The most detailed speaker cables will be the ones that are fed the most
information by the front end, pre-amp, amplifier and that feed the signal into
speakers capable of resolving that signal into a room that doesn't suppress
the detail because of some problem or another. Speaker cables aren't
detailed, systems are detailed. If you're not getting enough detail, it is
unlikely the cables are causing this problem.
If you hear "brightness" as more detail, get an equalizer and bump the high
end. You'll have more control over your sound than you will by fishing
around hoping to find a pair of speaker cables that will bump the high end.
If you want a tone control, why not get a tone control? For the same price as
you pay for Acoustic Zen Sartori's, I've got to think you could get a hell of a
graphic equalizer. There are some that can analyze and help solve problems
in your room and give you the ability to make very small adjustments in
narrow portions of the audio band.
Why use a cable for a tone control when it gives you such little control -- IF
you can find one that bumps the part of the audio band that you favor to the
extent you find pleasurable?
With some careful search, you can probably also find speakers that have a
bump in the high end and more than just a fraction of a db, or whatever
you're hoping for from a cable.
Before buying cables hoping they will bump the high end, giving you the
impression you're getting more detail, make sure you get a frequency
response graph proving that the cables in question will give you an audible
bump in the high end. Then, compare the cost of those cables for the effect
you might get versus switching speakers or adding a graphic equalizer. |
|
Just about any speaker cable of appropriate guage will "preserve that
signal."
The notion that your signal is lost in the speaker cable is something that was
dreamed up in a cable marketers advertising meeting.
The signal is lost in your speaker -- not the cable.
There are rather large problems in just about every speaker and most rooms.
Just about all speakers are only linear +/- anywhere from 1 to 3 db (or more)
and roll off at the extremes.
Cables are far more linear by comparison.
Listening rooms, unless they have been specifically designed for listening to
reproduced music, usually have rather large problems with rather large peaks
and valleys, introduce time smear, boomy bass, hardness in the highs, etc.
No one has ever been able to measure distortion caused by a cable, despite
what cable advertisers say.
Cable companies have done a brilliant job of getting people to focus
suspicion on their innocent cables while ignoring the rest of the chain.
I'd wager that a couple of hundred dollars spent on acoustical consulting or a
speaker upgrade would go exponentially further in fixing what is wrong or
improving the sound of 99% of the systems on Audiogon.
In most cases, money spent on expensive speaker cables -- where improved
performance is questionable and controversial at best would be better spent
elsewhere in the chain.
Regarding silver: The only thing silver has to offer is that it has less
resistance, which means all you have to do is use thicker copper cables to get
the exact same effect.
I think the fixtion on silver is a carry over from people who play musical
instruments. For example, steel strings sound different from bronze, brass
horns sound different from silver, etc.
Cables are not plucked, they do not make music by vibrating -- they just
carry signal. The signal doesn't pick up any sound from the silver or copper.
If you've been using copper and you switch to the same gauge silver cable
and you don't level match, it is possible the silver cable simply makes the
music slightly louder, and any audio salesman knows you can trick customers
into thinking one component is more detailed than another simply by playing
it a little louder. We all know that sometimes just a few ticks more volume is
enough to make the speakers open up and become fuller.
Other than that, there may be some psychological effect from thinking of
silver as shinier, whiter -- and thus more pure than copper which is, of
course, copper colored. |
>>You sound as though good quality wire doesn't matter much.<<
Let's be specific. You select the particular speaker cable and tell me what
makes it worthy of adulation.
As you can see by the rest of my gear, money is no object. I can afford the
most expensive cables out there and would if I were convinced they offered
superior performance.
I've looked into all kinds of cables, heard all the hype, and I haven't seen any
claim for "high end" cables that doesn't dissolve when
investigated. Most of the claims I see regarding high end cables aren't just
unfounded, they are laughable.
Speakers have a far more complex and difficult job to do. Listening rooms
commonly have large peaks and valleys -- and yet I see a lot of focus on
cables.
Cable companies have clearly done a masterful job of creating doubt in the
mind of the audio enthusiast about his/her cables. They do this by coming
up with bogus maladies and then you see these myths repeated until they
become accepted.
Next thing you know, you've got a lot of audiophiles feeling like they need
new cables -- when there is no evidence the old one had any problem, that
the new one will cure the allleged problem and without investigating other
areas where real problems are easily documented.
When someone asks for help, I think we can do better than that.
If *I* am going to solve a problem, I first want to make a good diagnosis, then
I want to make sure the "cure" is going to solve it.
I am going to focus on real problems rather than bogus ones that have been
made up by cable marketeers that have no basis in fact. |
That's the thread where Sean claimed he could hear the difference between
flat and .1db down at 20Khz. Sorry, but this is *exactly* the type of thing
that comes with the cable phenomenon.
I'm supposed to trade in my cables because they're .088 db down at 20 Khz
when driven into a 4 Ohm load?
Let's join the real world.
"The psycho-acoustic data shows that for pure tones at 16kHz the smallest
average detectable difference in level is 3.05 dB. The findings were based on
individuals 20 to 24 years old that had normal hearing to 20 kHz." -- Audio,
July 1994
.1 db down at 20Khz is inaudible, folks.
Anyone basing any theory on the notion that he/she can hear this as an
audible "roll-off" has already lost my attention
Ooops -- Sean won't take a test to prove this amazing hearing acuity?
Wow -- what a surprise!
Exactly what I would expect.
Come on, folks, if your BS meter isn't redlining by now, you need to have it
checked.
What are the properties of the new cable he suggests?
How does it solve this non-existant problem?
Who knows?
How *does* one solve a non-existant problem?
This is exactly what I am talking about.
I think we can do better, folks. |
>>It was flat. Why? It was proven, scientific knowledge at that time.<<
Uh, no. It was the mythology of the time. It was scientific investigation that
proved the world is round.
When you investigate the claims made about cables -- you end up laughing.
Look -- put up a cable and tell me why I should admire it. What does it do?
It sounds good?
John Dunlavy used to do a test where he would invite audiophiles and audio
critis to his lab, position techicians behind speakers, show the audience Zip
Cord and the audience would be unimpressed, then the technicians would
switch them with exotic speaker cables and the audience would wax poetic
about all of the huge improvements and changes they were hearing. Only
problem -- the cables were never changed, it was Zip Cord all along.
Cable testimonials aren't convincing.
Not to mention the way people talk about cables.
I was in a thread where a guy wanted more bass. People recommended
cables. I asked him about his system and it turned out he was using
bookshelf speakers. I suggested he buy full range speakers and cable
enthusiasts became agitated and told me I didn't understand what cables can
do. Uh.....yeah. I don't think they can make bass in a speaker without bass
capability.
Magical thinking. Weird non-sequiter insults.
Another time someone was recommending thousand dollar speaker cables to
a kid with a $500 system. The kid was complaining his system is too bright.
I looked at the pictures of his system and three walls of his listening room
were celing to floor plate glass windows. I suggested room treatments and
other component upgrades and this drew more bizarre comments.
I find it interesting that people who claim to have such sensitive hearing that
they can be disturbed by inaudible things in speaker cables an overlook
macro problems in their speakers and rooms.
It don't add up.
You get an inch deep in the cable phenomenon and your BS Meter goes off
the Richter Scale.
|
>>I simply asked you to listen to some cables within the confines of your
system and see if you heard a difference.<<
See -- here's another problem. The thread was not about whether cables can
sound different. I believe cables CAN sound different. In this thread alone, I
told the poster that if he wanted tonally BRIGHT speaker cables, or added
BRIGHTNESS in his system, he should do the minimum -- get a frequency
response chart of any proposed cable.
The issue was whether or not .1 db down at 20Khz is an audible roll-off.
In my experience with Sean, he has chased me from thread to thread telling
me about this "ROLL-OFF." Of course, he didn't specify the
"roll-off" so I looked up the information and posted links to
frequency response charts which showed that this "roll-off" is
.088 down at 20Khz.
Great -- another bogus cable claim.
Sorry, but when you do stuff like that, credibility goes bye bye.
So, Sean tells me that he can hear this "roll-off."
Great -- another bogus cable claim.
If he wants to concede now that he can hear no such thing, we can at least
get to some semblance of reality. We'll see. |
>>If you can honestly hear a difference<<
Honestly hear a difference? Sorry, but sighted tests carry no weight -- see the Dunlavy tests referenced above.
>>those differences have to be measurable using the proper tools and test methodology.<<
If the test is based on the idea that one cable has an audible roll-off because it is .088 db down at 20Khz when driven into a 4 ohm load, you've already got a faulty test.
If you don't know the frequency reponse chart of the other cable, you're shooting in the dark. If it isn't perfectly flat, then what will it tell you? What if the frequency response shows that the other cables are bumped up in the high end? Then, what do you know? That cables with a bumped high end sound different than ones that are audibly flat?
Two words: Who cares?
>>lessens your credibility.<<
Obviously, we have vastly different ideas about what consitutes credibility.
>>Eldartford is both an engineer and a cable skeptic, yet he's open minded enough to try such a test.<<
Because Eldartford has a DIFFERENT issue. He wants to see if they sound different.
You've never bothered to notice what position I have taken, you simply blunder in and start arguing with ghosts about whether or not cables can sound DIFFERENT, even though I've written in each thread that it is possible for cables to sound different.
But, that doesn't make .1db down at 20Khz any more audible.
Sheesh. |
I've addressed the question posed by the originator of this thread.
If you don't like to see other threads hashed out again in this one, then you
need to voice your disapproval to Sean, who posted a link to another thread
and started that argument all over again in this one. We already had a thread
for that argument.
Seems to me we were having a nice conversation in here until that.
And -- yeah -- it is a nice idea that we might "exchange
information" without disagreeing, and clearly it can be fatiguing to
listen to opposing viewpoints, but come on, imagine what you'd think if I
asked all of the cable believers to stop posting so I could enjoy a less
fatiguing exchange of information. |
I do not have any such position that all cables sound the same.
The position I have taken is that if someone comes to this forum looking for help, the best thing we can do for him/her is to look at the entire system, including the room.
Sorry, but I disagree with the notion that -- because a poster thinks he/she needs cables to solve a problem that we have to limit our suggestions to cables.
If I post a problem to this forum, I expect to get suggestions from people who follow all different approaches. It is up to me to sift through them all and make a list of things to audition, approaches to consider, etc.
The first thing is to try to make a diagnosis of the entire system to see where the problem might originate.
If a problem is identified, we should investigate a little to see whether or not the disagnosis is sound. If a solution is offered, we ought to be able to debate whether or not it will solve the problem.
If only cable enthusiasts are allowed to respond, it gives a false impression -- that there is a concensus that cables are the problem and the solution. Since we don't all feel this way, there will be debate.
The controversy isn't going to go away no matter how much we may wish it so. |
My point earlier was that if he does want speaker cable that's brighter, we
ought to make sure he gets one that *is* brighter. Some things are certainly
measurable. If there is a cable that is audibly brighter, it will show on a
frequency response chart. Before laying down the dough on the cables, we
ought to get a chart and see the frequency response. Any cable manufacturer
who wouldn't provide this kind of info would not get my business! Many
people experience a little brightness as extra detail -- no harm in that. But, if
brightness is his desire, why *not* throw a graphic equalizer into the mix of
things to consider? Yes, the room could also be deadening the sound.
Maybe he would prefer some speakers with metal dome tweeters, or with a
bump in the high end. Let's look at everything. Put it all on the table and
compare -- pick the best strategy. |
>>Is all this true? who knows.<<
Talon -- we agree on a lot of things! Congrats on your system, I'm glad you've found stuff with which you're happy.
Was your FTM4-sg shielded?
Did you replace some other gear and is that why you were able to switch to balanced interconnects?
Are you saying you were already a purchaser of Siltech interconnects, bought more and you were unaware that Siltech's major marketing angle is that they claim to reduce EMI and RF inteferrence with their shielding?
Again -- I am glad you're happy and I am not going to try to talk you out of those cables -- that ain't what I am about at all.
But, for me, I would want to see some of these measurements and comparisons to see what they're talking about.
On their web-site, they claim ---
"For the first time in studio cable history, many of these improvements can be measured and proven."
Yet, they fail to give measurements or any back-up to "prove" their claim.
Shielding against EMI and RF is extremely common in interconnects.
Sort of like Vitamin D in milk.
There's nothing in their literature to explain how other cable shielding is noisy, which cables they are comparing, etc.
If what they say is true, I wonder why they wouldn't include this information.
They claim it can be measured proven, then they don't measure or prove it.
All pretty vague. |
boa -- no prob. Sometimes it takes a few interchanges to get where everyone is coming from. If we were all sitting around a table with beers in our hands, it'd be a lot easier. |
>>our shielding effect reduces the noise floor by 40-60db"<<
Compared to what? Non-shielded? An inferior brand? If so, which? |
I get up there once in awhile -- that'd be great. I'd like to hear your modded 3910 -- are you happy with it? |
Talon -- I hear you. Happy listening! |
>>but, you sould look at the case as a network.<<
Exactly what I am saying. Look at the entire chain. A speaker cable cannot
deliver more detail than what it is given -- it cannot CREATE detail, so I
recommend looking at upstream components. To think otherwise is magical
thinking. A Speaker is far more likely to LOSE detail, fail to resolve it, or
introduce distortion than a speaker cable and most listening rooms have
similar problems. So, I recommend looking at the entire chain. That this
should be controversial only shows me that people get riled up awfully easily
when discussing cables -- which is part of the cable phneomenon.
|
>>If he can hear more detail with the Nordost<<
This assumes *you* can hear more *detail.*
That's a logical leap worthy of its own Olympic event.
You haven't proven that.
You've just claimed you can --- on the internet.
Your claim, like your claim that you can hear inaudible amounts of
attenuation, is worth the ether it is printed on.
This is a classic "Emperor's New Clothes" test.
Before you can test to see if someone can hear something, you've got to have
proof there is something to hear.
You don't have that.
You want to "blow my mind" with an Analyzer? Then, why don't
you measure the Nordost cables so you have some idea about what you are
comparing?
Do some investigation for Pete's sake.
You don't know if you are *really* hearing any difference because you've
rigged your own tests, insisting on sighted tests. If you are hearing a
difference, you don't know if you are imagining it because you've done
nothing to eliminate the possibility of the "placebo effect." Do I
believe you are above such influences? Nope. You are human. And, let's not
forget you've already been caught making bogus claims about your hearing
ability.
It gets worse, even if you could prove to reliably hear a difference in a
double-blind test, you wouldn't know if you are *really* getting more *detail,*
or whether you are just getting a slight bump in the high frequencies, which
you are interpreting as more detail. Then making a Herculean jump to the
wrong conclusion -- that the audibly flat cables are losing detail.
So, even if you could pass the first threshold, proving you can really hear a
difference, you cannot pass the second, proving that it isn't just "
different" -- it is actually more "detailed."
Anyone with a graphic equalizer can bump the high end and make a system
sound more detailed. Does that mean it is losing signal when the high end
isn't bumped? Come on, use some logic.
You cannot quantify detail.
Don't you realize this?
It is just amazing to me how you can talk about Network Analyzers and such,
and then exhibit such scientific naivete.
I also find it rather ironic that some folks here have railed against trying to
"recruit" -- yet you are the one who keeps trying to get my
address so you can send me stuff.
Finally, by your comments, you don't even believe the Nordost cables CREATE
detail, so it seems to me you should concede that cables cannot create detail
and correct the cable enthusiasts.
Just like you should have conceded from the start that you cannot possibly
hear the difference between flat and .1db down at 20Khz.
That one blew up like a joke shop cigar.
But, you're right about one thing -- this isn't the way to get through to me. |
You tell me how you're going to pass the first threshold, then the second, and
then how you're going to quantify detail.
|
>>it's quite easy to effect some change<<
I agree that one can effect *change* with a speaker cable.
This has never been in contention.
Sean claimed he could hear a "roll-off" with 12 gauge Zip Cord.
Of course, after repeating this a number of times without specifying the amount of the "roll-off" -- I did some searching.
Sure, it is with a simulated 4 Ohm load, but still -- it is better than being vague with no specific info at all, but in the simulation, with a 10 foot length of 12 gauge Zip cord into a 4 ohm load, the "roll-off" is .088 db.
Do I believe Sean can hear that?
Nope. Nada. Null and void.
Now, the rest of this, IMO, is to distract from his claim.
He cannot back it up. Never can, never will.
I predict we will see nothing but diversion and non-sequiters.
IMO, it could have been no biggie if Sean had done the minimum that one does to protect one's credibility.
He could have included the numbers the next time he followed me to a thread and made the same claim about the "roll-off" and he could have at least indicated that there is some doubt about whether or not anyone could hear it.
Instead, he made comments about how people with really good ears can hear such things.
Then, I posted the reference about how 3.05 db attentuation at 16Khz is the minimum threshold for detection and he switched the topic to Nordost cables
and cooked up this test to see if the two cables sound *DIFFERENT.*
This isn't MY issue. I believe cables can sound rolled-off and they can sound bumped in the high end, or they can be robbed of detail if there sin't sufficient guage.
So, trying to argue me into acknowledging that speaker cables can sound different is a non-sequiter. It doesn't address the original claim -- that one can hear the "roll-off."
I claim this "roll-off" is a bogus issue.
It is way below the threshold of audibility.
The counter this claim, one has to prove one can hear it.
Logically, you would compare it to *FLAT* not to an *UNKNOWN.*
It would not be the leat bit difficult to set up a test where Sean could listen to FLAT versus .1db down at 20 Khz in his own listening room, with the cables in his system.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why one wouldn't want to take such a test -- because no one could pass it.
So, the choices are: Concede the point, or distract and divert.
I already know the answer, this "roll-off" is inaudible -- it is a non-issue.
So, I would suggest moving on to some other issue. |
LOL. You guys are cracking me up! |
>>zip cord DOES roll off the treble response and it is audible.<<
ROFL. Yeah. Good thing YOU are not stubborn, huh?
>>Not only in amplitude, but also in terms of transient response.<<
You might as well say Zip Cord makes apples come out of your speakers, drop some jargon, mention Nelson Pass, and you'd be just as convincing.
>>Remember, i'm comparing this to a wide bandwidth, low inductance design.<<
More jargon. Zip Cord is either audibly rolled off or it isn't. And it isn't. There's no more debate about that. Anyone who has the facts and still wants to believe this just wants to believe it, no matter what.
It is hilarious that you keep spinning around trying to save face rather than just admit you made a little mistake, went off about a "roll-off" without doing any research, fibbed about what you can hear to try to cover it, and got your tail caught in a crack. Some people would have just said, "wow -- thanks for the correct, I guess I was thinking about something else." Or, "Man -- I guess I must have looked at the frequency response charts before I had my coffee."
Or, something.
You can drop Nelson Pass and as much jargon into the conversation as you want and it won't make the "roll-off" audible, won't give you the super human hearing you'd need to hear it. In fact, dropping irrelevant names is just more evidence that you're spinning.
An honest argument wouldn't need such stuff.
In legal circles, they refer to such behavior as "cognizance of guilt."
I wouldn't go that far, I would just call it throwing stuff at the wall to see what might stick. |
>>The man asked for "detailed speaker cables"<<
And that's what we were talking about -- how to figure out what the guy needs to get the sound he wants.
The record shows that in the middle of this discussion, Sean showed up and posted a link to another thread and a different argument.
Hi-jacked the thread.
Also, what am I supposed to do -- have different beliefs in different threads?
LOL.
Is anyone else under this requirement, or only me?
Doesn't it make sense to you that I sound the same in various threads?
Have similar ideas in various threads?
Think about this for a minute.
Do you *really* expect otherwise?
I don't think you do -- I think you are the victim of your own unrealistic and wishful thinking, which is causing you to be frustrated beyond your own tolerance level. Sort of like cutting your own finger, pouring salt on it and then cursing the ocean. |
>>Having said that, where would you recommend that i perform a blind listening test with others there to witness and confirm not only the results, but also that the tests were conducted fairly and honestly?<<
I have three answers.
1) If I were you and I wanted to have the best chance of passing, I would take the test in an anechoic chamber with perfectly flat frequency response, the most expensive speakers I could afford, and a friend who would tip me off to when I was listening to FLAT and when I was listening to 12 gauge Zip Cord.
2) If I were you, I would just drop this and move on because you cannot hear the difference between flat and .088 db down at 20Khz. Don't feel bad. No one can. You could multiply that by 10 times and you still couldn't hear .88 down at 20Khz.
3) I am getting a kick out of how far you are willing to take this rather than concede. Because you really only have three choices; Drop this and move on,
concede the point, or dig in and try to stave off the inevitable somehow. |
Boa2 -- if you're into wine, I can do better than Chianti. I'm looking forward to hearing your system! |
>>i was able to discern the audible differences between two different gauges of zip cord in a blind test.<<
Wow. Between two different GAUGES?
I have already written that diggerent GAUGES can sound DIFFERENT.
More diversion.
>>If both of these cables measure well below the thresholds of audibility...how is it that i was able to do what i did in a matter of seconds<<
1) Because it is easy to make bogus claims on the internet, like claiming one can hear .088 down at 20Khz.
2) This is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with your claim that you can hear inaudible amounts of attenuation. This is a non-sequiter. It is like saying, "if two plus two equals four, as you claim, then why are some apples red while others are green?" |
diggerent = different.
diggerent -- is when you are comparing two didgeridoos. |
>>no willingness to put their own theories to test.<<
LOL.
Here are some other theories I will not entertertain:
1) I refuse to fly accross the country to see if you have X-Ray vision.
2) I refuse to have you send me tupperware.
3) I don't believe you have radio active blood.
4) I won't go anywhere to see if you can breathe under water without a snorkel or oxygen tank.
5) I don't believe you can build a digital camera out of pork rinds. |
|
