why. I wasn't being clever and looking for a rescue. I suppose it would be a "feel good" for me if any of our clients would post here but what I consider more important and take as a compliment is that I think most of our clients have a life they live of which their music is a part of and they're busy living their life and enjoying their music as time permits. They use these boards for whatever help they may need at times and as for engaging in endless debate…who's got time for that?

If I understand correctly from what I've seen of your posts, you're an advocate and self appointed watchdog for the enthusiast. Good for you and I applaud that. Nevertheless, simply because some manufacturer doesn't promote or sell their wares the way you think they should doesn't make them illegitimate. It seems that if one conflicts with how you think the world of audio should look, then your agenda or views or whatever doesn't get fueled. Your suspicions are served and all is obviously a scam in your view. So it seems to me anyway and I bet I'm not alone. (somebody please post here and rescue me!!! LOL!) You are not the be all/end all for enthusiasts and whether a company is legit or not. I'll assume you already know that but perceptions say different sometimes.

I'll make clear this too while I'm thinking about it. They are plenty of manufacturers who post this fact or that measurement or whatever. Good for them and I for one would not say that's stupid, useless or whatever. That's how some companies choose to promote their product. If that were how I chose to promote, believe me, you or anyone else wouldn't have to ask for "proof". I would just do it. Interesting though that still, with all the "proof" some companies chose to offer, it still comes down to listening and still, no one has cornered the market with any audio "stuff". "Stuff"…just so you know in case you're thinking otherwise, we have invested thousands of dollars over the years on "stuff" so we have some clue as to what we're doing. And no, I didn't get took by someone selling a Rat Shack SPL meter (the decent analog, not the digital) at four hundred times the regular price.

I'll share this just cause I think it's good analogy. I'm a percussionist. Let's say I've just written a five part solo score along the lines of what Terry Bozzio innovates. Someone says "Oh I'd like to know what it sounds like." I say "okay, sure." and hand them the sheet music and sit back and wait for a response. Suddenly I'm lauded as a great percussionist!…I don't think so. In the score I've added a peculiar twist where a cymbal pattern that rides an ostinato changes from 4/4 to 7/8 to form a polyrhythm and someone who understands and knows how to read looks at it and says "that won't work! It won't flow.". I play it so he hears it and suddenly it's like "hey, that's really cool! I never would have thought of putting that together like that." Or maybe he says it sounds like crap…LOL! Anyway, I think this illustrates some of what I'm trying to say.

BTW Sean, I'll assume you're correct that another Mfgr won't chime in here in regards to the purity/Q thing and I'll also forgive your found less accusation that I was trying to dodge one of your bullets. Purity has to do with the level of impurities. We all know that I think. Q has to do with levels of types of impurities.

BTW, how did you know I like cowboy boots? I really do…LOL! But I'm not a cowboy, I don't have a ten gallon hat to finish the image and I don't have spurs or jangles on my boots. I just like cowboy boots. I also like Converse Chucky T tennis shoes, flip-flops and stream lined tailored dress shoes. Outside of that, I run bare foot a lot 'cause I like that too.

Again, all this. Debate and flame or do whatever amongst yourselves if you must. Sean I'm guessing you'll have at least something to say that seems to look good or apparently de-bunk what we do. It won't cause us to go away and it won't change the validity of what we offer. I'll let you have the last word so the king can reign over his little kingdom.

Cheers,
Robert

Alright Tvad, all-

Overdue post re. cable distortion references- (life, or what passes for it, sometimes gets in the way of online chats...)

Spent some time searching through the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI for short) databases. (If you don't know about these folks, they are the premier cataloguers and cross-referencers of all things published in technical fields. Very expensive to use, unless you have an academic account, or a corporate/site license. In my case, don't ask...)

Searching from 1950 to 2004 brings up two broad categories- 'Wires and Cables' at about 5500 articles, and 'Audio Equipment and Systems' at about 9300 articles. 'Signal Distortion' as a search term brings up about 950 references. Cross-searching all three drops results to about 40 references, of which maybe 5 involve signal distortions in coaxial cable designs. I can't actually access the articles immediately- will need to make a visit to one of the friendly nearby university libraries.

For what it is worth, if others want to pursue this, most useful related articles seem to come from 5 sources:

Journal of the Audio Engineering Society
Wireless World
IEEE Symposia on Circuits and Systems
IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics
Funkschau (in German)

It would have been nice to see articles come up with titles like 'Analysis of audio-frequency signal distortion as a function of conductor properties, geometry, and environment...'. These don't seem to exist, at least not when searched for by the method outlined above. There are some interesting looking 'tutorial' articles on assorted signal distortion phenomena by Doug Preis in the ECE Dep't at Tufts University, but they are more general in scope.

It's possible that I'm not looking in the right places- either this stuff is so elementary that it is all in textbooks, or it is largely found in literature from another field that doesn't cross-reference with the search areas above.

In any case, I may follow up if there is interest. For now, a trip to your local university libraries to look at the journals above is probably the place to start for those of you who want to pursue this more.

But hey, the exercise wasn't all for nothing- there was an article or two about distortion-free signal propagation in superconducting wires. This should solve all of our problems. ;-)

Actually, when you think about it, the cost of running a liquid nitrogen/liquid helium cooling sheath around some cheap copper cables would probably be less than buying something like the Stealth Indra. (Eventually, the cost of coolant would add up, though.) Anybody want to try selling that as a high-end product? I'll provide 'Angel' funding with the $3 that is currently in my disposable income account... (On the one hand, I'm kidding, but on the other, I'm fully expecting someone on this thread to point out that it has already been done...)

Re. Alpha-Core, I agree with Rooze above- in the only dealing I've had with them, they were very responsive and went out of their way to supply me with what I needed, even though there was very little money in it for them. (Basically, I needed a few inches of AG-1 ribbon to build some jumpers- no problem.)

Cheers,

Rooze: Forwardness, brittle treble, smeared transients, etc... could all be signs of an amp that doesn't like the load that it sees. That is, the Zobel may cure at least a portion of that aspect of the sonics. If your amp seems to be running hotter than normal, this is also a sign of the amp self-oscillating / having high frequency problems. If such is the case, the cables should be pulled until you can get the Zobel's. To be blunt, the amp CAN be damaged in such a situation. Why they don't ship the Zobels with the cables is beyond me. Economic reasons i'm sure.

The other part of this equation is that maybe you're finally hearing what your amp / system really sounds like. I know that's not what you want to hear, but i never promised that everyone would like what they heard. I only said that these cables were the most neutral that we can currently attain. Nobody wants to look in the mirror and see all of their flaws highlighted. Using that same logic, that's why many folks resort to "band-aid" type cabling i.e. they don't want to hear how much or how little musical accuracy their system is capable of.

As far as the lack of bass definition goes, that's something that i noticed when i tried switching from MI-2 to MI-3 in one of my systems. That is, the bass was muddier and lacked definition. This can be explained though as it is both logical and electrically based.

The MI-3's have a nominal impedance ( according to Goertz ) of 1.75 ohms, which is very low. As with any other electrical device, when you drop the impedance, you pull more current. As such, it is possible that your amp is being "loaded down" by the phenomally low nominal impedance of this cable. This typically results in a loss of bass control and / or output & transient response characteristics in the treble.

To help put this into perspective, think about the sonic differences of an MC cartridge as one "loads down" ( lowers the impedance ) that the cartridge itself sees. If someone isn't familiar with this type of situation, as one lowers the impedance that the cartridge sees, the tonal balance shifts from treble emphasis towards bass emphasis and transient response varies. Finding the right loading conditions will provide the proper tonal balance and transient response. Obviously, one can tailor the response to their personal preferences and / or "band-aid" the sonic flaws in their system should they choose to do so. Personally i prefer to find out what the problem is and correct it than to try and band-aid the situation. Even with band-aids, wounds like this won't heal themselves.

As such, this is kind of what i was afraid of and alluded to in my previous post. That is, you CAN get "too much of a good thing" if you're not careful. My suggestion would have been to go for two pairs of MI-2's. This would have been the same cost and presented the amp with a slightly higher nominal impedance. That's why i mentioned this both in the thread and when i spoke to Goertz on the phone.

With all of that n mind, you really do need to get the Zobel's into the system AND get used to what you are hearing. Believe me, no other speaker cable that you've ever used has allowed your amp to actually "load up" or deliver the power potential into those speakers like what you are using now. As such, you are probably hearing more bass than you ever have and it sounds "different" to you. I'm not saying that you'll like this combo when all is said and done, only that a window has been opened. You're used to looking through the glass and dealing with the familiar scents inside the house. Now you have a slightly different picture with other aspects of the presentation to excite your senses in a new and different manner. This can be both new and exciting or "scary", depending on one's perspective and goals.

As a side note, you really have nothing to fear due to Goertz in-home trial period. If you find that these aren't to your personal taste after getting the Zobel's installed, send them back. If you liked most of what the MI-3 offered, it's up to you to see if you can check out a pair of MI-2's WITH the Zobel's. Just bare in mind that i never promised anyone a rose garden or that their system would work well with these cables. Personally, I've never had ANY problems with these cables and everyone that has ever heard them has loved them. Then again, i've only installed them in systems that i've built for myself or helped build for family and friends, so that may have something to do with it. The criteria that i use for choosing components / building a system is probably VERY different from what most others use. Between that and diferences in sonic flavouring / personal preferences, it could make all the difference in the world. Sean
>

I know that the person that is responding here is named Robert, but are you sure that you don't work for Star Sound? You just told us everything we wanted to know about something that we didn't ask about, yet failed to address a single issue being discussed. You've basically painted a picture that introduced us to you, your company, said that most of the people that buy your product enjoy it and told us it is "better" without giving any specifics as to why / how you can make that claim. Like Star Sound, you've done this for multiple posts in a row, avoided the specific issues at hand, used terminology out of context to make your explanation seem more technical than it is and left us even more confused than where we started from. When asked specific questions about this, you defaulted. I don't know if you did this hoping that others might enter the fracas and draw attention away from the situation or for someone to tell me to shut-up and play nice. Only problem is, i don't think that there's anyone coming to your rescue and others have finally realized that you don't get honest answers by "dancing around" the subjects being discussed. They might not like my approach, but they know it gets results.

Maybe i'm wrong here and you might be a nice guy and all, but telling stories about how things should work and explaining why they do or don't and what makes your product different based on verifiable facts & research is what i was expecting. Psychic built you up as someone that could do all of the above, but i've seen no evidence to support his beliefs or expectation. If this sounds harsh, i'm just speaking plainly as i always do. Then again, i'm sure you knew what to expect before you entered into this portion of the thread.

As far as other manufacturers "jumping in", i wouldn't hold your breath. The mass majority of other cable manufacturers ( there are a FEW exceptions here ) are afraid to "lay it on the line". That's because they can't explain / don't understand what it is that they are trying to sell us. They build cabling, have cabling built to their spec or simply use off the shelf parts and hide the internals. They do most of this based on what they think will get the job done, be cosmetically desirable while returning a handsome profit on their time and money invested. That's primarily because marketing hyperbole is all that is expected out of them.

When it comes down to it, most speaker cables being made today lack the design integrity to do the job right. So rather than open their mouths and prove this point, the manufacturers remain silent and hope that their name isn't mentioned in a thread like this. Wearing a 10 gallon hat, big chrome & turquoise belt buckle, pointed toe boots that jangle or click with each step, etc.. may let you walk and look like a cowboy, but when it comes down to it, you better be able to ride that horse, rope that steer and brand that calf when the time comes. That's why most cable manufacturers leave their hats at home and won't enter the arena. The arena is way too visible and they know that all that they'll do is make a spectacle of themselves. Sean
>

PS... I visited your website several times, but as you mentioned, there's nothing there for someone that wants to know the "nitty gritty" about your products. One thing that i don't know if you're aware of or not is that your "accessories" link takes FOREVER to download. I have a 3 meg connection and i gave up several times waiting for it.

Sean, thanks again for sharing your expertise and also for taking the time and trouble to research the Goertz compatibility issues (potential issues).
As a side, Goertz (Alpha Core) have received a bit of flack in another post here on Gon, not for their products per se but more for their marketing strategy, and while I am not defending their marketing strategy here, I feel it appropriate to mention that my dealings with them over the last few days have been very positive. I placed an order with them on Thursday morning, for cables that obviously needed to be cut and terminated, and they arrived here in Wisconsin exactly 24 hrs later. Their customer service and sales department were very good indeed.
(I did select the solid silver spades over the rhodium plated option)
I'm trying to think when the last time was that I bought new speaker cables, probably over 15 years ago, mostly I pickup used sets from people on the upgrade trail. So I'm not sure what the typical break-in period is for speaker cables, and what percentage of the 'final' sound is heard after say 10 hours. But I have about 10 hours on these now and they are sounding a little forward, a little edgy, and the bass extension and definition isn't quite there.
Incidentally, I was wrong in my assuption that the cables would be sent with zobels. There is reference to providing free zobels on request in the literature that came with the cables, so I'm using them without zobels and I don't hear anything untoward, unless some of the 'edginess' is a direct result of using them without the RC networks?

There's a lot of reaally good information in this thread, I'm going to read through it again and better digest it.

There ought to be a Gon category for 'reference' type information, one that doesn't drop off the page when people stop posting.

Rooze.

Honestly though, it mifs me a bit that you seem to talk almost ex-cathedra about those cables when you have no knowledge or experience about our speaker cables...the Ridge Street's are better (but of course and says I).

I've offered Sean to lend him all five sets of Ridge Street Cables I have, now that I'm moving to Florida. He can keep them for a month or so...and perform all measurements, tests, etc. After all, he reads for me, cause I don't know how to read! He could even write a review alongside Lak's.

Robert, if you don't come up w/ some quantifiable info *pronto* Sean might confuse you w/ Robert the Lone-note. That's not good. It's actually very bad, bordering on the awful...

***

Sean, In regards to your question, I would naturally love to splat what I've learned here and puff myself up (or not) but let's do this: Let's see if another manufacturer will take the opportunity to address some of the purity/quality issue. As of now, Ridge Street is the only one I'm aware of that concerns themself or makes a point about this issue. Not full fledged rocket science but it seems to be one of those details that no one is noticing and thereby giving due attention to.

If no one chimes in I will but I won't divulge it fully since it's something we address and part of what sets us apart from what others are doing.

Kind Regards,
Robert

...See how I go here. I forgot one other thing I wanted to assert.

The simplest circuits executed with excellence and with the best parts or materials will be the most revealing...both of its own "character" and of other components. I believe cabling has the greatest potential for this. For this reason, I also believe that well designed cabling, i.e. as neutral as possible, should serve as the foundation for assembling a system. I know this flies in the face of conventional thinking. And lest some of you think..."but of course, you sell cables!" I promise you that this view is not going to contribute any significance to Ridge Street's sales. Our 3.2% return ratio will probably dwarf how many people buy into this perspective. I consider that a shame but, so be it.

Here's some of my experience and thinking behind this: You go to the show room and here this beautiful music on this system that took who knows how long to dial in. You're looking for a CPD and like this one in this system. You buy it for $249.999.98. It's gotta be the best if not really good. You get it home and it sounds like a toaster...but a really nice one. What happened? I say that too many times, one of the contributing factors is the cabling used acted as tuning agent. That's fine if that's how you want to approach assembling a system and you want to spend ten years going in circles doing it. Some folks enjoy that kind of journey and I trust they learn a lot. I know some enthusiasts like this and they do have a lot of valuable input and info to share.

On the other hand, if efficiency is a priority, experience tells me that neutral cabling allows me to hear what that CDP really sounds like and judge more competently if the player suites my biases. When evaluating a component, not only do I use my music, I also use my cabling. I think the last thing I want to do is spend my hard earned $249,999.98 on that CDP only to have it "tuned" to something else by the editorial signature of a lesser cable. BTW, did you know that there are some well known cable manufacturers that base their designs on what will work euphorically with top selling speakers or amps, etc. primarily so they can sell more product and acquire a more reputable name as best? Not necessarily a bad thing but interesting.

Well, I hope you get the idea here. The above is kind of simplistic or a thumbnail of what I'm saying but like I said, I hope you get the idea. I know some of us know this but cabling can make or break a system and sometimes when the system is found to sound broke, it's not a function of the cables. If I have my preferences and biases defined, I believe using neutral as possible cabling as my foundation will allow me to assemble a system that meets my requirements more surely and be more satisfying over the long haul. It seems my wallet stays happier too.

I'll get philosophical here as to perhaps one reason why this approach seems not easy to embrace. Us grown ups, men and woman, are just kids (like when we were little) playing adults. This is good and at heart, we're just beautiful or charming (and some of us ornery) kids playing the game. We all have our peers. For some of us kids, the community we live in has become the neighborhood we "play" in, for some the world is their neighborhood. Others still, it's the net or whatever. Boys like their toys for the sense of adventure and discovery it gives them and like to share and/or impress other boys (and girls too but it doesn't seem to work real well) with their toys...Audio gear works well here. Cars, guns, fishing gear, wine or cigar collections and other stuff works well too. For woman, MaryKay works well so they can play Dress Up. Shopping, though the current constraints of our culture make it more difficult, is an allure to women so they can buy beautiful clothes and make up so they can be the princes they are meant to be. Beauticians of one sort or another are employed so a woman can be the princes. I'm glad. Girls play dolls when they're little and from this, in part have developed their natural ability to be nurturers for men (not mothers, guys) and children.

Somehow big amps and cool looking speakers are typically what we're drawn to. They have obvious substance that peak our inquisitiveness and are bulk enough to impress while wire is....well, it's wire. Everything it is and does is obviously not obvious. Do you get what I'm suggesting here. It's really kind of funny I think but it's human. The hierarchy of wire and it's place and function in a system and the position we give it can be allegorized like this I think: Buy your wife a car because she deserves it and she'll appreciate you. (Why didn't this reach her heart? I don't get it.) Pick a flower yourself from a field of daisies you pass by on your way home from work and give it to her because you think it reflects her beauty and she'll appreciate you and love you (Why did this reach her heart? I don't get it.) and...even after 20 + years...you might still get some. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Thanks for indulging me on this.

So, agree or disagree. There is at least some value and helpfulness in all this...No?

Cheers,
Robert

Sean, I absolutely got it ;-) .... just couldn't resist.

We're on the same, perhaps scary, wavelength on the subject of components and environment first. I believe I'm finally at the point where I can begin to seriously look at the cables. Goertz, Ridgestreet and others will be fun to try out when the next "audio budget" season arrives.

Sean, thanks for all the advice here and in the past. Audiogoners, that's a big fat ditto.

Robert: Kudo's to you for "entering the arena". You are braver than most : )

Can you explain or clarify this specific part of your post for me?

"Whether your fancy is Copper, Silver, Gold, Platinum or Polyflatulent, purity is important. The quality factor of a conductor or "Q" as I've termed it for us is more important and is distinct from a conductor's purity. A high purity/low Q conductor will not sound as good as a lower purity/high Q conductor. The later is also a more expensive material. A higher purity/higher Q conductor is best...da! and is a more expensive material...da da!"

My question is, how do you judge "quality" or "Q" as you call it? Since you've stated that "quality" has nothing to do with "purity", what parameters are used to judge just how "good" the "quality" of a conductor is? On top of that, if "purity" has nothing to do with "quality", why would a more expensive conductor that was "purer" be "better" than a lower cost conductor of reduced "purity" if the "quality" was equal? If this is confusing to you, welcome to the club. Sean
>

Ozfly: That "15 minutes" was a joke. You got it, right??? : )

As far as your amp goes, it's quite possible that it does a very fine job of filtering out unwanted noise. The power supply that i described was simply a basic approach. There are other ways to achieve very good results.

As far as the "Goertz being neutral in most systems", that's how / why it works the way that it does. The problem is that not all systems work well with everything being sonically exposed for what it is and / or some people simply prefer specific colourations. That's why they resort to "band-aid" speaker cables that introduce non-linear distortions into the system. They use those distortions to cover up / compliment other distortions.

As i've mentioned before, you have to have a baseline to start with. Otherwise, you can end up changing cables & components a million times over and simply spinning your wheels. If you can get the backbone of the system to where you want it i.e. the amp / speaker cable / speakers / room interface "right", you now have something to judge the rest of the components / cabling by. Otherwise, you end up with a dozen different colourations and you don't know where to start / which is causing what / how each colourations is interacting with the others.

Psychic: I'm not holding my breath in terms of waiting for a reply from any manufacturer. Other than that, was your wording of replacing the word "beyond" with "beyonce'" a Freudian slip or what??? : ) Sean
>

...Damit! I hit the submit button instead of the edit button.

Organic insulators...best but in a manufacturing environment, not practical to do properly. Especially if you need to sell tons of cabling to support your marketing campaign. Oops, I shouldn't have said that.

Sean, you're findings about the Goertz S/Cs is spot on I think. I agree with much of their approach. Honestly though, it mifs me a bit that you seem to talk almost ex-cathedra about those cables when you have no knowledge or experience about our speaker cables...the Ridge Street's are better (but of course and says I). Sorry to come across as a personal attack. My "mif" probably says more about my envy or jelousy than your comments. But I feel better now...LOL!?

Finally, again, some of you might visit our web site as a result of my previous post. I apologize in advance. The site needs to be overhauled (which will happen over the next weeks). While I think the site "looks" fairly nice, it's not informative as I would like it and it's really out dated from when it was originally done to where we are now. Not enough days in the hour to do everything I want sometimes.

Cheers,
Robert

Ok, I'll take the bait at the risk of getting schooled again as to one reason why most Mfg'rs don't engage in a thread like this...the debates gets old and usually all's most folks want to do is prove they're right. Though some folks enjoy the pedestal of "god on a stick" that's not a position I desire to set myself up as so...

I'll preface this post with a couple of things. First, I have no intention of debating with anyone what we do, why we do what we do and/or the legitimacy of it all. Our clients can speak to some of that if they wish to. I'll only say this: our customer satisfaction (no return policy exercised) has been 96.8% of our total sales. We're shamelessly proud of that.

What findings and techniques I'm willing to share here are informational and that's it. If you find value in it, good for you. If not that's okay and further, it won't surprise me if Sean or someone else wants to do an apparent credible job of discrediting what we do here. That will be a shame.

I take a degree of pride in who I am and how that contributes to my and other enthusiast's enjoyment of reproduced music. I'm a musician and music lover first. Then I'm an artisan and thirdly an engineer with enough experience to be so but no formal education. With current culture and, what I think is contrary to our current value system, I consider the above an asset to what Ridge Street does and has to offer. As a musician, it's a passionate hobby. As an occupation, what started out as a passionate hobby of about twenty years has turned into Ridge Street Audio Designs going on ten years.

I suppose the main thing I think is worth addressing here is that science and engineering certainly have their value in audio but it is in no wise the be all/end all that too many folks in any field (but I think especially audio and, dare I say, wire!) laud it to be...even in 21st century! I think this lauding keeps people stuck. I've not shared this before but one of my approaches to "un-stucking" enthusiasts is I don't talk about everything we do with our cabling. If I did it would be a stumbling block for some people...especially for those who like numbers, graphs, measurements, white papers, facts, facts and more facts etc. to give the only credibility as to how something in audio might sound. Like I'm sure at least some of us, I've discovered too that some things that have been defined as hugely important aren't and some things that are said not to matter are hugely important. If I were strictly an engineer or scientist and didn't venture outside that frame or strictly relied upon that frame, I doubt my conclusions would be the same. Anyway...all this.

For those of us that will look, entertain and find some relevance to what's outside the "nine dots"...

Capacitance, inductance and/or resistance values in and of themselves mean little in any given cable. Characteristic impedance is very important to optimize in a given cable application. As Sean has said, with speaker cables it's difficult but easier to optimize for. Contrary to what has been said, there are ways around it for I/Cs but admittedly there are trade-offs. Fortunately, when other things are accounted for, those trade-offs are mostly inconsequential with today's better electronics. How the characteristic impedance actually performs is of the most importance and, to my knowledge, is a parameter no one else is considering and/or talking about.

Whether your fancy is Copper, Silver, Gold, Platinum or Polyflatulent, purity is important. The quality factor of a conductor or "Q" as I've termed it for us is more important and is distinct from a conductor's purity. A high purity/low Q conductor will not sound as good as a lower purity/high Q conductor. The later is also a more expensive material. A higher purity/higher Q conductor is best...da! and is a more expensive material...da da! As for silver which is what we use, regardless of what rep someone has or how distinguished they are in the market place, there is no 6n or 7n actual silver purity. Am I popular yet! LOL!

Surface area distribution is more important than conductor gauge.

Organic insulators are best. As is of prime importance to Van den Hul for example, sealing a cable so that it's protected from the elements is very important. The down side of this type of insulator is it's more difficult to protect it from the outside envirnoment but a cable can be protected if the proper care and technique is applied and it can be done in such a manner that it doesn't degrade sonic performance. Marketing ploy: Our cables float in water. So far, that marketing approach has not worked for us...LOL!

Construction technique is as important and should work hand-in-hand with a cable's topology. They should not be mutually exclusive of each other. One with out the other makes for an inferior cable.

Cable burn-in is a good thing to do. Cable break-in is different, is system dependant and, in our view, is more important but should not take the place of burn-in.

So, again all this. I hope there's some value in this for some of you. I suppose some of this may be sort of vague but I have found the details behind this stuff to be important. For those who might question some of this, good for you. If you're inclined to bash the hell out of some of this I think a better suggestion is to go on your own mission, discover what you discover and develop your own business out of that. That would be good and I'm betting we could inspire and learn a bit from each other.

Finally, I love this and it's served as a montra for me since I saw this on Simon York's site some time ago. I trust you'll enjoy it too…

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

George Bernard Shaw

I'll probably get boo'ed off of here, from all the "Monster Haters" but, one of the best cheaper cables i have heard, it the Monster Interlink Reference 2. I bought a one meter pair for $79, msrp is $99, it is a very nice sounding cable, pretty neutral from what i can tell. I have heard other people rave about this cable also, sharing most of my same sentiments.

Sean, Robert is ahead in this game and can scientifically explain everything he does (goes beyoncé what is being discussed here, but I'm not at liberty to discuss). His cotton insulated ribbon speaker cables are outstanding. Lak brought a set of MSE one time he came over.

Sean, et al, thanks for the great info. (Sean, are you sure you only spend 15 minutes a day on Audiogon?)

Earlier, I made a comment that:
"MANY cables may sound neutral in one system but not another; ALL cables will influence their systems to some degree; SOME cables may sound neutral in most systems."

Does this make sense? It appears that the Goertz hits the last point pretty solidly.

By the way, to the earlier question about pc's affects on components with good power supplies -- I've tried three different pc's on my Sierra Olympias with no discernable affect on the sound. Even though the tranformer is torroidal, the power supply is absolutely massive (4+kva) and further bolstered by large caps at each output device. It may not be as elegant as what Sean describes, but it seems pretty pc neutral.

Rooze: To make things easier on you, here's a link to a thread where i made my most recent mention of Magnan interconnects. It can be found in a thread entitled IC Advice Needed.

Psychic: Send him on over, along with all of the other manufacturers that want to join in. Since they didn't want to try and refute the facts over at AA when i first detailed all of this, they can come for a "swim" now. The water feels fine and there's actually some technical specifications provided by a third party that we can use for reference material. We can see just how much snake oil / misinformation one can fit into a thread and at the same time, see who can lie through their teeth without smiling or giving themselves away. Somehow, i get the feeling that there are VERY few cable manufacturers that would be afraid to enter even the shallow end of this "pool". If they do, they better bring their "inflatable water wings" like young ones use before they really swim. You might also want to let them know that this "pool" has sharks in it : ) Sean
>

PS... How does one deal with the oxidation of a conductor when using a natural "non-sealed" type of dielectric? After all, oxygen is allowed to flow through a cloth fiber, which in turn oxidizes the conductor. Oxidation causes corrosion and pitting of the surface, resulting in increased skin effect, impedance bumps, irregular signal paths and higher resistance. Since this will take place over the entire length of the conductor due to a lack of dielectric protection, you've now got an entire length of potential signal variations.

The way to get around this is to use both the highest grade of dielectric that acts as a protective barrier AND the least amount of it. Yes, there may be a minute amount of signal degradation that takes place due to miniscule amounts of DA ( Dielectric Absorption ), but at least you've got a consistent conductor that is good for long term use that doesn't require constant maintenance due to corrosion.

For sake of comparison to other designs, the Goertz flat conductors have a very fine layer of dielectric plated directly onto the conductor and then another very thin film-like jacket over that to hold the two conductors together. The latest versions make use of Teflon, which is a material that has the lowest DA of any material known to man. Audioholics tested the older version, so the results may be even better with the current Goertz speaker cables due to the use of higher grade dielectric materials.

Now is the time for Robert Schult to step in...

Clear your head of that caffeine/nicotine overdose and show them what *you* have, Robert. Since my two week fasting my mind is very clear and I've been giving psychic healing prescriptions. I have one for you, too!

Bupleurum Liver Cleanser by Planetary Formulas--follow the label instructions. This is a five day modified fast: distilled water with lemon juice, watermelon (in season!) and chamomille tea before bedtime. No cigarrettes, no coffee. Sleep with a small white quartz on a necklace and recite these words before going to bed:

Porque yo...soy la fama
Soy aquél que la gente reclama
Y nadie me puede comprender.

It will get worse before it gets better. Call me if you need help.

***

Tommy: One more thing about the Magnan's that you linked to. That is, they appear to use the flat ribbon design but then make additional connections to a different type of conductor for termination at each end of the cable. This means for a standard pair of speaker cables, you've now got a connection from the binding post to the spade, from the spade to the "round" wire, from the round wire to the foil, from the foil to the round wire, from the round wire to the spade and from the spade to the amp. Now you've got the same thing for the other polarity. Compare those 24 ( !!! ) connections per stereo pair of speaker cables and the overall design of the cable to Goertz and see what you get.

First of all, the Goertz connects the ribbon to the spade directly. Secondly, the lack of connections maintains a more pure path / consistent path for the signal to be carried upon. Thirdly, there's only one type of conductor used per polarity, so there's no reduction of the benefits that we worked so hard to achieve in terms of trying to minimize skin effect. As far as the total connection count for a pair of Goertz flat cables, you've got the connection from the binding post to the spade, the spade to the ribbon, the ribbon to the spade and the spade to the amp's binding post. This is 16 connections per stereo pair. This results in a 33% reduction in connections as compared to the Magnan's, let alone retaining a higher level of signal integrity / signal path.

To be fair though, some folks consider ANY connection as being one too many. As such, they try to reduce the number of connections to as few as possible. As such, it would be possible to use bare Goertz ( that was stripped of its' insulation" and tie it directly to each binding post. This would result in two connections per polarity, for a total of 8 connections per stereo pair. This would result in a 50% reduction of connections compared to using spades with the Goertz or a 66% reduction compared to the Magnan's. I say this because i really don't think that you could safely use the Magnan's by directly connecting their very thin and fragile ribbon directly to the binding posts without tearing them apart / ripping the foil.

Like i said before, there's a lot of good ideas, but some ideas are implimented better / in a more practical manner than others. Sean
>

"In other words, does 'minimizing skin effect' actually mean 'maximizing skin propagation'?

Tommy: That's a GREAT summary. Only thing to remember is, you've got to have enough "skin" or "surface area" to keep the series resistance low. On top of that, the geometry of each "skin" used, the spacing between the skins and the dielectric used also dictates the nominal impedance and how lossy the cable is, so all of that is important too. Like i said over in the AA thread, it's the only design that takes ALL of these factors into consideration in an even fashion. Many designs try to stress specific attributes of proper electrical design, but they neglect other aspects of signal propagation, resulting in a cable that has various strengths and weaknesses. This is the only product that attempts to do all of them in an even-handed fashion, resulting in the most cohesive package possible. That's why the test results at Audioholics showed what they did. Even the "generic", "copy-cat" or "cloned" versions of Goertz ( like Electro-Fluidics ) don't get everything right. Sean
>

Psychic: One of my colleagues has some radical ideas about power cords and AC filtration. He has made claims to me about what he can do in this area and i'm trying to work with him on this. He's not been real specific with me as he likes toying with me i.e. trying to get me to think about things on a different level. Only problem is, we have very different schedules and right now, our priorities are very much in other places. I'm quite eager to see what he has come up with though as he's the smartest guy that i personally know in terms of electronics and design theory. The fact that he has more test equipment than Toys R Us has toys surely doesn't hurt either.

Rooze: If unsure, i always recommend the use of the Zobel's with Goertz cables. Before making specific recommendations to you though, i called up Krell and spoke to Roger. He wasn't familiar with Goertz and had to ask the engineers there several technical questions to get answers for me. We ended up coming down to the same conclusion. That is, this specific amp should probably be used with the Zobel's "just in case".

As a side note, Goertz cables aren't like most other speaker cables in certain respects. That is, bigger isn't always better. You have to look at the output impedance of the amp, the speaker load that you'll be driving, etc... It's my experience that MI-2 Veracity cables may be superior to MI-3 Divinity cables in most installations. This is due to the electrical characteristics of most amplifiers and speakers involved.

Like i said above, you want to match the cables electrical characteristics to the devices that it is linking together. I know that "male syndrome" i.e. "bigger is better" / "more is not enough", etc... is a hard thing to overcome, but when it comes to things like this, you really can overdue it. Going to their heavier gauge cables can create an impedance mismatch, which would actually lower the performance capacity of the ciruit. Granted, this may not be as severe as going to other cables that create a more drastic impedance related issue, but at the same time, we're shooting for optimum results here.

The obvious thing that most people think of when looking at "bigger" speaker cables would be the heavier gauge with its increased surface area, power handling and lower series resistance. As such, i can see why one would normally want to shoot for the "top of the line" cable, but that doesn't mean that such a cable would always be the best suited electrically or economically to the situation at hand. This is especially the case when dealing with a manufacturer that actually has some design integrity built into the various products that they offer at various price points.

Having said that, i called up and spoke to the folks at Goertz about your specific installation. Their first recommendation was exactly what you ordered i.e. the MI-3 Divinities in bi-wire form. The other alternative would be to use two individual pairs of MI-2 Veracity cables, one cable for the low's and the other for the highs. This would give you the same cross section area as the MI-3's while maintaining ( what i think ) is the most appropriate impedance.

Here's another point about Goertz that i like. It just so happens that this subject is being discussed in another thread pertaining to cable models and the price structure of various manufacturers. That is, the MI-3 is equivalent to two pairs of MI-2's in terms of surface area & materials used. As such, the MI-3 bi-wires are exactly the same cost as two pairs of MI-2's. Makes sense, huh???

On top of that, there is a linear progression of their cables in terms of how / why they are designed as they are. That is, as one progresses from one model to the next to the next, you can see the exact steps taken in terms of gauge / series resistance / surface area / nominal impedance. Their MI-1's start out at 13 gauge, the MI-2's are 10 gauge and the MI-3's are 7 gauge. In effect, as you step up in their cable line, you double your surface area and power handling and at the same time, reduce the nominal impedance to pass more current. How many other manufacturers are as fair with their pricing and / or logical with their design philosophy / product line? None that i know of.

My suggestion is to try the MI-3's and see what you think. If you aren't over-joyed with them, send them back and pick up a quad of MI-2's. It's the same cost and you'll only be out the cost of shipping. This will let you know for sure whether or not you like this cable within the confines of your system and you can always return them if not satisfied. Sean
>

PS... If i were buying these cables, i would be ordering them with their silver spades. I don't really care for their rhodium spades and their banana connectors are terrible. As a side note, they use "real" silver, so the connections will tarnish over time. While you should clean them periodically ( all connections should be removed and cleaned periodically ), this one is not exactly a big deal. Silver oxide, the corrosion that forms on the surface of silver, is actually more conductive than copper is when it is still "fresh". That doesn't mean that you should let them go to the point of turning black, but at the same time, if you forget about this over a period of time, it's nothing to worry about.

And the learning fun just never stops...

Rooze, FWIW, I've been using AG-2 biwires without the Zobels to connect a Rowland Concentra to Wilson-Benesch ACT-1s. No problems whatsoever. Given Sean's advice, I'm planning on installing the Zobels nevertheless- if there is no sonic difference, I'll leave them in just to be safe.

Sean, thanks for clarifying on skin effect. If one had to create a 'cliff's notes version' of the discussion that is somewhere between the full length explanation above and the 'equal rights for all frequencies' distillation, does it make sense to say that 'minimizing skin effect' actually means 'making the wire so thin that bulk signal propagation is eliminated, resulting in all signal propagation, at all frequencies, occurring in the skin of the cable'? In other words, does 'minimizing skin effect' actually mean 'maximizing skin propagation'?

Re. the Magnan cables- thanks for the tip- I'll go search the archives. It turns out Magnan now has a 'Reference' ribbon that seems to combine a narrower strip of their ultra-thin ribbon used in the 'Signature' cable with the Alpha-Core stacked ribbon structure. No need to place cables side by side for this model. I haven't a clue how they sound, but thought I'd point it out-

Magnan Reference

Cheers,

Sean, thanks for the technical appraisal of zobel networks, I didn't follow all of it but I understand the basic principal of operation and why they are needed. This is of interest to me since I just ordered a pair of Goertz MI3 Biwires, and though they haven't arrived yet, I'm expecting the zobels to be sent along with the cables. Question: is it safe to try the cables without the zobels first, and if no negative effects are present, continue without the zobels? Or should they be inserted as a matter of course in any installation with Goertz cables? I'm using a Krell FPB200 and Magnepan 3.6's. Appreciate your advice.

Rooze

What a sensory overload! For a moment I thought I was reading Miguel de Cervantes, English version!

Sean, it's time to put your house as collateral and have your amazing power cord design extruded and marketed. You should have no problems selling it. Send one pair to me and one pair to Lak. We'll gladly review them (I like Rhodium in my power plugs/terminals).

The way you describe power supply is similar to what I've done externally in my power delivery/noise control setup. Bueno. I think that the other (and more elegant) approach would be the way Albert Porter does his sound.

***

Tommy: As one goes higher in frequency, the signal tends to travel more towards the surface of the conductor. Consequently, as one goes lower in frequency, the signal tends to travel through a deeper cross-section of the conductor. By making the conductor very thin yet maintaining a very wide & flat surface, all of the signal is conducted evenly regardless of frequency. This reduces time smear and maintains a more consistent series resistance / impedance regardless of frequency. This is yet another factor as to why you could hear increased "liquidity" with improved harmonic structure and timing of the notes. That is, each note / frequency has a very similar electrical path, length, series resistance and amount of surface area to travel. We'll call this "equal rights for all frequencies" : )

While one can obtain excellent results as far as skin effect goes with very small gauge round conductors, the problem is that the smaller gauge increases series resistance. In order to get around this problem, now we have to run multiple conductors in parallel. We now run into the problem of which geometry to configure these conductors in, how do we maintain the same spacing / EM fields between the conductors of the same polarity and how do we configure the two different polarities using multiple different conductors and how do we keep all the conductors of the same exact length? As you can see, Goertz' solution is a very simple yet elegant solution to all of those questions. That is, they followed the old "KISS" rule ( Keep It Simple, Stupid ).

As far as Magnan goes, if you check in the archives, you'll find that i've made some positive comments about some of their interconnects. I've never used their speaker cables or their "conductive paint" interconnects, nor do i think i ever will. I wouldn't mind trying out their speaker cables though, but i sincerely doubt that i would run it "side by side" as they suggest. This increases the inductance, which reduces the bandwidth and creates more phase errors. Like i said, the Goertz flat speaker cable design is simple yet elegant and solves all of those problems. Sean
>

Flex: A good yet "basic" power supply would consist of parallel RF bypasses across the incoming AC line, an EI type transformer ( NOT a toroidal ), fast recovery diodes ( or snubbers across standard diodes / rectifiers ) and a staggered array of multiple value filter caps. None of this is that hard to do. Just these things in itself would be a big step forward for most designs.

Quite honestly, toroids are crap compared to a well designed EI type transformer and that's why i specifically stated the old "iron core" type transformer. Since toroids are much cheaper than an EI, guess what most mass produced and even the majority of "high end" gear uses??? That's right. The cheap junk that is touted as being " a technological advancement".

In case you think that i'm making this up or are wondering why i said what i did about the toroidal type transformers, a really good toroidal will offer about -85 dB's of high frequency isolation from line noise. Some would consider this "excellent" and more than enough. That's because they are used to working with spec's that have been shoved down their throat as being "acceptable" by the industry and have come to believe them to be "as good as it gets". Not even close.

When you compare this to a really good EI type transformer, you're looking at an isolation factor of appr -145 dB's. In plain English, the difference figure between the two transformers is -50 dB's of attenuation. This means that the toroid could potentially allow 60,000+ times more noise through than what the good IE "iron core" type transformer would AND it would still be doing its' job "as expected". Now can you folks understand why i said that toroidals are crap???

While some may doubt the figures that i've quoted here, do some research. As far as the validity of the -145 dB figure on the iron core, it is achievable. If you doubt this, ask Larry aka LAK. He's using some transformers that have this spec that i helped him locate for his AC filtration system. You might also want to look at some of the comments that John Curl & Bob Crump of CTC Builders have made pertaining to toroids vs iron core's. That is, they have both flatly stated that toroids offer nowhere near the isolation / noise filtering capacity that an iron core does. This is besides the distinct advantage that they have in terms of low frequency "punch".

If one wanted to take that all of that a step further, you could install a zobel network to reduce the ringing of the transformer and lower the noise floor and / or install some type of low-pass filter. This would require a very specific orientation of the AC plug for proper operation since the energy that was "trapped" by the filtering would be shunted to ground. If one wanted to really get adventurous, they could build a resistive trap rather than shunting it to ground. Only problem is, you have to use resistors that can dissipate enough power and provide heat-sinking for them. Once again, this raises the cost of production and increases the complexity of the design. You'll NEVER see anything like a resistive trap in an audio circuit though. The primarily reason is that it costs too much and the second reason is that most audio engineers have never seen or heard of such a design. Maybe back in their textbooks or in school, but never in the real world.

What would make this even more effective would be to use the chassis as a "Faraday shield" i.e. where the chassis completely isolated from the circuit path and is tied to Earth ground. Many circuit designs tie the chassis into the circuit path, which is phenomenally stupid as far as i'm concerned. This is done because it is FAR cheaper and faster as far as production is concerned, so the bean counters tend to like these type of cost-cutting production short-cuts. Removing this from the design means a lot more point to point wiring and / or increased complexity of the circuit board design. Since one means more labor and the other means more parts, the bean counters don't like that approach.

As far as you question goes about cable resonances and damping, my specific comments were based on a relatively popular cable in use. I have to assume that since people are using this design, there are other similar designs on the market too. As i mentioned, this cable is VERY rigid even though it makes use of stranded conductors. If you were to conduct simple tests using both your hands, you would understand where i'm coming from. That is, you could "flick" the cable at one end and literally feel, let alone hear the "thunk" at the far end. NO actual measurements are needed as the results are blatantly obvious.

As far as clarifying what i meant by "jacket", i didn't mean the dielectric material surrounding the conductors. To me, you have the conductor ( copper, silver, etc... ) and then you have the "dielectric insulation material" that sheathes the individual conductors. All of these insulated conductors are then housed in one larger container, which i'll refer to as the "jacket". The jacket simply acts as a container for all the various insulated conductors.

While the jacket is also a dielectric, i was trying not to confuse the issue between the jacket and the individual insulation for each strand of conductors. As such, using a cable with a very soft i.e. "rubbery" jacket can very definitely reduce the amount of vibration that is allowed to travel from one end of the cable to the other. I have a near identical design to the "very rigid" cable using the same gauge conductors, but with very different dielectric around each conductor and with a different type of "jacket" around those. The differences in how much mechanical energy that can be transmitted through these cables from end to end in a side by side test is rather amazing.

On top of all of that, the "mechanically lossy" dielectric material mentioned above is typically very good at absorbing higher frequencies. This tends to reduce the bandwidth of the cable and act as a passive filter in itself. As such, the use of "low loss" dielectrics ( like Teflon ) in a power cord is backwards as far as i'm concerned. That's because Teflon is both more rigid AND it is of lower DA ( Dielectric Absorption ) than many of the other options available to us for a project like this. With AC, you do NOT want wide bandwidth, you want very narrow bandwidth. Since damping mechanical resonances AND increasing the DA ( Dielectric Absorption ) of the power cord i.e. limiting the bandwidth can be achieved using softer, more "rubbery" types of insulation, you get two birds with one stone. On top of that, these materials are both cheap and plentiful, so going any other route is both senseless ( as far as i'm concerned ) and economically wasteful. This is NOT true for signal cables though, so don't think that cheap dielectric is "good" for speaker cables or interconnects. After all, power cords are dealing with a 60 Hz signal whereas music is generally considered to be from 20 Hz to 20 KHz.

Obviously, there are going to be a LOT of cable manufacturers that charge outrageous sums for their fancy power cables upset with me and wanting to disagree with this observation. As such, i'm more than open for debate on this subject. Maybe we can even get "Audioholics" to perform some "third party" tests on various AC cables and see who's right on this one too : )

Rhyno: There are different ideas as to what values should be used. Changing the values will not only affect the "hinge frequency" that the Zobels start acting as part of the load, but it will also alter how effective they are at damping reflections. Much of this deals with what is called "transmission line theory", which so-called "cable experts" say does NOT apply to audio circuits. Personally, i think that transmission line theory DOES apply to audio in many ways and that may be why my thoughts / beliefs about various cables don't fall inline with most "experts" on the subject.

As you saw in the tests, when Audioholics changed the values used for the Zobel's, this also changed how linear / in-phase the signal was at both ends of the cable and how much of a reflection they were able to measure. To be fair though, ALL of these "problems" that the Zobel corrected were well into the MHz range, which is measurably beyond what most people are using for audio amps. Then again, with all of these concerns about RFI entering the system, why would you want to use a cable that was capable of introducing RF based ringing directly into the system when all you would have to do is to use a few parts to make a Zobel with? This is yet another reason why i've stressed the importance of a Zobel with very high capacitance / wide bandwidth / low impedance cable.

My theory about Zobel's is a little different than most others. In the above article i mentioned that Nelson Pass wrote about speaker cables, he mentions a specific set of values that he likes to use and recommends for use with "low inductance" speaker cables. In that same article, Nelson Pass quotes Matthew Polk as suggesting a different set of values for the same cables. If you ask Jon Risch what values to use, he'll give you figures that are somewhere between what Pass, Polk and Goertz use. To be honest, they are all effective formula's, but some may be more suitable for specific designs than for others.

How a Zobel works is that you have two parts i.e. a capacitor and a resistor. These are wired in parallel ( across ) the circuit i.e. at the speaker terminals across the positive and negative binding posts. What happens is that at a certain frequency, the capacitor will start to conduct signal to the resistor. Below that frequency, the Zobel is basically "invisible". Once we hit that frequency, the resistor acts as a "dummy load" or "signal absorber", presenting the amp with a purely resistive i.e. non-reactive load. By changing the value of the cap, you change the frequency of where the Zobel starts to work at and as you change the value of the resistor, you change what impedance the amp sees above that frequency. As such, it is VERY important to use "non-inductive" resistors as part of the Zobel, as inductive i.e. "wire wound" resistors may not be of wide enough bandwidth to work properly.

This is where it gets tricky and why there are different ideas about what values to use. Since some amps are more / less stable than others, some folks want the Zobel to come in very quickly i.e. at a lower frequency. This can definitely increase the stability of the circuit, so some would consider this a benefit. Other folks believe that you want to avoid ANY interaction between the audible range and / or any of the harmonics of the extreme treble range, so they want the Zobel to come in at a much higher frequency. As such, each individual selects a capacitor value that reflects the frequency that they want the Zobel to start conducting at. Nelson Pass based his testing / comments on the results he obtained with earlier Threshold amps and Polk "Cobra Cables", Matt Polk based his suggestion on testing the "Cobra Cables" with multiple different amps, etc... so you can see how they arrived at different figures. Polk shot for a "universal" Zobel and Pass had specific figures for his amps in mind. Jon Risch's suggestions are also somewhat "universal" but take into account some other important factors too. In this regard, he and i tend to think somewhat alike. I'll get to why in just a bit though.

Another person that comes into this equation is Bob Carver. Due to past experiences with "low inductance" speaker cables and some of his past amps, he builds "impedance compensation networks" or "Zobel's" right into the Sunfire amps. His thoughts are that he wants to keep the amp as stable as possible ( which requires a lower hinge frequency ) but at the same time, he doesn't want the Zobel's interferring with the treble response of the amp. As such, he's selected 80 KHz as the point where his high frequency protection kicks in at. This may also have to do with the fact that the Sunfire's use a high frequency power supply and this frequency also worked well to keep power supply noise from being transmitted through the amp and out to the speakers.

As to the way that i like to do Zobel's, i take several factors into account. That is, the nominal impedance of the speaker cable being used, the nominal impedance of the speakers being used and the bandwidth of the amp being used. You can start by selecting a frequency that you want the Zobel's to come into play. Personally, i like to keep them above at least 100 KHz. On the other hand, i think that the Goertz Zobel's come in at about 150 KHz ( give or take ), which is still fine for most amps and would be even less intrusive sonically.

Now you have to look at the nominal impedance of the speaker cable and the speakers being used. Let's say that we have a cable that is 2.5 ohms ( as Goertz is rated ) and speakers that have a nominal impedance of 4 ohms. Only thing is, when we get WAY above the audio band, that 4 ohm impedance is going to be MUCH higher. As such, the Zobel is actually running in parallel with the higher value impedance that the speaker presents.

In this specific case, i would use something along the lines of a 5 or 6 ohm resistor. When you place one resistor ( the speaker WAY above the audio range ) in parallel with another resistor ( the Zobel ), you automatically get a lower impedance because we are splitting the signal / sharing the load. Kind of like wiring two 8 ohm speakers in parallel and getting a 4 ohm load for the amp. In this case, our 5 or 6 ohm resistor is in parallel with what is probably dozens of ohms, so the impedance doesn't drop all that much. What it does do is present the amp with something that should be close to what the nominal impedance of the speaker is in the audio band. It also keeps the nominal impedance slightly above that of the speaker cable itself, acting as somewhat of a "meeting point" between the two. In effect, i've created somewhat of an impedance transformer over a specific frequency range. By maintaining a relatively consistent impedance both in and above the audio band, the amp remains more stable under dynamic conditions and high frequency transients / harmonic overtones aren't "stifled". This would normally occur due to what would be a much higher impedance load being seen by the amp, which would result in less power transfer and more ringing due to the impedance mismatch.

As Audioholics noted in their testing, when they terminated the speaker cable with the Goertz Zobel's by themselves, there was an impedance mismatch and some visible high frequency ringing / oscillation WAY up high in the MHz range. According to them, Goertz used a 10 ohm load and they measured the cables as having a nominal 8 ohm impedance. As i've mentioned before, terminating a line with anything other than the same impedance results in reduced transient response, increased ringing, reduced power transfer, etc... You could see the increased ringing in their tests as a result of the impedance mismatch.

When they terminated the Goertz with an 8 ohm Zobel, which is what they measured the nominal impedance of the cable as being, the ringing was gone and the cables were perfectly in phase with the output of the amp. Even though we are only talking about TWO OHMS of difference in terms of impedance matching here, the results were quite obvious. Now can you imagine how much POORER audio gear performs when you've got a 50 ohm preamp loading into a 75 ohm interconnect feeding into a 10,000 ohm amplifier???

All of the Audioholics testing follows my previously posted theories, right? So far, it all looks good on paper, right? One problem here though. What did Audioholics forget?

They forgot that the Zobel is connected in parallel with the speaker load in a real world circuit. As such, Goertz' 10 ohm Zobel would have actually looked like a 7 - 9 ohm load ( depending on the high frequency impedance of the speakers being used ) under normal operating conditions. As such, the Goertz Zobel would actually perform much closer to their "perfect" modeled 8 ohm results than what they show on their charts. Adding the extra paralleled impedance of the speaker across their 8 ohm Zobel would actually produce a lower impedance with slightly different (probably more than good enough though ) results.

Did you folks get all of this??? I know that some of it is kind of technical, but the more that you can learn, the less likely you are to be ripped off / talked into buying snake oil : ) Sean
>

Since I missed the censorship thread, I don't have a point of comparison, but this thread has definitely been very informative and entertaining regardless.

Anyways, more info for all on ribbon cables, subject du jour that they are-

Magnan website 'white paper' on ribbon cable design-

Magnan info

Basically, some of the points here exactly mirror Sean's comments above re. skin effects-

"The skin effect phenomenon has been found to be the major signal degrading effect in conventional audio cables. These effects include smearing of musical details, smearing together of instrumental images, flattening of the sound stage, and usually a general overbrightness. Almost all conventional audio cables utilize relatively thick stranded or solid wires which inherently cause gross audio band skin effect time smearing."

From there, the points seem to diverge, and the white paper becomes a mixed bag that includes fun 'marketing' metrics such as the rigorously defined 'Audio Figure of Merit' in Figure 1. :-(

All that aside, if you check out the soundstage review at

Soundstage Review

the comments on the coherency of the system sound are pretty similar to those I made upthread.

Also, there is a comment on cable theory references at the Silversmith Audio site (another manufacturer of ribbon cables)- if anyone knows more about these, I'd love to hear about it. If not, we'll have to wait for Jeffrey Smith to update the site.

Silversmith

I'm referring specifically to this quote in the 'cable theory' section-

"In the last couple of years, impressive scientific studies have been conducted which have measured some differences in wire performance, including directionality, lending some credence to the subjectivist's camp. While the debate rages on, it is interesting to note, that the engineering knowledge needed to explain exactly why cables do make a difference, and accurately predict what a particular cable design will "sound" like, has been available for decades. Unfortunately for audiophiles, it was not until as recently as 1985 that someone actually applied that knowledge to the world of audio cabling. To this day, the Essex Echo - Unification Tracks 1-4, by Malcolm Hawksford, remains the single greatest work on the subject of audio cabling."

Sean, once again, thanks for the detailed post. I'm busy trying to break down your comments into digestible chunks for my 'challenged' brain. My first question regards your comments on 'minimizing skin effects'.

I guess I don't understand all of the relevant length scales that come into play, so I'll think about this from first principles- if a 'skin effect' is always confined to an esentially infinitely thin skin (on the order of 10s of nanometers; i.e., a few hundred atoms of thickness), then I have a hard time understanding how cable geometry matters at all.

In this case, if one thinks about a cable with a circular cross section, then basically the circumference/area of the cross section is the 2-d analog of the surface/volume ratio. Cicumference/area is always 2/r (r = radius.)

The geometry of a ribbon cross section isn't much different- so long as a ribbon's width is relatively large in comparison to its thickness, its perimeter/area ratio approximates 2/t, (t is the ribbon thickness). This approximation holds pretty well for both Alpha-Core products (MI-2 is w = 0.75 inch and t = 0.01 inch) and Magnan products (Reference speaker ribbon is w = 1.25 inch and t = 0.00075 inch).

What this means is that if skin effects really are confined to a very thin layer, it is immaterial whether cable cross section is circular or ribbon-like. For any given radius r = thickness t, the surface/volume ratio is the same.

Taking it a step further, in comparing surface/volume ratios of any two conductors (a and b, lets say), the ratio of the surface/volume ratios (SVRa/SVRb) is rb/ra, or, if a is a ribbon and b is a wire, rb/ta. If 'minimizing skin effect' is equivalent to minimizing surface/volume ratio, then basically the thicker conductor wins in this scenario, regardless of cross-sectional geometry. This outcome seems counterintuitive given everything one sees in cable design.

Still with me? Yeah, me neither...

What I think must actually be going on is that the 'skin affected zone' is relatively deep (let's call the depth d) compared to r or t in any given conductor cross-section. In this case, one can break the conductor down into outer 'skin affected (sa)' and inner 'bulk (b)' regions. Deriving geomeric relationships between these regions must yield some difference in the behavior of the ratios of 'skin affected area' to 'bulk area' for the two geometries (circular vs. ribbon.)

I'm too lazy/tired to do the math at this point- if someone could confirm that I'm either going in the right direction, or completely lost in the woods, I'll be more motivated to revisit the problem later. On the other hand, if someone wants to pipe in and keep me from reinventing the wheel in this analysis, that would be great too.

Next up- thinking about phase errors...

This is unquestionably THE best thread since the censorship wars. I don't know how to read, but I listen carefully...

sean

are the zobel component values (R&C) cited for the goertz cable a function of its length (10 to 20ft in the tests), or can one use those R&C values for any length of goertz cable?

thanks for the most informative posts. the audioholics read was exceptional.

rhyno

Sean,
You have prompted my curiosity on several occasions with these statements, so let me ask whether you have any real evidence or whether these are your hypotheses.
First, what exactly constitutes a well enough designed power supply that cables don't matter (much)? Can you cite any specific piece of digital gear in either the pro or consumer world that, from your experience, has a well enough designed power supply to make the gear impervious to power cords?

Second, have you got evidence that what you call a self-damping jacket material (do you mean dielectric?) will damp out the mechanical vibration of a rigid conductor? Say, a solid core or heavy flat ribbon. I have real doubts that much damping would occur over the length of a typical conductor when either end is subject to shaking. Even if the jacket does some damping, the vibration will occur over at least part of the cable until it damps out, so it depends whether the primary effect of vibration is to produce microphonics within the cable, or whether it is simply to transfer vibration between components. I'm curious because I've seen very little data -just a lot of handwaving or conjecture by a few manufacturers and/or audiophiles.

Tommy: Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad that your system and ears responded equally well to the Goertz. Both of those are good signs : )

As far as Goertz flat speaker cables go, it does less wrong than any other speaker cable that i'm aware of. The reduction of skin effect due to using a wide flat conductor, the lack of time smear from providing one straight path via a solid conductor, the benefits of proper impedance matching via their exclusive geometry, the lack of in or out of band phase shifts due to reducing inductance to a minimum, the advantages of low series resistance due to using heavy gauge conductors, the benefits of using low loss dielectric, the relatively consistent impedance / series resistance that the cable has regardless of frequency, etc... all add up to form one very complete and well thought out package. If one were to change ANY part of the design, the results achieved would not be anywhere near as good as they are. In effect, the results are due to having a "balanced package" approach to product design. One can do this when they know the parameters of a system that the product will be working within and the amplifier / speaker interface* is pretty cut and dried. On the other hand, interconnects have far more variables involved in terms of the interface that they'll be used in and that's why i've stressed picking the proper speaker cables first and then experimenting with interconnects. Otherwise, you have no point of reference and you have no idea as to what could be wrong or where to start looking. You have to form some type of a baseline to build your system upon.

In plain English, the amp can not only "load up" better into Goertz flat speaker cable, there is less information that is lost or distorted on the way to the speaker itself. As i've stated before, power transfer ( the ability to "load" the signal effortlessly ) and transient response are always optimized when the impedances match or there is very little impedance mismatch involved. As you can see in the independent testing performed on the Audioholics website, Goertz MI-2's provided somewhere between a 2.5 - 8 ohm nominal impedance with the Zobel's in place. As such, the cable itself is basically the same impedance as the speakers being used.

What this accomplishes is multi-fold. That is, the amp is no longer seeing a multitude of complex impedances ( the cables reactance, the speakers reactance and a combo of the two ) to load into, it basically sees the loudspeaker. That's because the electrical traits of the Goertz flat speaker cables have been optimized to fall WAY beyond the audible range. In effect, the Goertz cable becomes "electrically invisible" within the system. Now you get to hear just how well the system is matched and whether or not the amplifier can control the speaker. Since many systems consist of poorly designed gear and / or amps that aren't capable of properly controlling the speakers in use, many folks blame the Goertz cables as being "junk". The fact of the matter is, the Goertz cables simply revealed that the "junk" is somewhere in the rest of the system.

By minimizing skin effect, maintaining the proper impedance over a very wide bandwidth and minimizing phase shifts that are directly related to inductance, you no longer have time smear and reflections ( ringing ) to deal with. In effect, getting rid of the time smear allows the notes to unfold as they normally would i.e. it is no longer "disjointed". This allows you to hear the actual harmonic structure in a far more natural form, increasing the natural "liquidity" of the notes.

Getting rid of the signal reflections that would normally occur due to impedance mismatches allows the amp to deliver cleaner sound i.e. less ringing, smearing and error correction ( negative feedback ). This too contributes to the cohesive presentation that one encounters with this cable in a well thought out system.

Obviously, there are many other factors involved here which i covered over in the AA thread that you mentioned, so i don't want to repeat it all here. Suffice it to say that i didn't get a lot of rebuttal / negative comments on that thread because it's hard to refute verifiable facts.

Tvad: Most Military / Government gear uses proper filtration in the power supply. This negates much of the need for "fancy" power cords and / or power line conditioning. If you remember, i've always said that the better the power supply is designed, the less difference one will notice when trying various power cords. On top of that, the cleaner that the AC is coming into your system from the mains, the less difference one will notice when trying various power cords. To be blunt here, most "high end" audio gear is WAY under-designed in this respect, hence the market for "fancy" power cords. Having said that, most of these power cords are just as inadequately designed as the gear that audiophiles are connecting them to.

Flex: The first cable that came to mind is neither massive in diameter or heavy in terms of weight. It is simply very rigid with a lack of pliable, self-damping jacket material. This combo makes it an excellent conductor of vibration. This cable in raw form is currently being used as both a power cord and speaker cable by more than a few regulars of this and other audio forums. As such, it can do twice as much damage to the system i.e. the directly coupled mechanical vibrations from the speaker cabinet being pumped back into the amp and the acoustically coupled air-borne vibrations from the speakers being coupled to the gear through the mechanically resonant power cords. One can literally "knock" on this cable at one end and feel / hear the vibrations quite easily at the other end 6 - 8 feet away. Needless to say, i'm not using this cable in any of my systems, even though it has quite a bunch of merit to it in terms of electrical design integrity. This just goes to show that even the best design ideas can be implimented in a less than optimum manner. Sean
>

Hi Tvad,

I've got access to an extensive library of technical journals at work- I'll try to find some time (maybe friday afternoon) to see if there is a body of literature in them that might be relevant.

I recall reading that participants in Audio Engineering Society meetings have explored this issue in the past, but have not seen write-ups- if you are inclined, that might be a direction to look into. Perhaps there is a proceedings journal or maybe even a peer-reviewed journal.

Signal propagation characteristics in printed circuit boards are pretty extensively documented- perhaps there are useful analogies here as well.

Tracing back from Audioholics, there is a website by Rob Elliott that has some detailed articles and measurements- there are several references cited that might be worth digging up:

Elliott Site

Then, there's always Google...

Anyways, as far as I'm concerned, no apologies necessary- the more approaches that can be brought to bear on bringing some clarity to the whole cable arena, the better.

Cables have been researched extensively in both aerospace and computer science, but I suppose you'd have to say, with different objectives. Not with respect to audible effects, and not for the highly 'experimental' geometries/materials tried out by audio cable designers. Some audio companies do use designers with this background and make extensive use of modelling (e.g. Nordost, according to their website). But it would cost serious money to study what the effects of, say, mechanical resonance do in physical and electrical terms, and there are no percentages in it unless it affects something besides audio.

I wonder also how many sonic effects are just due to poor construction and quality control in audio cable manufacture.

Sean -
A comment on your comment on mechanical resonance in cables. I don't argue the existence of microphonics at all. Though cables that can shake a component chassis have to be *really* big and heavy; it's much more common that a cable attached to a component at one or both ends will have vibration transferred to it by the component.

Anyway, I've experienced at least a dozen cables with various implementations of resonance damping. The common property I've heard is a lowered noise floor, so that more low level information is audible, but an annoying lack of clear focus in the imaging. There may, or may not, also be a damping of dynamics. In other words, what appears to be a loss of fine phasing and timing information. I can't provide the hardware analogy, but I'd characterize it as reducing an additive noise floor while convolving the signal with a broadening or smearing function. So there may well be a problem either at macro- or microlevels, but [some] solutions may be worse than the problem. And of course, this is all second hand conjecture as to causes. The sonic effects may be due to something else entirely. Cable issues could stand a large research budget.

Hi Sean,

Thanks for an incredibly content-rich post!

Actually, I also have you to thank for helping me choose Goertz cables as one of the candidates for my recent cable comparison exercise- I spent a lot of time following your discussions with John Risch and others over on the asylum. As I mentioned elsewhere, (see previous post for link) the Goertz sonic performance in my system was unequaled by anything else that I tried.

Without doing a lot more reading, and probably taking a community college electronics course or two, I can't comment that well on your evaluation of design advantages in Goertz cables- I'll trust you ;-).

However, I can make some subjective comments on what these cables 'do right' and hope that you can suggest some ideas for causality based on your electronics knowledge.

The overwhelming difference between the Goertz and everything else (my system, listening environment, musical tastes, etc. etc.- disclaimers and qualifiers get annoying after a while so I'll stop from here on out...) has to do with coherence of the spatial image. There are also frequency balance differences, etc, but for these, other cables are on relatively more even footing with the Goertz.

I tend to break spatial coherence down into two components- for the first, I've heard the term 'splashiness' used- basically, this is a tendency for the image to expand and contract with volume changes, for inner detail and soundstage layering to contract at higher volumes, and in extreme instances, for instrumental images to break up into false echoes. The most clear-cut 'reference track' I use to evaluate this is the Maria Joao Pires/Chamber Orchestra of Europe recording of the Schumann Piano Concerto on Deutsche Grammophon- great playing, but until recently, a frustrating recording to listen to.

What can happen on this recording is that the piano image expands and contracts with volume, and has poorly defined reverbations and echoes that give the impression of coming from virtual and shifting surfaces within the performance hall. The same is true for orchestral passages- these can tend to pop out of nowhere to create a large soundstage with lots of reverb and echoes during loud passages, then contract back during softer passages.

Using the Goertz cables, these effects are gone. What I hear instead is a focused, stable piano image, with reverbations now coming from within the piano's body, and consistent echo cues coming from a performance space whose surfaces and dimensions don't change with volume. The orchestra is all there, and more importantly, stays in the same place- again, spatial cues from echoes give none of the shifting virtual surface impression.

The second component of coherence is a tendency for different frequency components emanating from the same sonic source to become spatially decoupled. As a reference example, I use the Earl Wild Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2 on Chesky- again, a beautiful performance, but really hard to listen to until recently.

What can happen here is that the massed, unison string passages get completely swamped by 'hash and grit' that seems to float over everything. Think 'orchestra accompanied by bee swarm'. This effect is particularly horrible for muted playing.

With the Goertz cables, this tendency goes away- what I hear instead is that the massed strings are now fully localized, and their fundamental sounds are coherently associated with the higher-frequency bow/rosin 'buzz' that comes from the rapid bow speed they are using. The perceived 'harshness' arising from the 'hash and grit' is gone.

I could toss out uninformed hypothesizing, but it's probably better to leave it at that for now, and let you use it as food for thought.

Cheers,