One should dig through the archives at AA and read how badly Mr. Dunlavy was "scorched" after making similar comments. One does NOT have to have "ultra hi-end" gear or the utmost in resolution to hear some cable changes while others are minimal at best. Sean
> |
Out of curiosity Ken, what speaker cables have you tried using in your current system ? Depending on the specific amp & speaker combo, i have noticed some rather drastic differences on this end. Sean
> |
THAT is the VERY reason that he got his ass "bbq'ed" over on the Asylum. Saying one thing and doing another is what made him the "poster boy" for hypocrisy on this subject. Sean
> |
The problem with blind tests is that they are typically conducted in less than familiar surroundings. As such, one may not be comfortable in test setting. They are also not allowed to familiarize themselves with the subtle timing, tonal or spatial cues that various cables CAN produce, but may take time to recognize. As such, being able to pick out the irregularities that do occur when going from cable to cable can become an extremely difficult task simply due to lack of familiarity.
With all of that in mind, the tests conducted by J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR showed his ability to differentiate between cables 100% of the time under double blind test conditions. On top of this, he was also able to distinguish whether there was was an ABX box in line 100% of the time. His ability to do this with witnesses refutes ALL other tests. Once an accuracy level that is irrefutable has been achieved, it simply becomes a matter of system resolution and the individuals' ability to hear such changes that comes into question. It is NOT a question of if there are audible differences anymore.
The fact that David Spiegel (the inventor of the ABX box) also told me first hand that another reviewer was able to differentiate between cables. This gives further credence to the FACT that cables can be audibly different. While Spiegel could not remember the reviewer's name, she showed up in response to a challenge that he issued that was open to ALL reviewers. My guess is that it was Enid Lumley, but i'm not sure. Keep in mind that Spiegel did these tests because he wanted to be able to prove or disprove that there were sonic differences amongst cables. As such, he will to this day say that HE can't hear a difference between cables under test conditions but acknowledges that others might be able to.
Give it a rest. Sean
> |
Grungle, do a simple test. Simply compare some standard 12 gauge "monster" type speaker wire to some Kimber 4PR in YOUR system. There should be no major difference as they are both reasonable gauge, low resistance conductors. You can do this regardless of the resolution of the system. If you can hear a difference, you've learned something. If you can't, get a better system. Just kidding... : )
Really though, most of us were skeptics to start off with. After all, to most people wire looks like wire and should sound like wire. Right ??? It is only after an "ear opening experience" that most of us became "hardcore believers". Believe me, as an electronics tech, i had a REAL hard time believing some of this stuff. If you can go back into the Audio Review website and dig through their archives, you would be able to find some VERY intense arguments that i was involved in regarding power cords. The funny thing is that i was prepared to go to my grave believing that they could NOT change the sonics of a system in any way. I absolutely KNEW for CERTAIN that changing a few feet of wire from the wall outlet to the component couldn't "fix" all of the other "bad wiring" running from pole to pole and within the house. After all, theory and common sense tells us this, right ???
Well, i have to say that i was WRONG ( even if Fonzy couldn't admit it, i can ). I did do some testing and DID find a difference. Does this mean that we need to throw the textbooks out ? Absolutely not. It simply means that maybe we don't know as much as we think we do. Or maybe it means that we aren't looking in the right direction or asking the right questions... Who knows. All i know is that ANY wire change has the capacity to alter the sonics of a system.
Don't get me wrong here. We are not saying that ALL wires sound DRASTICALLY different, but that differences ARE possible. Not all changes will make the system sound "better" or "worse". Sometimes they just sound "different" or sometimes they sound the same. As such, most of us have tried various cables in different locations of our systems, judged how we liked them, if we could notice benefits, decided if we wanted to keep them there or try them someplace else, remove them, etc... and then moved onto something else.
Don't rule things out unless you've tried them yourself and done so under several different circumstances. As a case in point, here's a simple analogy to think about. Just because your car doesn't "act up" at the time that you take it in for service doesn't mean that there isn't a "problem". Sometimes you just have to create the "right circumstances" for the situation to occur. Once that happens, the "change in performance" could be QUITE drastic and VERY noticeable. The same can be said for wire / cable changes within a sound system. Sean
> |
Why wouldn't "lamp cord" be a good idea ??? It is using the same low grade stranded copper and generic "plastic" type jacket that many "speaker cables" or "zip cord" uses. Are you trying to say that there MIGHT be a sonic difference between them ??? Could you please explain the reasoning behind your last statement ? Sean
> |
Abe, you can laugh all you want. As an electronics tech by trade, i used to do more than laugh at such things. I was UTTERLY APPALLED by such things. That is, until i tried playing with various power cords. The differences WERE noticeable. In fact, i recently re-affirmed this by accident.
I purchased a piece of equipment that created a hum in one of my systems. Changing the power cord altered the pitch AND amplitude AND frequency spectrum of the hum. This was verified both by ear and by an SPL meter. The change in hum was not due to electro-magnetic interference created by the position of the cord either, as the cords were well away from everything else in the system.
Just because we can't explain something or seems to defy logic doesn't mean that it is impossible. Keep an open mind and see for yourself. I did and i'm still learning every day. Sean
> |
Abe, the majority of my "fancy" power cords are all homebrew designs with the exception of a few TG Audio's, LAT's and a Kimber. While this might sound like ALL of my power cords are "bought and paid for", keep in mind that i have five complete systems set up in my house. That is a LOT of power cords. As such, the ones that were "bought and paid for" were all "snagged" via Audiogon, Audioweb, Audioshopper, Audioreview, etc.... for pennies on the dollar. As such, i have learned quite a bit via first hand experimentation with the resultant experience that comes with it WITHOUT going broke or spending much at all.
As to my hum problem, there is some type of strange reactance between two components that i can't seem to get rid of. Believe me, i've taken all of the normal "prescribed" routes with no luck at all. The fact that changing power cords even remotely affects the sonic output at the speakers DOES verify that they have more influence on what we hear than what most EE's would ever admit to.
As to you labeling them "tone controls", i think of them more as "filters". While they are both doing the same thing in terms of affecting amplitude, bandwidth, linearity, etc... the end result IS measurable in terms of a lower noise floor, improved s/n ratio, differences in frequency response, etc....
Like i said, break out the test equipment and learn something from all of this. It takes NOTHING to sit on ones' laurels and repeat what you've been told and "believe" to be correct. On the other hand, doing and learning can only benefit you in the future. Who knows, it might end up opening new avenues of thought for you OR simply reaffirm the beliefs that you already have. Are you afraid to put your beliefs to the test or challenge your "faith" ???
As i mentioned before, i WAS in the same shoes that you're in now. Trying to disprove the "idiots" using the same arguements that you've posted, i found out that the "idiots" actually new more than i did. Romex or not, power cords DO change the performance characteristics of a system. Sean
> |
This is kind of like the debate that some reviewers had with EE's when digital first came out. The reviewers claimed that there were very audible differences between digital signals. Of course, the EE's stated "digital is digital", etc... because it all basically measured the same. Or so they thought.
Of course, J. Peter Moncrieff was one of the "golden ears" that said that he could hear "darker background, greater dynamic range, sharper detail, etc".... when comparing one CD player to another. Even though the frequency response was linear and every form of distortion was low, there were OBVIOUS differences in how they sounded. The funny thing is that he went on to document via electrical measurements that what he was saying and hearing WAS true. While one player had deeper nulls and higher peaks, faster rise and fall times, sharper images with less distortion, etc... the other was clearly not as fast or clean. Moncrieff even went so far as to publish photographs of waveforms taken via his o'scope for direct comparison to demonstrate that "not so subtle" and "audible differences" DID exist and ARE verifiable. That is, IF you knew how to do the proper tests AND interpret the data that you collected.
There is an analogy that i use on a daily basis that seems to fit here: Just because you have a hammer and a saw, that doesn't make you a carpenter. The same can be said for EE's, ME's, technicians, etc... Just because you have a piece of paper called a degree or a license, years of experience, etc... does NOT mean that you know or have seen it all. As such, the best people in ANY field are the ones that think they know very little and are always looking for explanations of how & why. NOT the people that say "that's impossible".
Like i said before, just because we can't "measure it" today doesn't mean that the differences didn't exist yesterday. I can think what i want, but that doesn't make it "fact" or mean that others are wrong for not agreeing with me. It just means that it is my opinion and only worth the value of what others put in it. As such, neither Abe nor John Dunlavy nor i are "right". We simply have our opinions. Put your faith in what your ears, eyes and heart tell you. God didn't give us all of these senses and the amount of intelligence that he did for us to throw it away because we don't know exactly how something works. Sean
> |
You are limiting the performance or "difference aspect" of a power cord to simply altering the "tone" of the system. That is NOT all that they MIGHT do.
We are talking about differences in the noise floor. This in itself effects apparent dynamic range, the ability to "pick out" small details that might have otherwise been buried in the mix, "more correct" harmonic structure, etc...
While i know that it is hard to set aside years of teaching and "hard line" technical aspects, there is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to something like this. You have to remember that music and music reproduction is both personal and subjective. As such, your looking at it from "it all measures the same" ( which it might not ) or "theoretically, there should be no differences" while someone else may be saying "this sounds better" or "this sounds more natural". Both sides can present their "argument" with great passion, but the bottom line is that differences DO exist. Whether you choose to accept this or pay money for those differences is up to you. A person shouldn't harrass someone else should they choose to do so. That would be no different than me picking on someone that spent enough money for a Ferrari when everyone knows that a Yugo can get you from point A to point B in appr the same manner. After all, the only difference between a Ferrari and a Yugo would be the amount of attention given to "details" and what someone was willing to spend to get those "details". Sean
> |
I thought that i DID answer that question pretty plainly.
Since i think that a music reproduction system includes EVERYTHING that is involved in what you hear ( this includes power cords, components, interconnects, speaker cables, racks, speakers, the room, etc...), the answer would be a resounding YES. This is especially true in the limited context that you are asking the question.
When all is said and done, your question can be summed up as "is one part of the system more important than another" ??? The answer, of course, is a resounding NO. The "system" is only as strong as the weakest link. This is true whether it be a power cord, source, interconnect, amplifier, speaker cable, speaker or the acoustics of the room. Given that most of us are looking to achieve the best performing SYSTEM possible, no part of it is beyond reproach or fine tuning. Sean
> |
Besides this being "the topic / thread from hell", here are some more comments.
7, if electrical measurements "dictate" what a cable sounds like, why don't people just buy zip cord and "duplicate" their "favorite" cables measurements via electrical components ? It would be WAY cheaper, wouldn't it ? After all, you could simply measure the characteristics of a specific cable that you liked in your system and go from there. Once you factored in the amount of inductance in the "el cheapo" zip cord ( which you forgot to mention ), you could then simply add series resistance, capacitors, inductors, etc.... as needed. Why don't people do this ? Because it doesn't work !!!
The bottom line is that "lumped sums" do NOT equal the sonic characteristics even if they DO match electrical characteristics of the other cable. If you think that the differences between having electrical values "spread" amongst the cables or "lumped" is not measurable, detectable or audible, you need to do some checking. Borrow or find access to a TDR ( Time Domain Reflectometer ) and see for yourself. Slight kinks in cables are QUITE measurable in terms of impedance bumps, voltage to current ratios, velocity factors, etc...
Just as cables DO alter the sonics of a system, it would be nothing less than SILLY to NOT take them into consideration when building a "system". After all, ALL of the signal IS passing through the speaker cables along with the majority of other cabling in the system.
There would be NO questions asked about any of this stuff if we were talking about building a high performance car. Since most every aspect of an auto's performance ( from BSFC to horsepower / torque curves, to acceleration to braking, etc... ) can all be verified with hard numbers, we would be left with nothing "subjective" to deal with other than how the car "feels" or what our personal preferences were in terms of "ergonomics".
Unfortunately, audio is almost 100% subjective due to the various electrical characteristics involved and the differences in how we hear as individuals. This is true REGARDLESS of how something measures on the bench. If you haven't seen "unexplainable" differences between components that measure similar in identical installations, you've spent WAY too much time in the books, theory and "drawing board" and WAY too little time with hands on experience. Sean
> |
While i HATE to join back into this thread, i have been reading how some components are FAR more susceptible to cable changes than others due to design and overall circuit stability. I wish i knew how to test them to find this out. Maybe i should contact Frank Van Alstine and he can fill me in....
As to Ezmerelda's comments about the Kimber 4PR and Analysis Plus Oval 9's, i can draw some parallels between the sound of the two. I could see how one might not notice much of a difference between the two of them in some systems. Quite honestly, based on the experiences that i've had with those two specific cables, i too would choose the MUCH cheaper Kimber 4PR. Sean
> |
Nelson Pass measured, charted, documented and published measurable differences in speaker cables 20+ years ago. He even notes that some specific speaker cable / speaker combinations caused some "well respected" brand name amps to shut down / go into thermal overload. The same speakers and amps with different cables DID NOT act up. Obviously, the amplifier is seeing a COMPLETELY different Z ( impedance ) at it's output terminals and is simply responding accordingly. Obviously, the only variable would have been the speaker cables !!!
Besides Nelson Pass, Moncrieff of International Audio Review measured, charted and documented differences in speaker cables. He even went so far as to publish frequency response charts for many that he tested.
Due to the differences in physical layout, gauge of conductors and dielectrics used, the characteristic impedance of the cable, the total length of the cables in use, etc... the amplifier can see VERY different conditions at its' output terminals. Some cables will act as "impedance transformers" and make suitable speaker loads "unsuitable" and vice-versa. Simply altering the length of an "unsuitable" cable CAN change the feedpoint impedance that the amp sees when trying to "load up" AND alter the amount of reflected EMF that the amp has to deal with. Since Mr Dunlavy is WELL versed in RF transmission line theory, this should not be news to him.
Since this IS the case and it has been documented time and time again, you would think that he might acknowledge that the stability of the amp MIGHT come into question BEFORE making "generic" and rather BOLD statements about speaker cables being "relatively un-discernable" from each other. After all, it is well known that amps change output levels when the impedance is altered. Why couldn't their frequency response or transient characteristics be affected also ???? Those specs ARE load dependent also.
PLEASE don't get me wrong. I am not defending "the wire bandits". I think that the mass majority of this stuff is WAY overpriced. While i can understand that there is a LOT of research involved in making any REAL product, the actual costs involved in most of these "wires & cables" is phenomenally low. As such, i have bought MANY different "manufactured" cables but have also made more than a few of my own ( with pretty excellent results overall ). Like i said, i just don't like the fact that Dunlavy talks out of both sides of his mouth with a different message being heard as the situation changes. Sean
> |
