*WHITE PAPER* The Sound of Music - How & Why the Speaker Cable Matters

What you are attempting to do is bury your mistake.

Leave the thread as a monument. I would not erase this history.

This white paper is embarrassing in the level of errors, and erroneous conclusions.

The increasing rise in response above 400Hz is due to multiple reflections caused by the mismatchbetween the cable characteristic impedance, Zoand the impedance of the load. Note that the load impedance varies between 4 and 25ohms, which is an approximate match with the 18ohm cable.

Seriously?. This is not at all what is happening. If that was the case, the graphs would go up and down with frequency to match the impedance curve of the load as it mismatches with the cable like the peaks in impedance at 1.5KHz, and 10KHz, but they don’t. Why is that? I know why. The author? Not so much.

Now let’s have a good look at figure 12. The oscillations are 5 oscillations per usec. That’s 5MHz. No speaker puts that out. No human can hear it. Now how long is that cable? It’s 7 meters. * 2 = 14 meters. Waveform propagation speed is mainly related to dielectric, so let’s estimate speed at 0.6C = 180,000,000 meters per second. That’s about 13Mhz if due to transmission line reflections. Now what about the 18ohm impedance? Well it would also have transmission line reflections close to 13Mhz, but it appears to have oscillations close to 50 or 100MHz which if due to transmission line effects would require exceeding the speed of light.

For cable 6, Fig 3, with Zo 476ohms, driving the dummy speaker load with a step input from a square wave (the simplest transient) gives rise to severe ringing that has many oscillations.This is due to the transient reaching the mis-matched speaker load where only a small fraction of the signal is absorbed by the load. The remainder of the signal is reflected back to the source (the amplifier) where it is reflected back to the load. Again, only a small fraction of the now-diminished signal is absorbed by the speaker, with the remainder reflecting back to the source and so on. Over time, all the reflections will eventually be absorbed in the load.

Oh come on, really? That is not how characteristic impedance works at all. I sort of feel bad for the op putting this out. This is not going to go over well. Your simulation is highly flawed.


So, lets go back to the conclusion:

The results show that the principal factor determining the error of a cable is its geometry. Cables with very widely spaced conductors have the greatest error, closer-spaced conductor cables have less error, and very closely-spaced, flat conductor cables have the least, or near zero error.

No, this is not the principal factor at all, nor is it what your results indicate. Geometry (spacing) does play a roll in what is a determining factor and what all your results show.


Everything in your article points to 1 and only one 1 item. Inductance. Not characteristic impedance. Plain, simple inductance. Space conductors far apart, and the inductance is high. Space conductors close together and the inductance is low. Put two flat conductors really close and the inductance is very low (and the capacitance very high which can make some amplifiers unhappy).

The graphs in figure 3 - all inductance.

The oscillations in figure 12 - have nothing to do with transmission line effects, they are just a factor of the high or low source resistance in the simulation damping out the load oscillations slow or fast and impacting the frequency.

Reflections causing roll-off? They are at 13Mhz approximately. In your simulation they settle out completely after 10 microseconds (>100KHz bandwidth).

For low-level interconnect signal transmission, typical cables have an impedance of between 50 and 100ohmsanddrivea 10kilohm to 20 kilohm load. There are reflections from the load, but the source resistance is typically the same as the cable impedance, so the reflections will be absorbed in the source resistance and there will be no further reflections. This is known as “back matching”and usually occurs by default in audio and is de rigueur in video.

Source impedances in audio equipment single ended are typically 600-2000 ohms, some higher. That is not anywhere near 100 ohms or 50 ohms.

A high-loss dielectric distorts the electric field which has a second-order effect on the sound. The best practical insulators are air, PTFE and polyester. The worst is PVC.

Foamed polyethylene is better than basic PTFE which is why it is so common in high frequency cables. Reason PTFE is used in high frequency cables is dimensional stability. Polyester is not at all a good dielectric. It can be worse than PVC, or better, but never good.

The op seems rather quiet considering the feedback. Was this a run and gun marketing exercise or an honest attempt at a serious white paper?

This will not work well for a cable and can have huge errors. An LCR meter cannot isolate the L and C when taking a measurement on a cable and hence the measurements for L and C end up wrong.  With a good LCR meter (the DM4070 is not), you can adjust the measurement frequency and use the change over frequency to extract the accurate L and C values.  Of course if you start with a good LCR meter, it will have an impedance measurement function, which will allow you to measure the impedance with the cable shorted and the cable open-circui which can then be used to accurately compute the characteristic impedance.

APPENDIX B: Three Methods of Deriving Characteristic Impedance
METHOD 1–Use a VICI DM4070 LCR Meter or Similar
1.Measure the capacitance (C)of the cable with the cable open circuited.
2.Measure the inductance (L) of the cablewith the endshort circuited.
3.With capacitance in microfarads and inductance in microhenries calculate the impedance by this formula Zo= √L/C ohms.

Probably even some of it is true. Whatever true means. As if we know even that much.

It will never cease to amaze me the mental gymnastics an audiophile will perform to avoid admitting that perhaps they are wrong or don’t know how something works (but someone else does).

Some of it ...which part? The premise is wrong, the conclusions wrong, simulations don’t illustrate what they are supposed to, the impedance measurement method is wrong ... It will be much harder to find something right than something wrong. And that I and many others know these things are wrong shows that yes, many know "that much".

No comment @1971gto455HO.  I am sure the author meant well and believes what they wrote is accurate. It is not. It is seriously flawed. It would be best to just withdraw it, no burning needed.

Why would you want 100KHz flat response. You can't hear it, your speakers cannot recreate, and if they could they would likely distort and modulate distortion to audible frequencies.  100KHz amps are mainly to ensure no phase shift in the audio band (and for marketing).

12 awg stranded only drops in resistance about 50% at 100KHz.  You could just use 2- 12 awg stranded, maybe even 1 - 8awg stranded.  18 - 24 AWG would be just as good at 100Khz as 108-32awg and a lot less work.

w.r.t. a liquid conductor, as long as it has inductance, capacitance and resistance (it will), then it will have a characteristic impedance.  However, the only problem to solve is inductance and that would be hard to interleave (for speaker cables).

Maybe the op brought up capacitance, but no one in this thread has raised it as an issue except w.r.t amplifier stability so not sure where you are trying to go with this?

Technically there are always reflections, however, the impact on power transfer at audio frequencies is several hundred db down.

erik_squires9,935 posts11-18-2020 6:01pmLike @djones said there's no reflections at audio frequencies.

Get a foil inductor, preferably 12awg, and double sided sticky tape. One inductor builds a lot of speaker cable similar to the Goertz or Townshend.  Just be careful, your amp may not like the several nF of capacitance.

... oops, now I see your cable was 6.6uH. Not bad for my 5uH upper end estimate. However, no idea what frequency your LCR meter measures at, so it could be inaccurate at 20KHz.

The whole graph is a bit wonky. A short is 0V which is not 0db, it is some large negative number as it is log scale. If you use the "short" and offset everything else, you may have been offsetting the noise floor, not the actual measurements. You can’t say your drop was 2.1db more than a "short". That is meaningless. Hence that value of 2.1db, the so called error has no real meaning. It would have been better to have compared it to a fixed resistance or have taken a proper frequency response not a cable drop response without a proper reference.


Oh hey, in your chart, I see the ratio of the inductance of the 3 wires I said would be about 1:2:3 is actually 0.95:2.1:3.  It seems the calculations for inductance work pretty well.

@townshend-audio,

One of us has the required education, and experience not to guess at this topic. I don’t need to guess or consult "All About Circuits", though it is for the most part a well designed website.

And yes, I can explain them and I already did. INDUCTANCE. This is well known, and documented by professional wire companies like Kimber and Cardas. (Though to be completely accurate, there may be a fraction of a db here and there for skin resistance).

Everything in your article points to 1 and only one 1 item. Inductance. Not characteristic impedance. Plain, simple inductance. Space conductors far apart, and the inductance is high. Space conductors close together and the inductance is low. Put two flat conductors really close and the inductance is very low (and the capacitance very high which can make some amplifiers unhappy).

Let me point out that your statement, "The results, Fig 3, show the frequency responses of a series of cables from 30Hz to 20kHz, together with their characteristic impedances Z0." is wrong. It does not show the frequency response, it shows the cable voltage drop, which is not the same as frequency response.

As we don’t know what drive level the amplifier is, the spectrum analyzer settings, or even the scale, though it may be in db, but was that dbW, dbm, dbu, dbuv? db without anything else is a relative number only when measured electrically. Again, not a frequency response, a relative voltage drop.

Looking at your round conductors, spaced at 5, 15, 50mm. Depending on the gauge, the ratio of inductance will be close to 1:2:3, with 1 being between about 6 an 20uh, but the construction and dielectric differences in your samples will make for a lot of variation, but first order calcs would show about 5db difference between 5mm and 15mm and a bit less between 15 and 50mm, which is not too far off the 5 or 6db differences you show.

The parallel flat plates of your cables (and Alpha Core Geortz cables), I would estimate as only about 3-5uH. I would need more details on the dimensions, thickness of the dielectric, etc., but rough is going to be 3-5uH. That would be 1/2 the best case close wires, and maybe 1/3 - 1/4 and hence why less voltage drop at 20KHz. .... oops see it is 6.6uH in your document. My 5uh upper end was not a bad estimate. No idea what frequency your LCR measures at though, so that 6.6uH may not be accurate at 20KHz.

No transmission lines, no reflections, just basic physics / electrical engineering. You may notice that as opposed to talking in generalities, I have, in both my posts, brought up very specific numbers. Those weak on a topic guess, those who understand take available information and develop relatively accurate estimates.
Oh, FYI, you show the cable drop as lower at 20KHz than 0Hz so something in your system is dropping 2.1db at 20KHz.

Here we are, December 3, and no details have "followed" about the December 5 zoom call. When has a vendor given less than 2 days notice of a presentation? That is just odd .....

No, not with a load. Inductance usually dominates over capacitance.

The closer the wires in a cable are to each other, the more rounded will be the Square Wave coming out of the other end.

Only way to get a matching Square Wave Out, is to space the wires some distance from each other.

Yes let’s look at that, where the author uses 100 meters of cable to show 10000nsec reflections that no one denies exists, but those reflections settle out. The only one that uses 100 meter cables is studios and you may want to look into what they do about source / load impedance matching.

Then the author, who does no math makes the giant and technically ignorant leap that if this is an issue at 100 meters then surely it can be an audible issue at 1 meter. That was either ignorance or intentional misleading. Math would show this ignorance. Why use 1, let’s use 5 meters about the longest most people use. The issue is not now 1/20th as small, it is 20 times exponentially smaller.



At 100 meters and 100khz bandwidth 5x audio, there are 10 round trip reflections. At 40 kHz, 25. At 5 meters, 200 and 500.


A 100khz signal at 100 meters may only settle within 60db, a 40khz signal will be 150db down. But let’s talk real world at 5 meters, where at 100khz the settling error is 1200db below the signal and at 40khz the transmission line settling error will be 3000db below the signal.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t detect -1200db errors, can you?

I suggest quoting real engineering papers not effectively blogs from those who are not thorough in their analysis.  There is a reason way more educated and experienced people on transmission lines say it does not matter at audio frequencies and cable lengths.

The quoted author then says a 10Khz square wave is audio frequencies. That should be your first clue. The fundamental of the 10khz is audible , i.e. 10khz. All the harmonics are inaudible. A 10khz square wave does not represent real audio. It is shown sometimes to illustrate amplifier stability / damping but that's a different problem.

I would withdraw the white paper. It's based on a poorly written and technically weak paper to draw conclusions that are simply not remotely correct while including erroneous and irrelevant simulations, and other noted errors. Withdrawing it would be the most honorable thing to do.

Not IMHO kijanki, but absolute fact that at 7Mhz it will have no effect. At 1Mhz, worst case would be -170db down.  I would be careful with the 1000 meter example. In that case, the worse case would be -60db error at 20KHz, which could be argued as audible. That is worst case though. Odds are it will be much better.

The idea that 7m speaker cable is a transmission line for audio signals is insane, IMHO. For 20kHz signal you will need about 1000m long speaker cable (1/10 of the 20kHz wavelength) to even start becoming transmission line. In such case reflections would be inaudible because they are in MHz range (and because speakers are 1000m away).  Why not to use 20kHz sinewave for the test? It is the highest audio frequency component of interest in the cable. Please show me reflections of 20kHz sinewave in 7m cable. Any cable.

Oh, and your "White Paper" shows 0.94uH/meter for Isolda, but your website shows 0.002uH but does not show a length.

I looked further into the Isolda, pictures and the dimension estimates I made.  I expect that 6.6uH is quite wrong, but that 0.002uH is quite wrong too (for 2 meters).


Given the lack of consistent numbers for Isolda, could be a function of the cheap meter, or measurement error, let's use the Isolda as a reference, use some of the inductance numbers in the chart, and the shown (but wrong) speaker simulator, using inductance only.

                    My Calcs    Value on  Graph
ISOLDA       2.6              2.6         (Used as ref)
                   8.5758         8.8
                   15.210        13.8
                   24.69          24.4

That's close enough to me, to show that inductance alone completely explains Chart 3, certainly within the framework of the obvious measurement errors.

Here is what you have done:
1) Showed a graph with expected change in frequency
2) Showed that order of magnitude characteristic impedance had a rough correlation to the measured results.

What you did not do:
a) Investigate other related effects ... like INDUCTANCE.b) Show a direct correlation via a measurement of impedance and measured error
c) Show a mathematical correlation between impedance and measured error.

See, I just did #3 above, and showed a very close correlation between inductance and the measured results.  That's science.

You also left out many necessary details so that your experiment could be corroborated.
And ...perhaps most of all, you did not relate your result to what the actual change in frequency response is.
On the very worst cable it is 0.4db at 20KHz.

"Highly experienced electronic engineers" ....

It is not a matter of whether I disagree or not. Anyone with a basic knowledge of transmission lines, knows that the speed of reflection is so fast, that the signal quickly settles to the final value, and since we are looking at frequencies of <=20Khz and lengths of 7 meters, the error is literally smaller than 1000db.

Let’s talk about your "figure 3". As I stated previously, your scale is not defined (which another noted above), so it is hard to properly interpret comparative results, especially since in addition, you have a 2db roll-off at 20Hz, which we don’t know if it is causes by amplifier saturation, measurement roll-off, amplifier roll-off, etc.


Let’s talk about other errors. Your impedance shown in Figure 2, dummy load does not match the circuit. The 330uH inductor is 2*pi*f*l at 20KHz = 41.4 ohms. That is in series with the 7.3 resistor putting a lower limit on impedance of 48.7 ohms. The 1.4mh in the other leg is almost an open circuit at 20KHz. Yet you show 8 ohms impedance at 20KHz. Gee .... what could be wrong here? Could it be that your model is missing the Zobel that is typically on amplifiers for stability. Was that actually in your load or not? Hard to make claims when even the most basic aspects of your article are wrong.


Your appendix has a column Cable Fig. 2, but figure 2 is the dummy load, and the numbers in this column don’t actually relate either the traces Figure 3, or Figures 4-10 as there is no way to correlate them. The one marked XXXX appear to the same cable in 6, 7, and 8 meter lengths (point of that was), but in the Cable Fig. 2 column, it is marked 5, 4, and 6 which has no meaning to anything else. And then another marked XXXX that is 10 meters but is a different cable. I don’t know who you had peer review this, but you should fire them. I am up to at least 4 glaring errors without even getting to the conclusion.


So as I said again, Figure 3 is explain by inductance -- measured with a proper inductance meter close to the actual frequency, and as necessary, also taking into account skin resistance.


Of course, to properly correlate anything to Figure 3., you would need to fix the measurement errors, define what the scale actually is, define the readings on the spectrum analyzer (rms? voltage average, peak), and provide accurate inductance and capacitance values for specific cables as they relate to figure 3, something you have not done at all.

However, as I have stated in my previous posts, using educated guesses, variances of 4-5db in the cable drop method you have used would be what happens between the inductances listed for the several different types.

I had actually taken that out shortly after I wrote that Cleeds as I wanted to save them embarrassment after I tried to simulate the results in figure 3 and found more and more critical and fundamental errors in the paper.  I know it was not fully reviewed by engineers with the qualifications to analyze it.

However, I have my Bachelor's (EE) from Cornell before working in the recording industry for a major equipment manufacturer, before I left to start my own company supplying custom tools and services for equipment calibration and maintenance to the industry, that I sold before going back and doing a Master's (EE) and starting my PhD at Berkeley. Never finished that because I ended up running a group developing professional audio equipment for the recording industry. They were happy with their niche, I wanted to grow, so I put together a team that worked on software plug-ins and hardware that we eventually sold to a competitor. Since then been dabbling with a number of companies across a range of tech.  In other words, yes, I actually do have a clue what I am talking about, but that is probably evident from me picking up easily things like incorrect speaker models, simulations that can't possibly match actual transmission line effects, quick estimation of cable losses, and all the other errors in the paper.

townshend-audio OP303 posts11-22-2020 9:59amAudio2design is suggesting that transmission line theory does not apply at low frequencies. Well, it does, even at DC. see....

Now you are lying to discredit me. In fact, I have specifically pointed out to others in this thread that transmission line effects absolutely come into play even at 1KM with audio frequencies. It is readily available for anyone to see in my posts. I have copied them below.

The video you posted is not showing transmission line effects for DC, it is showing transmission line effects for the transient when a voltage is connected which is of indeterminate (due to parasitics) but very high frequency. It is not "DC" at the point of turn on, it is a transient.


Please don’t get angry at me for your lack of understanding of a topic.

audio2design245 posts11-18-2020 10:20pm

Technically there are always reflections, however, the impact on power transfer at audio frequencies is several hundred db down.

audio2design245 posts11-21-2020 10:55am

A 100khz signal at 100 meters may only settle within 60db, a 40khz signal will be 150db down.

audio2design245 posts11-21-2020 4:21pm

.... kijanki, ... I would be careful with the 1000 meter example. In that case, the worse case would be -60db error at 20KHz, which could be argued as audible. That is worst case though. Odds are it will be much better.

How many square waves do we experience in audio at 10KHz. The correct answer would be 0. That has a fundamental sine-wave component at 10Khz, and every single harmonic is inaudible. It is a meaningless test.

Cool, what does Rocket Development have to do with understanding electrical theory and transmission lines?

townshend-audio OP303 posts11-22-2020 9:53amThe only way to get a square wave out is to match the cable impedance to the load impedance. This is a standard way of determining the characteristic impedance of unknown coax cable. The trick was shown to me when I was working on the ill-fated Blue Streak Rocket development at the Weapons Research Establishment in Adelaide in the early 60s.
See my videos Geometry Matters on youtube.

Max

3. I have tried to explain it, but some are not happy. Is it just coincidence that the traces track characteristic impedance quite closely?

No, you basically started with a conclusion and then attempted to make the data match without correlating, or compensating for other variables. Keep in mind you have presented no mathematical correlation.

Zo = sqrt (L/C) .... of course impedance is going to have a relation to inductance, that value you continually ignore.

1. Has anyone heard a difference between speaker cables?

You are now appealing to audiophile emotions which is just wrong when you present what purports to be a scientific paper. This has nothing to do with whether people hear a difference between cables or not. It has to do with the fact that your paper is error filled and draws a conclusion without proving direct correlation, while investigating no correlating variables.


And still even though I have pointed out numerous errors in your paper, you have not addressed them, or retracted until you could fix them. Instead you are blaming others here. We did not write the paper.


Keep in mind, you are not just presenting an error filled paper, this is also meant to market your product.

We are doing a Zoom session 6 PM GMT 5 Dec, and we will show you the test with the same cables.

Great so you are going to do a zoom call that shows that lower inductance cables have less voltage drop than higher inductance cables, something almost no on disputes and you are going to claim it is because of transmission line effects.

Many people more knowledgeable about transmission lines and electricity have pointed out all the issues with this "white paper". No change has been made. That says a lot.

Exactly what errors? Really. Now that just comes across as insincere attempt at deflection. I have very clearly my posts highlighted what 5+ errors

- Speaker electrical model does not match impedance curve shown.

- I will add that as well this is I believe, as there really is not a full standard model, an electroacoustic model, but transmission lines don’t care about mechanical effects

- your model does not include parasitic capacitance or inductance in your elements and transmission lines do care about those

- no scales on oscilloscope plots

- your method that YOU used of measuring characteristic impedance is wrong, and at audio frequencies grossly wrong. You can’t use a transmitted square wave to measure characteristic impedance at audio frequencies

- your simulation is wrong. You have not simulated characteristic impedance at all in your simulation nor transmission line effects. You would need a complex model of transmission line characteristics across audio frequencies and you must include bulk capacitance and inductance and resistance and even skin effects

- you ignored skin effects though this is likely <=1db of error

- Your table of wires and their characteristic values does not correlate to the graph and confuses readers.

- you only showed a rough correlation to impedance not an actual mathematical correlation. Standard line, correlation does NOT equal causation

- you have ignored other relevant variables, namely inductance

- you called a graph the frequency response of the cable when it is clearly not. It is the cable voltage drop versus frequency which is lot the same thing

- you don’t explain or correct for the 2db measurement drop at high frequencies which without knowing why puts unbounded error on the measurements at high frequencies

- the scale of the spectrum graph is not listed, only db and this is a near meaningless term without the required scale.

- the settings for the spectrum analyzer are not listed so we don’t know if it is average, RMS average, peak, etc

I could go on but what would be the point. You fail to acknowledge the obvious and substantial flaws.

Oops forgot about that whole square wave error as well. I lost count.

That’s the one @djones51 , the same thread that includes this little ditty, apparently from the starter of this topic

"Note, there is no frequency component in characteristic impedance and it applies for DC attached."

Hey note to the op, your equation for Zo is the simplified one that only applies at high frequency. The full equation for characteristic impedance ABSOLUTELY has a frequency component!

We use low frequency square waves if we want to cover the audio band. A 10Khz wave may be used to show amplifier extended frequency response which is only important for showing phase shift.

A 10Khz square wave has exactly one frequency component, 1, uno in the audio band, namely 10KHz. Every other harmonic is inaudible. A 10Khz square wave does not contain all audio frequencies it contains 1, 10KHz, no more, no less.

Measurements out 20% can be important because that can be the difference between causation and correlation but you have shown no causation between impedance (measured wrong anyway) and your results. That literally does not exist in your paper.

Again telling that your ignore 10+clear errors in your paper, but try to attack one small item (wrongly).

But you go ahead and spam your zoom call. I expect you won’t allow the likes of me or Kijanki an open forum to point out to the audience how woefully flawed the paper is including the conclusion.
Scientists don’t ignore all previous knowledge and it in general is why scientists make new discoveries after absorbing all the knowledge and discoveries of those that came before them, never ignoring it, even if they don’t agree with it.

You have had lots of opportunity to fix your errors and clear up unclear info as indicated. What would I ask in a call that you have not already ignored, not addressed or got wrong already? 

Please come prepared to discuss the following questions, as a start.


1) Why does your speaker electrical model does not match impedance curve shown.

2) Why are you using an electroacoustic speaker model that is not accurate for electrical transmission line effects.

3) Why are you not incorporating parasitic capacitance which is essential for proper transmission line modelling.

4) What are the scales on the oscilloscope plots.

5) Why do you use the wrong formula for impedance? The formula you use only works at high frequencies, not audio frequencies.

6) Why do you use an incorrect method of measuring characteristic impedance in yoru paper.

7) Why do you insist that a 10KHz square wave is "audio" frequencies, when only the fundamental 10KHz sine wave in that square wave is in the audible band.

8) Why are you passing off a simulation that is obviously not incorporating properly characteristic impedance as a simulation of characteristic impedance in a transmission line circumstance.

9) Why are you passing off a simulation as accurate that does not take into account the very significant change in characteristic impedance of cables at audio frequencies.

10) Why have you ignored skin effect.

11) You have shown no CAUSATION between characteristic impedance and cable voltage drop.  You have only shown at best some correlation, but no causation.  Why do you feel, given the lack of proven causation, that you can say definitively it is due to transmission line effects?

12)  Given the posted impedance curve of your simulated load, why do the cable voltage drops NOT follow the impedance mismatching that must occur as the impedance of the load changes with frequency. Given your hypothesis, the voltage drop w.r.t. frequency MUST follow the cable impedance / load impedance graph. It does not.

13) You have completely ignored inductance as a causation. Why?


14) Why does your table of wires and their characteristic values does not correlate to the graph and confuses readers.


15) Why did you label a graph the frequency response of the cable when it is clearly not. It is the cable voltage drop versus frequency which is not the same thing. This is deceptive to an uneducated reader.


16) Why is there a 2db measurement drop at high frequencies which without knowing why puts unbounded error on the measurements at high frequencies.


17) What is the scale of the spectrum graph is not listed, only db and this is a near meaningless term without the required scale.


18) What are the settings for the spectrum analyzer as they are not listed so we don’t know if it is average, RMS average, peak, etc

Well Max showed, and continued to ignore 100+ years of settled engineering. He was joined by David from Wireworld who communicated his own brand of lack of engineering knowledge. Altogether it was as expected.

Oh ... get this, the source impedance was not an amplifier with say close to 0, or at least 0.1 ohm, it was a 400 ohm source impedance. According to Max, that does not matter cause it acts as a current source.

I feel sorry for those potential customers who will be mislead by someone who passes themselves off as knowledgeable, but clearly, on this topic, is not.

kfscoll,

The construction of his wire, will result in low inductance which is good for high frequency transmission. I will not fault it on that, though some amplifiers may not like it.

However, that does not negate the paper which is poppy cock.

His measurements are wrong, the science he applied is wrong, his theoretical work is wrong, his calculations are wrong. However, he did create a low inductance, high capacitance cable which could be beneficial which never an aspect that was doubted.

millercarbon7,408 posts01-21-2021 1:59amRemarkable the way people who have never heard them nevertheless know they can’t work. Sadly, I possess no powers that enable me to know how anything sounds by looking. Or measuring. The only cable measurement I have any faith in at all is length. The only way I know to determine how something sounds is to hook it up and listen.

Might be a while. But I am working on it.

It's pretty remarkable that people, without taking time to read and understand threads will continually jump to wrong conclusions.

The thread panned Max's "research" and white paper which grossly flawed in so many ways that the best thing to do would have been just to delete it.

Max did create a low inductance cable, and yes just like the Alpha Core Goertz essentially.  We know that a low inductance cable is generally preferable, within limits, and that too much capacitance makes some amps unhappy.  Really, not much more was said in this thread, though Max did attempt unsuccessful to establish he was right when it should have been quite obvious early on he was not.  These issues and his inaccurate understanding of cable impedance at audio frequencies was pointed out to him almost a year ago on ASR. A regular reaction to that would be to research and understand if you are wrong or not before publishing a paper.

I am with MC on this one?  Huh?  That makes little sense.  Except at low frequencies, with any large size conductor, the inductance will dominate over the resistance most of the time and the DF changes with frequency.

b4icu477 posts01-21-2021 2:24amMr. millercarbon

With all the respect to your empiring methode, it will take you a lifetime to tune into the right cable, and still you may not get there. On top, when cables are relatively costly, it may cost you a bit.
If you would step up and use your brain, you could be there (the best cable for your system) at one try, just by a small calculation. I'll be happy to do that for you. All I need is the Amp's Df figure and the length of the cables required.

Probably worth pointing out at this point that Einstein developed ALL his theories in his head. It was decades if not many decades before they could be proven correct. Einstein is the direct opposite of your position which is to ignore actual science and try to believe it does not exist. I have clearly pointed out to you there is more than just big gauge and not taking into account inductance will have an actual measured and perceived impact on high frequencies. Bringing up Einstein does not change that but does prove my point. You don't get to just ignore science.   Newton's laws are still exceedingly accurate for most things.

Blah blah blah....so many people with so much advice and self assuredness.  Most have not laid down tons of cash over the years exploring all the different cable designs with various systems and environments.  Most of the advice is from a limited perspective or biased mindset.  On a well mated system, in a relatively decent environment, recent MIT cables and power cords allow the music to flow unimpeded...no roll offs or compression or lack of detail

That's weird, because when I tested / tried MIT cables they were one of the few that actually rolled off the high end.  No need to try all kinds of cable designs when you understand how cables work. I don't need to try a 4000lb car with a 60hp engine to know I am not going to get a 5 second 0-60 time.

b4icu,

You seem to be ignoring L and C because I would say there is a good chance you don't understand how they behave in a system.  Take the biggest wires you can find, I don't care, make them 000.  If you don't design at the same time for low L, those giant cables can cause audible roll-off at high frequencies. Not subtle, but audible.

Not even talking about the resistance in the voice coil and cross-overs yet which will make that giant cable of little value.


There is a popular cartoon which shows two paths, "Simple but Wrong", and "Complex but right". It is often appropriate.

What if the EQ is simply correcting for the room and speakers?

So you believe in measurements? Great where are yours?

In order to do such things, they should be of linear gain, not non linear gain, like all known transistors are. Other than triodes, SIT transistors and V-FET transistors, which are all linear gain. Long electronic story there, for sure... Those are the only three devices know to be even capable of getting close to this requirement.

See this just shows more fundamental lack of understanding. These devices are not "magic". The linearity of a SIT transistor is due to inherent feedback within the device structure.  15 seconds of research would reveal this:

The I-V characteristics follow an exponential behavior in the low-current region and change to approximately a linear-or square-law relation in the high-current region where the negative feedback effect of the series channel resistance becomes pronounced. 

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1479561

Ditto for triodes. Triodes are linear because of internal feedback.

What can we conclude from this?:  Beware people speaking with authority about things they do not full understand.

It’s an interesting theory of which there is little proof:

But it does illustrate how good the ear is, based on how it functions. Of course, each brain and each ear is different, so we get into these arguments about who can hear what. A situation where hearing is as varied as intelligence is. Lacking ears vs capable ears, or however one wants to put it. A sliding scale not unlike an IQ chart.

It has been shown that younger ears have better timing discrimination and it is pretty consistent. It has been shown that trained ears, and younger trained ears even better, are best at picking out anomalies.

Show me where "audiophiles" are any better than anyone else at picking out anomalies? I can show you something where they could not even pick out huge distortion, but it was readily evident to engineers with proper listening test.

Many musicians do possess better ability to identify tones accurately, but that does not give them super human hearing.

teo_audio1,716 posts01-24-2021 11:50amYou are still getting it wrong for all the wrong reasons and attacking people who have commercial interests here, when you probably also have commercial interests.

SHOW YOUR FACE.

PROVE YOUR CLAIMS!!!!    Don't get made at me for making claims YOU cannot back up. Stop trying to make this about me. This has nothing to do with me. I am not making claims which cannot be supported.


YOU tell me I am wrong. PROVE IT!!    PROVIDE ---REAL--- Evidence to support your claims. Don't get mad at me for your failure to support your argument. Don't get made at me for posting ridiculous claims about 1 picosecond requirements for audio.  I didn't write that. YOU did.

Swing and a total miss @teo_audio. Once again, you are attempting to deflect from your own inadequacies and trying to make this about me, and not your inability to support the rather outlandish statements you have made. As a commercial interest, which you are, it is not only morally and ethically defunct to make claims that cannot be supported there are other implications. I suggest you should threaten me less, and think more about what you are posting and whether you can factually support what you claim.

You have the floor here teo_audio. Instead of your ill-attempt to attack me, I suggest your concentrate more on justifying what you, as a commercial interest, wrote. 1) I would start with that 1 pico-second claim. That would be the best place to start. I would suggest using evidence from actual experts in the field, not some random conjecture on the web. 2) Then I would think about your claims about digitization in the MHZ claim. 3) Then I would try to justify your claim that 100% -- 100% of our hearing is based purely on the transient edge. Then 4th, why not the one that is easy for you, show us how liquid metals defy inductance measurements. That should be easy since that is your expertise. If you want, you can justify some of those other liquid metal claims. Perhaps cite some scientific papers like I did??

p.s. I actually posted my bio here. Feel free to search for it. I do not now, nor have I ever received a dime from direct sales of home audio equipment unless you count selling my used gear :-) It would be best to find another tree to bark up.  I have no advantage, hidden or otherwise, except knowledge. I do not put words in your mouth.  You have the ability to control your own actions including what you post on these forums. Govern yourself accordingly.  If you cannot justify what you wrote, that does not reflect on me, that reflects on you. Act appropriately.

I would respond to what you wrote @teoaudio, but what would be the point.

How does one respond to talking point that are virtually all made up, or at least gross distortions of factual points? I mean really where would I start.  You sound "knowledgeable" but many people read a lot and spew what they read without really understanding it, which is pretty much what you have done.

You show a clear lack of understanding of the auditory system or of the general concept of "signals", so where do even begin to pick apart the  nonsense that you wrote, and there was an awful lot of it.

I will just address this:

We derive 100% of our hearing function from the tiny area of the positive leading edge of all transient structure in the signal. this means the cables in question, or the digital system in question, has to sample out to about ..oh..2mhz, with about 24 bits of accuracy, with a jitter performance of zero picoseconds of error at 1 picosecond compared to the next picosecond or any other picosecond referenced to any other.. within a 1-2-5-10 second window. 

Embodied in this is a total lack of understanding of our ears, our auditory system, our brain, sounds, audio, digital processing, and pretty much everything that could be known about audio ... and you did it all in one paragraph. That is some skill!!!

Do you even realize how silly you sound???   1 picosecond. Sure bud.  That is 0.3mm at the speed of light. Sound travels 0.0000003mm in a picosecond.


And no, we don't derive 100% of our hearing function from the leading edge of a transient. There are many aspects to hearing. Binaural time of arrival appears to be a form of convolution across many receptors of frequency for a maximum accuracy of about 5usec.  Some aspects of height are based on relative frequencies comparisons.  We don't even fully detect frequencies until we have experienced a full waveform, and many aspects of "hearing" require significant passages.

Hate to break it to you, but digital audio has timing accuracy in the 100's of picoseconds, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but that is orders of magnitude better than any analog system.

Anyway, in cables inductance is a big deal. as is skin effect, re the expression of transients and complex transients under complex dynamic loading.

In liquid metal, all that.... is a variable tied to the dynamic loading itself. which is totally different than that of ’wire’

Ie, you can’t accurately measure the inductance of a liquid metal cable. You can make a coil and it will fail to follow the rules you know.

This is fundamentally untrue and you have illustrated above lack of competence in so many areas, I will just say "prove it".

This paper shows that liquid metal in fact behaves exactly as one would expect:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8364425

As do these papers:

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/ra/c5ra17479a/unauth#!divAbstract

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11708-019-0632-0

I am sure I could cite many more papers that show liquid metals are inductive, do follow classical properties (but are highly susceptible to oxidation and contamination), and those properties are being used/explore for real world applications.  I would point out that it appears that liquid metal properties can be influenced by external fields. Is that a good thing when you want consistency in operation??   Now of course, these were large fields, but I thought in audio everything mattered?

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01784784/document

teo_audio1,717 posts01-24-2021 12:07pm audio2design

until you show your face, dude, you are attacking others, and doing harm, in a one sided manner without any mention or seeming understanding of the complexity of the entire spectrum of physics at play.

Until you show your face, you are morally and ethically defunct and playing a one sided game in favor of yourself....

Until you stop making claims that are absurd, like the 1 picosecond accuracy or repeatability in audio, YOU will keep doing damage to YOUR personal and professional brand.

Who I am does not change 1 iota the veracity of what I write. If it is wrong, and you can prove that, THEN DO IT!   If not, then you are doing nothing but deflecting from your own issues by trying to make this about me. I didn't force you to write what you wrote, but I will point out the errors.