By recorded music I mean the final format that is used in a consumer system to play back. This is long after countless engineers have busted their asses trying to capture being in the room with the artist.
Faithfully reproducing the recorded signal at the output can be comparatively measured using test equipment. Another great qualitative measure (using our ears) on digital audio is to pass the recorded music from DAC to analog and then back to digital via ADC and then looping this a significant number of times. Each circle around the loop results in a small loss in fidelity. A higher fidelity component will be able to loop more times than a lower fidelity component before any audible differences are heard.
good read. Unfortunately it is not as simple as LRC. Faithfulness to phase and amplitude is important and aspects of LRC are important, especially reactive LRC relative to its affect on
phase and amplitude. There are probably other factors that are important, such as IMD, etc, and some we do not know about or how to measure them.
simple, nope, not even close but once someone works it all out then it is probably simple. until then...
I am fine admitting that I am no expert. But I have develped a theory of a sound system, which I describe as the “limiting variable” theory. It works for me. In my limited experience, my system will usually sound only as good as the quality of one or two limiting variables - the amp, pre-amp, speakers, the cables, the source, etc. When I introduce a new variable, it usually makes a difference, sometimes good, sometimes not, but very rarely none at all. If it makes a positive difference overall, then I move to the next limiting variable and change or tweek that component, cable, etc. If it makes no difference, I conclude that the limiting variable lies elsewhere. It is not scientific, but it works for me quite well. Sometimes my system hits a plateau, and it just wont improve with what I have. That is when I know that I must move up in overall quality for everything. But, even then, I usually start with one variable - significantly better speakers, for example, and start the process over again. There is not a perfect correllation between the cost of a component, cable, etc. and whether it is or is not a limiting variable. Some bits just sound better with other bits. But, when a bit makes a strong, positive difference, I conclude that its predecessor was likely a limiting variable.
I guess that is a long-winded way of saying that the higher quality my system is, the more a simple thing like a cable improves things, or the opposite. For my system and ears, I have found that to be a consistent reality.
Distortions like TH, IM, TIM are active components faults.
There are numerous other cable properties: Proximity Effect, Skin Effect, Purity, Metal, Plating, Insulation Dielectric, Fatigue, etc. All these properties have an effect, but well below LRC.
For all intents and purposes, cable R can be ignored as it is a minor fraction of speaker R. Longer runs, say 25 feet or 30 feet, cable R can equal amplifier R, cutting Damping Factor in half. Additional length also increases L & C, which can cause stability problems.
Cables should be as short as reasonably possible, of the same length and as straight as possible [Bends increase L, but this is more theoretical than practical].
In general, the more current, the shorter the wire should be. Therefore, amps should be as close as possible to the speaker with long inter-connects from the low level electronics.
Ieales, Let’s imagine 0.1 ohm (both ways) cable connected to 8 ohm speaker that has lowest impedance of 4 ohm. At 4 ohm we have divider of about 1/40 equal to -32dB while at 8 ohm we have 1/80= -38dB. Do you think that 6dB difference in audible area won’t make any difference?
You might be right that cable R can be ignored only for the purpose of damping factor, since there is always speaker’s own impedance in series with back EMF force (and 2/3 of it is resistive), but one can argue that capacitance and inductance are not that important either. Almarg pointed out that speaker, having inductive character most of the time, has very high impedance at high frequencies (where cable inductive reactance can go as high as 1 ohm) while capacitance plays very small role because of low output impedance. As for the skin effect, that you mentioned - it starts at about gauge 18 with copper at 20kHz. Our ears are not very sensitive to volume change but are very sensitive to frequency smear. When you change loudness by 1 dB nobody will be able to detect it but when you adjust treble by +1dB you can detect it easily. In order to provide low resistance without frequency smearing companies split wires into multiple strands. It won’t help much as long as the strands are in magnetic field of each other (skin effect exists). To improve it cable designers place conductors on hollow tube (or flat cable pattern) reducing magnetic field to one that comes only from neighboring wires.
yes, these and others are probably as important as LRC, especially R, although changing R changes the reactive LRC.
definitely not as simple as just LRC especially when, as indicated, 75mm of wire, strategically placed, can completely change the sound by an enormous amount.
once someone works it all out then it is probably simple - until then - although building a bridge is usually not simple yet we see them everywhere. Some bridges can be very simple but do they really do the job, in some cases sufficiently so and in other cases not so... perhaps there are too many variables, and too many assumptions, to allow over
simplification, although like bridges some simplification is possible and sufficient.
I’m not going to correct all your errors, but this the level math:
Assuming 0.02Ω in each cable lead [12’ of Belden 1311A or almost any equivalent gauge cable] with a 1V drive at the amplifier terminal: 4Ω: 4 / (2 x 0.02) = 0.990V across the speaker 8Ω: 8 / (2 x 0.02) = 0.995V across the speaker db: 20 * log ( 0.990 / 0.995 ) = -0.043db
Doubling the lead resistance, +3 AWG numbers, only has 0.086db loss.
On a speaker with an impedance that varies from 4 to 16Ω, the total delta across the 20-20k is 0.13db or ±0.065db which is extremely difficult to hear on a dynamic signal.
Ieales, thank you for correction. I assumed gauge 17 (worst case) that is 0.1 ohm for total of 20ft, but calculated it wrong. The difference in level between 4 and 8 ohm speaker is 0.1dB. That’s most likely inaudible.
I kind of hate to bring this up, but there are obviously many variables besides L R and C involved with how cables sound, some of which I’ve alredy mentioned. There are also the variables of floor borne vibration and static electric charge, which is why cables should usually be suspended off the floor and why some sort of anti-static spray or device should be employed. A demagnetizer should be employed, making magnetism another variable. There are other variables, too, perhaps beyond scope. All of this, plus what others have posted, such as metal purity, etc, suggests that L R and C are not really the only game in town, as much as we might aspire to embrace mathematics and “classical electronics” as the end-all do-all for our hobby. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.
Kijanki, the calculation of a 6 db difference you provided in your post yesterday was correct, but it was for the wrong thing :-)
Note that in Ian's calculation there is also a 6 db difference between the 4 ohm situation and the 8 ohm situation -- the voltage drop **in the cable** of 10 millivolts vs. 5 millivolts!
Al, I should've known better. I calculate dividers almost every day, but yesterday was my "slow" day. On positive note, I didn't make any bank transactions :)
To the ops original thought . You mean this can all be scientifically explained ! Crap , I liked the mystery and unknown aspects of wires and cables . Thanks for shattering the illusion .
gdhal"Audiogon ought to modify their policy where moderation is concerned. Just my opinion, of course."
I think the thoughtful and purposeful moderator's have done an exemplary job in undertaking the management of these forums and in particular have acted swiftly and decisively to delete repeated posts by those who would seek to defraud the audiophile members of this community as you have done with your $25K USD "challenge" and efforts to obtain personal information about users here by employing skype as part of the extortion plot so I can see why you think the moderation needs to be changed!
I think the thoughtful and purposeful moderator’s have done an exemplary job in undertaking the management of these forums and in particular have acted swiftly and decisively to delete repeated posts by those who would seek to defraud the audiophile members of this community....
I do recall a number of your threads were also deleted.
As to fraudulence, I look at a bit differently. As soon as I mentioned my rationale for wanting to skype - because seeing and hearing you lends credibility to the authenticity of your interest - and that it is a possibility you are merely a 14 year old school girl without the financial means and/or legal authority to enter into any agreement - did I validate your insincerity.
EDIT:
Apologies to the OP for any thread pollution. I'm hopeful this would be my last post in this particular thread.
gdhal"As to fraudulence, I look at a bit differently. As soon as I mentioned my rationale for wanting to skype - because seeing and hearing you lends credibility to the authenticity of your interest - and that it is a possibility you are merely a 14 year old school girl"
Of course you look at it differently you have to defend yourself your $25,000 USD listening challenge was exposed as a FRAUD and that is why your posts were deleted by the thoughtful and purposeful moderators as protection for contributors to this forum who may have fallen victim to your extortion! I wouldn't skype because as I told you UP FRONT all discussions must be in public to protect all involved from the very devious deception you sought to perpetrate as has been clearly shown to all who have carefully followed your subversive behavior here.
Ian (ieales), thanks for providing the outstanding paper referenced in your post just above. It does indeed reinforce the notion that a given cable will tend to sound different depending on what it is connecting and the system it is being used in, as you stated at the outset of the thread. And as I illustrated with three specific examples in the first of my posts dated 2-27-2018 in this thread.
It has long been my feeling that many audiophiles overattribute intrinsic sonic characteristics to cables, power cords, and various tweaks, when their sonic effects result primarily from interaction with the associated hardware. Those effects thus tending to differ among different applications, which in turn is often a significant contributor to weak correlation between performance and price.
“It has long been my feeling that many audiophiles overattribute intrinsic sonic characteristics to cables, power cords, and various tweaks, when their sonic effects result primarily from interaction with the associated hardware. Those effects thus tending to differ among different applications, which in turn is often a significant contributor to weak correlation between performance and price.”
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
