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

Interesting review on the Author's Isolda Townsend cable from HIFI PIG in the UK.
Seems like the sonic benefits do indeed correlate snugly with his measurements! Go figure  https://hifipig.com/townshend-isolda-loudspeaker-cable/?fbclid=IwAR0swCfOziVBLZ-03sxA2rxz_YHTnUWxdWr...

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.

I spent some time to figure out why and what is the electrical parameter to make a speaker cable better or worst. I need to agree with Mr.
audio2design that Mr. Max Townshend got it wrong. Sorry about that.

I’d found out that a speaker cable is a wire that has mostly resistance and a bit L and C characteristics, depends on structure and length.
I also figured out, that the speaker cable is not about current. I used a Klipsch Forte-II with 99dB/w/m SPL efficiency, that a loud play would squeeze some 3W peak from my CARVER 250W Amp. the Klipsch were 8 ohms and easy to drive, and the speaker cable still made a difference!
I looked into getting thicker cables and sound improved.
Looking at the speaker - speaker cable - Amp circuit, I dropped the speaker (from the analysis) and looked at the Amp’s output. I’d found there the DF (equivalent to the output resistance of the Amp.) The speaker cable were only an extension to that resistance.
I also found, what should be the ratio between the Amp’s DF (output resistance, and the speaker cable resistance, including its length). So I tried it and went a long way to see if I’m correct or wrong.
Well, all sound systems, showed some improvement (some significand and dramatic improvement). However, when that speaker cable exceeded the required (calculated) thickness, sound did not improve any more!
Some, had claim that the C and L were left out in my analysis. Well Wiki says that DF or Amp’s output resistance is calculated and ref. as a pure resistance (vs. a constant 8 ohms at 1kHz). To eliminate C, I use two separate cables (as they are mostly thick) and that places them apart, rather than go with a pair inside a cable for the entire length.

This DF relation is getting tricky when Amps vary from tube (low DF, under 20) or digital Amp. with DF as high as 4000 and above.
For the first, a land phone cord would mostly do. For a DF of 4000, the cable becomes impracticaly thick. it is mostly better to use two monoblocks, place them as close as possible to the speaker and get the speaker cable as short as possible. Even place the two back to back and use a solid copper jumper.

For practical reasons, any cable thicker than #12 AWG is difficult to work with, connect to spades or banana plugs. So most stuff on the market is of that gauge or less! Very bad...So most manufacturers, respected or not, came out with fairy tales, regarding properties that has nothing to do with physics: Directional, Bi-Wire, Cryo treatment, Silver, High purity and more. None apply.
On top, some cables pricing got absurd. There is no justification for that. None of the manufacturers provide a cable with any costly R&D or material list. The bottom line is of an enormous profit figure.

Remarkable 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.

Mr. 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.

low inductance, high capacitance cable

Repackaged Alpha Core Goertz?

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.

Mr. 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.

Yes, I see. It's clear I have much to learn. I know only of cathode, triode, pentode. What is this "methode" of which you speak? 

My Melody integrated amp is model I-880. You can use your incredible expertise to look up the DF. I require 8 feet. Can't wait to hear the wonderful wires you build me.

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.

http://bit.ly/3sUrqds Also found this review from the one and only Martin Colloms, HiFi Critic Mag.

Scoring a 95% and AUDIO EXCELLENCE Townshend F1 Fractal Cable review

It seems to back up Millercarbon’s trusty empirical lugs:

http://bit.ly/3sUrqds

Mr.  millercarbon
Your model I-880 is a tube amp. Those, tend to have two ways to go with:
1. Provide no data or very little. So DF spec. is not to be found.
2. Tube amps have a nature of low to very (!) low DF figure.
I would take an educated guess, that it's under 20.
For that kind of DF, a home phone cord would do the job. 

DF in Amp's evolution was a factor. Even first SS amps tend to have some lower DF then found today...Lets look at the Revox A-78, with DF of 30! In the late 70's on the gold era of Japanese Amps and Receivers, and till today on that kind of Integrated Amp's, the most common DF was 40. To most of them, and there were hundreds of model per year.
When some hi-End power amps, with high current capabilities (multiply power by X2 (W)) when load decreases by half (8 ohms to 4 ohms, or 4 ohms to 2 ohms and so), DF went above 100 and towards 1,000. After Digital Amps were introduced and improved, Df figures of 4,000 and above became common. 

Mr.  audio2design

You may be with whom you like to. 

1. You ,may throw more complication on the subject, yet you bring no solutions: What is the parameter to look at, and what is its relations to the system its connected with?
2. As long as you stay at the dark side (see no relation and pick your cable blindfolded as not understanding its role), your journey may have no end. You may keep looking till the end of days and not found it. I wonder if you will be the lucky guy to get the right cable on your first attempt (as if calculated and applied) just like buying once in a lifetime a lottery ticket and hit the jackpot...
3. For me, and I explained why no L and C to involved in that calculation, had found the way, to get there on the first attempt, every time I do it.
There are two threads here, with people who were willing to participate and tried it out, getting amazing results, putting away to storage cables costed thousands of $$$ they used before, and get a DIY cable costs less than $100 to replaced them, because they sounded so much better.
On top, I also found out, that when a calculation shows that an X AWG is required, its providing the best sound. If you try going even thicker, sound remain the same. Good, but not better.

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.  What comes through is a lifelike sonic soundscape with dimensionality, accurate tonality, realistic dynamic swing and an organic palpability that is astonishing!  When you hear the presence and energy in your music conveyed with such an uncannily truthful manner, goosebumps usually follow...and then a huge grin!

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.

b4icu- Again. My Melody integrated amp is model I-880. You can use your incredible expertise to look up the DF. I require 8 feet. Can’t wait to hear the wonderful wires you build me. PM me when its ready I’ll give you my shipping address.

Your name by the way reminds me of the 60’s Sunday morning kids show JP Patches. A clown. His side kick Gertrude was a guy with obvious 5 o’clock shadow in drag and Army boots. This all being preposterous even to kids isn’t all that reminds me of you however. It was the gimmick that they could see you through the TV camera. They called it the ICU2TV.

Mr.  audio2design

On your MIT cable you have a box. All MIT cables does. Inside that box, you will find an LRC filter. That may the one that rolls off your missing highs. Those cables (with some box along the cable) have that property. 
What else do you think that box (molded) may hide in it? A COVID-19 vaccine?
It does effect sound, but in the wrong way.
Why paying and getting such a roll off, when you paid an arm and a leg for a perfectly linear sound system?
That box, even if it could be removed (it cannot!), nothing guarantees that the cable is up to your Amps requirements to drive (DF). When studied a cable of MIT, taking it apart, I found an RF cable (RJ-45 alike) with the shield and solid core, connected at the adjes. 

😂 

It always comes down to anecdotal evidence, lack of any real meaningful experience and the stories people tell themselves in order to justify their world view.  My journey has been about actually buying and living with a vast array of equipment and cables over the decades, listening with an inquisitive and open mind.  I didn’t need to justify my purchases due to lack of funds or desire to explore.  At the end of the day however, whatever gets you through the night!  Enjoy

Mr. Dave_b

None of the stuff that is teached at technical institutes are based on  meaningful experience. With such attitude, we would still be thinking like Newton, missing Einstein's theory of relativity and more. 
meaningful experience can get you to be a good home cook. If you want to step up, you need to go to a culinary school (as I did). You may see what is the difference between meaningful experience and knowladge.

However, you are keeping naging me for nothing. Unless you try my way and come with critics, or bring some of yours to the table, we are going nowhere. If all you got is meaningful experience, than you practically have nothing.

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.

millercarbon,

"The only way I know to determine how something sounds is to hook it up and listen."

What happened to your deciding on a component sound by watching and listening to it on youtube?

Did you finally realize it is not the way you can do it?

Kudos, you can still learn. Until now I was, as you told me recently,...hopeless.

1. Our ear is not a measuring instrument.
2. Get yourself an Eq. connect it. Go blind folded, while playing your music. Set the Eq sliders, till you like the sound the most. Remove the eye cover and see what is the EQ setup. This is what you like...
Now when you go to a concert or a live show, set your Eq, to get it sound the way you like it...
You see, this is not the way to go. We are about reproducing sound accurately, to get the same as it was when played. 
I stopped using Eq at highschool. What about you? Still fine tuning sound by likes?
The roll of the speaker cable with medium and high DF amp's is crucial.
Listening shows it is. Calculation shows the same. Ignoring it, is like getting your had in the sand. I don't mind if you do it. I think that are better way to deal with it. 
1. Understand it.
2. Get some effort and calculate the cable parameters (AWG vs length).
3. Apply the right cable.
Trust me, the results will convince you too.

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

So you believe in measurements? Great where are yours?

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.

We require perfect 100khz transient and micro aspects of said transients, to be as perfect as possible.

as our ears use tiny cilia to detect the micro gradients and macro gradients in complex transient expression, in time, over time.

100% of our hearing is tied up in this tiny area of the signal. In this manner, we can realize timing and intermixed timing of interleaved and intermixing transients and micro transients.
In linear terms, or sine terms, if you will...this means a perfect expression of a signal to about 500khz to 1mhz, all the way down to pretty well dc.

This, In complex timing of all waveform, in the given mincro second, and the macro second, all together, across time. where there is zero jitter of timing differential, in any part of that single micorsecond, as compared any other part, down to the pico-second of differential. Basically a micro to macro jitter spectrum of zero.The levels have to be similarly perfect, betwen and in all of those transients.

As our ears hear this... this is how they work. they work on transient function and inter-timing/intermixing of transient function. To detect transient(s) and then harmonics of transients.

We don’t hear any of the signal other than the positive leading edge of all transient functions. we literally don’t recognize or hear about 90% of the audio or acoustic signal.

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.

that’s an insanely tall order.

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.

Then the cognitive capacity tied to that ear, beyond the neurological and mechanical aspects of the given individual ear alone.

the story ends up being really complex when you look at the whole integrated package, as related to electronic reproduction of signals (individual ears and brains vs electronic reproduction of original acoustic/electronic signals).

firstly they find that inductance is a problem, as it slows the build up and expression of transients,and it can delay their release. Temporal smearing and blunting of transient function.

The dynamic reactance of the micro inductance of the cable plays into how an audio cable sounds. Capacitance as well, but primarily inductance and how it builds and decays under ultra fast dynamic loading. Ultra fast, due to the mixing and inordinately complex mixing of said complex harmonic functions in actual clean fully realized acoustics of audio signals (as electrical signals).

the ear, a well trained one, can follow these paths easily. to pick out a guitar or violin line in a complex presentation of a multitude of instruments, all plain at the same level of signal (overall). like following a single voice in a echo filled badly acoustically treated room...a room full of hundreds of loudly speaking people. if the given ear is in good shape, it can generally teach/train itself to do this. As common as grass growing.

so yeah, simply put, we need to have systems, due to how they are built, how e can make them..they need to be good in transient function out to about a clean 1mhz, to even be considered in the running to be ’best’.

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.

Interestingly enough, those three devices are the ones that people tend to feel are the most musical they have ever heard. the most alive and real sounding.

The rest ..all of it..all the mosfet, the FET the BJT, etc...and any arrangement thereof (circuits, parts, etc)... is all about...just trying to hear or discern the purity that is buried by their odd ordered transient distortions, and their bad representation of out of time and level delineation of the wrong harmonics (odd ordered) the correct transient and micro transient functions are all skewed as well. when you look at the tiny part of them that counts for the ear (the only part we hear, remember), they tend to get it all wrong.

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.

It is entirely signals dependent. Same as skin effect. A liquid metal cable, one liquid down to the actual molecular level, well, there is no skin. so skin effect becomes static and dynamic load dependent.

The idea behind liquid metal cables was to re-write the equation of wire itself and all the problems 'wire' has, in the world of audio reproduction.

With liquid metal being molecularly discrete, it is also a truly quantum device by all definition of what quantum is considered to mean or ’be’, in all speculation and text on the subject of quantum at the scholarly/ academic and scientific definition levels.

It dynamically shifts between being Newtonian and quantum and a unlimited set of analog variations between, with the signal. That's the big trick.

Has anyone ever actually read the patent? 

There’s some additional stuff in there regarding said possible point of manipulation and expression of this complexity....that would make a black ops/lLos Alamos/etc level leading edge atomic specializing or minded physicist go catatonic from the excitement of the possibilities therein. All kinds of complex scalar polarized functions are available, in electrical to scalar conversion. For a start. Then it gets strange. It gets into the ’holy mother of god’ territory. For better or for worse. Both sides of that coin.

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.

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.

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.

I’m sure it does. Nothing exists in isolation.

Figure it out.

Too much linear blinkering in thoughts and their given associated subjects will kill analysis dead like a one legged proclamation trying to get up and walk.

Your math and associated recall and analysis is ok, I expect. But math is not complex logic function as tied to analysis of complex subjects. Big difference.

I’ve got my name out there on a shingle. same as the thread starter.

what’s your problem?

You want to pick on people, at this level - show your face.

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.

You 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.

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

It's of Audiogon management to decide if those of commercial interests should keep polluting this site, or be stopped and exiled.
I do not get how we got from speaker cables theory so far...like on my thread How to select a good Speaker Cable
it is all about objecting a subject no one tried, but extensively argued.
It may explain a toddler who rejects a food even he didn't try it, just because. 
The unfortunate truth is, that none of those who object the idea (connection between Amp's DF and cable's resistance) do not have an alternative. This thread do offer something, but it is far away from physics, as west from east.
 

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....

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.

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.

audio2design

... PROVE YOUR CLAIMS!!!! ... YOU tell me I am wrong. PROVE IT!! PROVIDE ---REAL--- Evidence to support your claims. Don’t get mad at me ...

We have been thorough this before. No one here owes you proof of anything.
This is not a scientific forum - it’s a hobbyist’s group. If proof is what you demand - and your use of ALL CAPS and multiple use of "!!!!!" seem to suggest a demand - then you are really in the wrong place.

audio2design

On every other forum on the internet, involving audio, that I am aware of, you would be in violation of their fundamental rules of operation and governance, if you do not clearly show any professional affiliations to audio or connected businesses, that you may have.

This, for the very reasons of any and all attempted or real acts of malfeasance and attacking, for personal gain. 

sniping from the shadows, it's called.

and as far as audio forums and most people are concerned, such behavior, as not showing your face here  ... and attacking... is morally and ethically defunct. 

Again, it's written right in the sign up data points for all forum members to read before being allowed to post on said forums. 

You want to attack, cut down, demean, correct, etc... show your face. 

Forums don't allow one sided battles, especially for people who may gain in the one sided attacks, from their given hidden vantage point...

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.

Skin effect in audio cables is nothing to concern yourself about it's not like we're talking about miles of wire. I don't see any need for a liquid cable either. What, fill a tube with mercury? This is goofy as well, all that's needed for audio frequency within home audio is a good grade copper wire with appropriate insulation.  

Let's keep snake oil (skin effect) and other BS out of this thread. Tube Amp. because of their nature of low or very low DF, the cable has no significance. This is not the spot (under Tubes light) to look for the missing coin.

"Until you show your face, you are morally and ethically defunct..."

"SHOW YOUR FACE."

How does one show face in this thread? Even if audio2design tried, what if he showed up with a mask? Would it make him even more moral and ethical than just showing bare face?

Do we really want to see each other’s face anyway?

As long as your cables character impedance matches the load impedance of the speaker then what's to argue about. The speaker then won't reject the signal giving a more efficient connectivity and a more accurate sound. Simples!  

Sorry typo! the impedances need to be measured at above 5khz