Hi,I can tell you first hand!,that Taralabs directional is real!other cables?,I have done real test!,to see if this scientist knows eanything,the answer is NO!,my cables that are all directional sound changed for the extreme worse!,when I reversed what signal direction they were designed to go,I do not care what rower30 hears!,I know what an audience of 20 people heard in my house with me!cheers! |
Mapman wrote,
"For the records, my MIT ICs are supposedly directional in that the network boxes are at one end and there are arrows indicating proper orientation. SO that is the way I hook them up. It even makes sense to me that these are "directional" in that the two ends are CLEARLY not the same. I have had them hooked up both ways. Was there a difference? Maybe, but I could not identify."
Mapman, have you given any consideration to visiting an audiologist? |
The skin effect numbers cited are incorrect. In the audio band, it is necessary to use the bessels for accurate numbers, the exponential approximation is incorrect.
All t lines obey the simple equation LC =1034 DC when the t-lines are constrained, such as coax, high aspect ratio striplines, and high paircount magnetically orthogonal twisted schemes such as cat5e multi's.
Parallel run conductors will use LC = 1034 EDC, the effective dielectric constant being about 4 to 6 for zips.
The prop delay argument is inaccurate when load and source impedances are very low in comparison to the line impedance.
To answer the question "why are we going in 300 or more directions?" That's easy. The misconceptions which abound confuse the issue.
jn |
More noise and obfuscation from GEoff as usual to soften people up so they might better accept his nebulous products while running around in his vendor-induced haze. Plus he has the nerve to do it in thread that is otherwise soundly based in practical interpretation of actual facts by those with some good real knowledge to share. These are open forums, but that really irks me and I am free to say so as well!
If people want to spend time figuring our which direction their stuff sounds better in more power to them. I would only add that I would recommend doing some homework and addressing fundamentals that are known to make a difference for concrete reasons first. Like optimizing speaker placement and orientation first, for example. That's the only reasonable way to go about anything.
Its an old story but of course people saying or thinking something works and even a vendor marketing something in of itself means nothing really.
For the records, my MIT ICs are supposedly directional in that the network boxes are at one end and there are arrows indicating proper orientation. SO that is the way I hook them up. It even makes sense to me that these are "directional" in that the two ends are CLEARLY not the same. I have had them hooked up both ways. Was there a difference? Maybe, but I could not identify. So I follow the directions and loose no sleep. IF there are no directions provided indicating a direction, like with the DNM ICs I also use, I loose no sleep. Somehow, it all worked out and everything sounds good.
|
Rower30 wrote,
""...The high end has known about wire directionality for at least 10 years; isn't it about time for everyone else to catch up? ..."
"In my opinion, no it isn't. There isn't any proof to catch-up to. Is the "audio" community the only place where sinusoidal information is transmitted? Why has no other scientific discipline, with far more fragile signals than audio noticed this phenomenon (well, it would be a phenomena if there was any true evidence it existed) and hasn't taken advantage of it?"
Like a lot of things in this hobby there might be no proof. But if you're looking for evidence you need look no further than the testimonies of customers of aftermarket fuses who have experimented with the direction of fuses and have reported their results. It's because directionality is now part of any intelligent design that so many high end cable and fuse manufacturers control the fabrication of the wire in order that the directional ARROWS that appear on their products show the correct orientation. It wasn't that long ago that the owner of HIFI tuning (were his the first aftermarket fuses? I think they probably were) maintained that his fuses were NOT directional, even in the face of his customers' findings to the contrary, and that no matter which way his fuses were inserted they would eventually "settle in" and work themselves out. In the meantime, the owner of HIFI Tuning has recanted and his fuses now come with little arrows to point the way. |
Almarg,
Yes, you're input is spot-on. One is a goof, the other is more accurate to the current gradient effect based on skin depth, and the last is I can't count zeros! It would be nice to be able to EDIT as the author to improve accuracy, and make it easier on the reader to get the right info fast. Well, as fast as my stuff will allow (ya, I hear you...shut-up already!).
I'll admit the effects of skin depth are "real" based on calculations but the audible nature is hard to pin down EXCEPT that I have used IDENTICAL R, L and C cable on purpose and listened to designs with little regards (four wires) to no regards (two big wires) for skin depth. Those with more exceptional regards to skin depth at 12-20 wires in each polarity had improvements that were immediate. So I have to look at the overall design, and try to figure out what is going on as you use multiple wires. What is really skin depth management and what is something else? In theory, it can't be PHASE as the capacitance is VERY low (less than 30 pf/foot)in both designs.
Calculation say that capacitive roll-off first order filter PHASE shouldn't be audible, either, with reasonable capacitance. But, a superior design can simply bypass this effect to make it a none issue and still get sub 0.150 uH/foot inductance.
I agree, and point out, that speaker cables between a speaker / amp combination will sound more or less better moving from system to system. But, I also point out that "I" have not had an exceptional cable fall in my rankings switching systems, from dynamic drivers to electrostatic panels.
As to wire coatings and wire...has anyone heard tough pitch copper (~1500 grains per foot) verses OFC copper (~300 grains per foot) verses functionally perfect copper (~30 grains per inch) and single crystal copper in the exact same design? Go ahead and add verses silver plated to any type. I'm hot on the trail of trying to do just this between at least two copper types if I can.
Yes, I added copper quality, but tend to throw it down the list as good design eclipses what the copper supposedly brings to the table. Copper seems to be a knife in a gunfight. Yes, it can get some of the job done if the heavy lifting is already out of the way.
This is facinating stuff, in that it's like an unsupervised free for all. Like the light out in the cafeteria...seriously fun, but when the light come on, the mess has to be accounted for and blame placed on the right suspects. Let's get the light on, shall we? |
...The high end has known about wire directionality for at least 10 years; isn't it about time for everyone else to catch up? ...
In my opinion, no it isn't. There isn't any proof to catch-up to. Is the "audio" community the only place where sinusoidal information is transmitted? Why has no other scientific discipline, with far more fragile signals than audio noticed this phenomenon (well, it would be a phenomena if there was any true evidence it existed) and hasn't taken advantage of it?
Yep, we can take a picture of copper grains in drawn wire and say, see...the grains say to go THAT way! We can add dielectric polarization and batteries to also say we go THAT way. Until, Kickoffs current rule and polarization principals say no, we go BOTH ways and the circuit can't work. Sorry, but a picture isn't a sound. It isn't a proof, it's just the grain structure of copper, nothing more. It has to be directly applied to a signal attribute.
Alternating signals aren't "directional" they are BOTH directions. Which "direction" or polarity is it that you refer to? When there is a single shred of ANY evidence that can be put to the physical, let me see it. Don't tell me it's too complex to explain. EACH individual attribute needs to stand, with evidence, on it's own. This is how the math works. Everything can be taken apart to its constituent components. Nature is built in steps. Sometime a step is hinged. Capacitance and inductance are tied together. Magnetic fields and electric fields are tied together. One creates the other at the same instant. So they have to be looked at as a step in two directions.
Yes, the superposition of all the individual elements can be unpredictable in sound, but each one is readily analyzed on it's own. There is no, "we believe" (maybe because we paid for it?) in my world.
"When you control the mail you control information." - Newman
Ya, that's cute. Who's controlling what? I put fourth my opinion (it is mine) and we try to shut it down with the hi-end audio community acceptance of totally unproven electrical phenomena? The use of the words "hi-end audio" is interesting as it remains complete as anyone not believing it (it can't be proven) is thrown out of the fold so the community remains 100% right? Ummm,I'm pretty hi-end, and no, I don't "believe" it. Not only that, I have never heard it to accept that a proof exists to explain it.
Things like this are generally let alone as it doesn't hurt anyone except their pocket book. The FDA could care less about drugs that are placebo's if you want to buy them. You can change your oil every mile if you want to. But to try to pretend something is real based on blind faith and tell me ignoring it won't make it go away like it existed with any proof in the first place? No, I'm more scientific than that. I don't buy funny pills, I change my oil on proven service intervals, and make sure the cable I buy follow very real design principles. And, I'm sure glad the brilliant minds exist that do indeed continue to PROVE the physical world in repeatable ways. Just believe it? Are we living in the dark ages?
My viewpoint doesn't exclude those that want to address their superstitions (many are bullied into "believing" as those on this very site ridicule them to do so). I use the term superstition as simply that, a belief that an outcome is expected without ant real proof, not as a put-down.
Me, I'm pretty thick skinned and failing to "believe" isn't one of the things that keep me up at night. You better be glad those that design the equipment that we use everyday don't believe faith, as you can't trick the science in those circuits. Mark your cables, add batteries, do what ever, but DO NOT ignore what is proven and pay for those that attributes that are faith based until every real facet of design is well accounted for.
With modern DSP electronics, you could indeed pass a white noise (equal amplitude at all frequencies) through a know system and do a balanced circuit remainder function to "pull-out" the difference signature of various cables. This would be magnitude only. Phase is a more challenging measurement. You can sweep a cable for phase with respect to frequency and probably do a similar analysis. As different as cable do sound good equipment should be able to quantify some, not all, of what we hear.
Count me in when we try to prove what we all can really hear. Have you ever cut your 10K cable in two and pulled all the conductors out of and inch of your cable, and had the grain structure analyzed? We're they really in the same draw direction? OK, the box said they were.
With so called single grain copper it should not be an issue as the copper grain boundaries are gone, and the grains lay parallel throughout the wire till the ends are reached (limited length based on AWG size). You can pay a lot of money to guarantee you're right about directionality by theoretically avoiding it? Well, that's a way to handle it. Just do it in a good DESIGN.
"Maybe if we ignore wire directionality it'll just go away"
Well, what if I ignore something that doesn't exist verses something that does, will it appear? Maybe I'm on your side after all.
I will be VERY careful to not ignore R, L and C while playing my stereo, though, as the consequences could be catastrophic if they go away.
Better yet, see how many cables you can find that adhere to good design practices (ya, even the ones that add snake oil over a good design). The physics say that the proper management of the alternating signal will yield a nice sounding cable. Make a list to go shopping by. Buy more of the real deal in design.
|
|
03-17-13: Gregm
Rower30: your original post & further "articles" are very interesting and, if i may say so, a significant contribution to the community. I'll second that. Your writeups make a great many excellent and important points. Well done! The one area I would question, though, at least with respect to situations where the wire is not plated, is your emphasis on the importance of minimizing skin effect. Audio has a skin depth of 18-mils. This is where the current in the wire center is 37% of that on the surface. The current gradients can be vastly improved with smaller wire (current closer to the same everywhere). First, I would rephrase the second sentence to say that "this is where the current in the wire center is 37% of the TOTAL current, the other 63% flowing in the part of the wire's cross-section that is between the surface and the skin depth." As you undoubtedly realize, with respect to sub-RF frequencies what skin effect basically does is to increase the resistance of the cable as frequency increases. It can be calculated that under typical circumstances (e.g., cable lengths on the order of 10 feet or so, and used with dynamic speakers, which generally have impedances that are high in the upper treble region and above), the effects of that resistance rise will be a rolloff at 20 kHz of a very small fraction of 1 db. That is likely to be completely swamped by room effects, speaker inaccuracies, inaccuracies elsewhere in the system, and the high frequency rolloff and finite resolution of the listener's hearing. I can provide such a calculation, if desired. On the other hand, in the less common situation where the length of the speaker cables is particularly long AND the impedance of the speakers descends to very low values (e.g. 1 ohm) at 20 kHz, as it does in the case of many electrostatics, I would agree that skin effect might conceivably become a marginally perceptible factor. And as you indicated, additional considerations come into play in the case of plated wire. Also, a minor correction to a statement in your initial post, which was most likely just an oversight. 16 ns is 16 billionths of a second, not trillionths. Again, though, my compliments on what IMO are a great many excellent and important points that are made in your writeups. Regards, -- Al |
These are my general observations from the physics of how all this works. I like repeatable conclusion backed by calculation as that's what physics is, the real world reduced to numbers (with some guesswork even in those!). But, It's at least a common ground for advancement. I just have a hard time with guessing about stuff. I’m open to repeatable, measurable calculations. Since cables are complex superposition of materials and relationships, with each selected or calculated on its own, the final sonic results that are derived are somewhat a black art, no argument there.
Gregm - The skin depth is one of those, when do you stop, arguments. The smaller the wire, the more consistent the current in that wire at all frequencies. It can, in theory, never be the same except at DC. But, lets get real, it can get darn near the same (can't hear it anymore) with numerous small wires. practical reasons usually mean 23-24 AWG as it gets terribly hard to manage more wire than that and not destroy the capacitance or inductance balance. All those wires are trying to hurt the design EXCEPT for skin depth. This is a somewhat an evil business. Every variable is a cancer to the other! A speaker cable is a balance of many attributes, but the overall balance should fall into an optimal compromise. No, they all won't be the same. If you change any one element, the overall relationships all have to move. The physical relationships of the wire and materials result in the blended finished electricals. The compromises made are EVIDENT and KNOWN by the designer, though. This isn't guessing.
So the optimal gauge is going to be at LEAST no bigger than the radius of the wire at the highest frequency of interest. 20 K is about 18-mils. This is just the definition of skin depth, though (37% current differential at that frequency). How small (reduce the current differential even more) you go is going to be locked in by DCR requirement that will rise as you try to optimize one attribute, (forced to use more small wires!) and how far you think your ears can perceive the skin depth issues. Don't rob Peter too much to pay Paul! BALANCE is the key for an overall nice cable. Nothing I have posted here is a secret other than physics we don't understand to put into numbers. But, we have plenty we do understand that can leverage to make better, more logical, cables.
Audiolabyrinth - Buy the sound, yes, not the price. OK, they might be expensive, they might not be. It all depends on what that "differentiation" cost you! Be careful to avoid "trust me" engineering as what you hear, is more than likely the true basics being correct and not the snake oil applied after the fact. Nothing wrong with snake oil, I suppose, as long as the fundamentals are correct. But, many a cable is JUST snake oil and expensive…and sound poorly.
I look at good sounding cables this way, if you have even 10K in a system a $2,500.00 cable that really sounds good to you is about as cheap an upgrade as you get in audio now-a-days. Yes, it's expensive, but can you beat the sound improvements for the price paid? Here is the BUT part, LISTEN to the cables and try to ignore the price and "packaging / marketing". If the fundamentals are there, the cable should sound pretty nice, as the real world physics will allow it to. You can't cheat Mother Nature. The same relationships are in EVERY cable.
|
Rower30 wrote,
"No, didn't forget directionality it at all, it doesn't matter."
Are we supposed to throw out all the reports that fuses are directional, that interconnects are directional? Do you honestly think cable companies are preying on gullible audiophiles by marking directional arrows on their cables and fuses? Shall we report all the aftermarket fuse companies - Synergistic Research, HIFI Tuning, Audio Magic, Isoclean, etc. - to the Better Business Bureau? Hell, even cheap stock fuses in speakers and amps are directional - it's not a high end audio phenomenon - it's a physics phenomenon. The high end has known about wire directionality for at least 10 years ; isn't it about time for everyone else to catch up? Are their really ANY high end cable companies who do NOT acknowledge wire and cables are directional? Maybe if we ignore wire directionality it'll just go away.
"When you control the mail you control information." - Newman
"It's what I choose to believe." - Dr. Elizabeth Shaw in Prometheus |
@ Rower30, It seems charles1dad explained to me what was really being said here,thanks charles1dad!,Rower I am sorry that I misunerstood you,kinda hard tring to understand the word data you posted,LOL!,you do have nice cables!supriseing!,I get tired of being knocked around for having some of the best cables available by non-cable believers,Taralabs zero gold i/c,omega gold speaker cables,Rower30 I did not spend this kind of money for my cables to be a trophy of some sorts!,these cables sound simply amazeing!,they make my equipment sound as if I paid 5 times more than what I did!,Happy listening! |
Rower30: your original post & further "articles" are very interesting and, if i may say so, a significant contribution to the community.
I do of course agree with your basic premise but never have managed to put the matter in the same clear terms:)
Not surprisingly and for just as unsurprising identical reasons, the branded cables I use (I also use diy) are the same...
(And yes, the nuisance of "avoiding" that annoying HF phase shift makes me wish I had specialised in low voltage applications in my youth...)
A while ago I was trying to find the "optimal" gauge for a simple IC consisting of two conductors running parallel at ~1.5" apart, 2ft length, unshielded, using single strands of copper wire of course.
Not having the right equip to measure, I had to use my system & concluded that 24awg offered the best frequency extension, but lower gauges more "dynamics" (i.e. 24 is over the R turning point it seems). As I use a transformer volume control, the above is not necessarily optimal on "normal" systems...
What recipe do you use for the speakers -- if you wish to describe it of course. I understand if you don't; the matter interests me as the mid-upper frequencies amp I use is wide bandwidth and I have to be careful.... |
No, didn't forget directionality it at all, it doesn't matter. Audio signals are not truly symmetrical or balanced (plus to minus signal don't subtract to zero) as impulse noises are more positive amplitude than the negative decay. Look at a piano or drum strike, for instance. Yep, more stuff on the positive side than the negative side. But this is no reason to think the "positive side" needs help.
The waveform is alternating current and travels BOTH directions with respect to polarity. What half of the waveform do you want to be biased with the copper "grain" structure? If this was a DC signal, rubbing against the copper grain structure the wrong way may be a fun FUD argument. But since audio cables aren't a cat and get pissed when rubbed the wrong way and are AC in nature, this concept of current "direction" when it has reversal changes to even play music is rather odd.
I already discussed polarity reversal timing (fast as the dickens) in the dielectric relative to single directional changes. How on earth could AC signals even be transmitted if the dielectric were "slow"? Coaxial cables transmit in the 6 Gig frequency range all day with out directionality just fine, thank you. And, their dielectrics don't need help...
DC dielectric bias systems are also perplexing. DC bias systems further tell you that the signal could care less about directionality and polarity as a DC bias system theoretically makes it HARDER to polarize in the opposite direction of the bias. All good dielectrics polarize so fast that a DC impediment doesn't audibly affect the sound, just your pocket book. Why so much concern for the BIAS in the ONE direction only? And no, a dielectric doesn't take seconds, minutes, hours or days to polarize. It takes 10 to the minus fourteen seconds. Do they wander around after power is removed? Yes. Do they snap back into control IMMEDIATELY when a signal is applied? Yes. If you listen to music at the 10 to the tenth power in frequency...be worried, very worried, as the polarization can now not keep up. So how does a DC battery bias system add speed to an audio signal dielectric and to both polarities, not just one?
But if you must, mark your cable and add an arrow to make you feel good along with a battery and heavens don’t put the battery in the wrong direction! :)
I'm not against REAL design metrics that is repeatable and you can design around. To jump to RF wave-guide signals and force an issue at audio is simply misguided. Audio cables are hard enough without using physics the wrong way.
All the attributes I discussed are measurable at audio, and the improvements to them rational in a good design. Diectionality, DC bias and many others are not. But if you want to add nonesense to cables, why not add it to a cable that at least is designed right up to the arrows and battery installation steps? Are we tossing out what we can measure and replacing it with what we can't? Yep, we see pages of FUD "data" (differentiation)with no mention of the compliance to the physical basics. If a cable meets the basics, at least the FUD stuff didn't hurt the sound, just your pocket book. |
Audiolabyrinth
Cables are indeed science and DO INDEED make a cable sound in specific ways. The electromagnetic spectrum could care less about price, that's a given. Price is a human emotional endeavor based on marketing and the wants of the consumer. So I don't care about price. The raw material cost of even the most expensive cables is maybe a few hundred dollars. You pay for what they sound like relative to one another, regardless of the material costs. You WANT the SOUND, not the price. The price you pay to GET the sound. Well, most of us do this. A few sure do buy based on a price and stick it in a corner like a statue never to be heard from again.
Now to the DESIGN. Sorry, but there is but ONE best way to move data in a given electromagnetic situation. Anything outside of that is simply less capable and not as linear. Keeping cables as honest as you can based on well-known principals is important.
"My" science (I never was thinking I had science so much as the world we live in has physical science) is as defined as it can get for R, L, C and skin depth. It's all 100% repeatable by anyone. Following specific design guidelines will indeed make a better cable. Most market their differentiation, not good design. Physics can't be differentiated, only misunderstood and used incorrectly.
What isn't as repeatable is the exact interaction of variables as a whole as, like I said before, we have a very nonlinear electromagnetic spectrum audio is stuck in. So the balance of all variables inside the preferred "box" of measured values will shift some depending on what speaker and amplifier you use. But, a well-designed cable has ALWAYS sounded better with any amp or speaker combination I've ever used, or compared cables on. Try C4's with W-8's and then Martin Logan Summits with McCormack amps. Can't go much more different than that. Good cables stayed good. The changes in fundamental transmission characteristics aren't so large as to require a completely different cable design.
I don't listen to cables? From my post, I'd guess all I do is listen to cable, but anyway...I have $5,000.00 NORDOST cables in my system and listened, and still am listening, to speaker cable up and down the price line. If time is somehow important in all this, I've been at it longer than you, I'm 55.
I paid thousands for the Tyr2 NORDOST XLR pre to power interconnects based on their sound (I listened to many other XLR's). They have a superior overall design that puts their overall fingerprint well inside the box of electromagnetic reason (for XLR cables). I do not find their superior overall sound to be surprising as the measurements driven by the design allows them to sound good. There are other vendors that follow strict design guidelines that allow superior performance, but way too many sell FUD and innuendo and / or jump to RF communications principals at audio frequency ranges in which nearly all the variables of influence CHANGE! So WHY ON EARTH go to RF calculation in audio cables?
I'm somewhat confused by your demand that I include price into this. No, I include DESIGN. That's it. You can ONLY buy and understand the physics of a DESIGN. The price is irrelevant to the sound. The more you understand how cables work, the less you need to pay for differentiation that is nothing more than that. Usually, the differentiates tears apart the ability of a cable to follow best in practice designs, and you pay MORE for that privilege? |
Oops, somebody forgot wire directionality. I forget in which electronics textbook that is discussed. :-) |
Audiolabyrinth,
It appears to me Rower30 is actually making the case for the
importance of high quality cable. His point that excellent design and high cost aren't linearly related is logical and true in many cases.
Regards, |
Cables sometime raise two kids and let the third one run wild. Low R and L, but high C as an example. To get low capacitance in a design (you have to hold the design exactly the same) inductance will go in the opposite direction. If it goes too wacky, it eats up amplifiers and / or requires Zobel networks to offset capacitance just like power-line power factor correction circuits. Fundamentally superior designs have low R, L and C from the get go. You can't force too high cap to go lower as it pushes inductance up. The design is simply poor. More paper, start over!
With compensation you no longer have a cable per say, but a circuit. One is useless without the other. Many do indeed market circuits. This isn't completely wrong, but it isn't an ideal "cable" either. Take away the Zobel network or "pole articulation filter(s)" and the effort is lost. So, those products are a different breed than cable design, and more expensive as they extend the margins on both fronts.
Some even try to say they "separate" the magnetic fields and electrical fields into different areas of the cable to improve the sound. I'll use Ebm's comment, "Say what??Dude??". This is impossible, as one needs the other to exist. They are tied at the hip like capacitance and inductance. Unless we move to planet ZEN, this will always be so. Not sure about ZEN, actually, has anyone been there except in the game?
The key concept to understand on fields is that the two fields take away energy, and thus the signal. They don't come from anywhere, and they don't go to anywhere instantly. They steal away energy to exist. This is distortion that is required in the real world when we pass current in two wire separated by distance, like it or not. There is no perfect cable, but there are GOOD DESIGNS.
Why do we have to live with imperfect cables? Here we go (those that don't like longer posts should leave now).
Knowing what a perfect conductor is allows you to recognize a good compromise that fits the world we live in. I was going to put this in the initial thread but I think I wore myself out writing it!
A perfect wire is / has / can;
1.0 Has ZERO resistance and thus loses no signal amplitude. This is a benign distortion in that it is linear. So in reality ZERO resistance isn't really critically important UNTIL you include the speakers X-over. Now it's a problem.
2.0 Is infinitely small. There is NO skin effect as ALL as current across ALL frequencies are IDENTICAL. Well, this is a tough one so we have to gauge (pun intended) the wire to our frequency pass band. A wire has to exist in reality, but to what size? The dimensions are limited by the designers ability to manage many wires.
3.0 Carries energy in BOTH directions at the exact same time. Umm...this is a short circuit in reality. But, if we could do that, the magnetic / electrical fields would be equal and opposite. We would not waste energy creating fields around the single full duplex audio wire. Just think infinite transient response...with a little help from a vacuum, that's next.
4.0 The dielectric would be a vacuum so we have ZERO capacitance and velocity would be 100%. Great, we just got rid of phase effects caused by band-pass filter characteristics and rise time voltage distortion.
So, we have a perfect audio wire, in our mind anyway. And, that 's a good thing when shopping for cables.
We all would like this impossible to make wire. The next best thing is a ZIP cord, many feel. Well, if you can make a zip cord with 24 AWG wire, keep it short so that the DCR doesn't influence the speakers response, and use a good dielectric they can sound pretty darn good...and they should as they obey all the required tenants of a good cable. Except that they have too high a DCR in any meaningful length and / or speaker efficiency. Once you try to make a ZIP cord bigger, it goes to hell. DCR get lower, but BIG wire loses skin current management, stranded is a bad screen and gets worse over time. This forces many smaller wires... that are hell to manage with all those wires increasing capacitance. A capacitor is a dielectric on each side of a conductor. Make it LONGER or WIDER and the capacitance goes up...a LOT. It's a squared law increase, so many wires is hard to do, not impossible. So here we are with much larger AWG requirements and about 36 wire.
A clue to excellent B and E field management is if the overall cable has lower inductance than a SINGLE "unit" used in the cable. This demonstrates, with out magic, that the design leverages superior field cancellation. You can't fake it.
Another issue to some is RF. Electrical fields leave the cable perpendicular to the surface of the wire, always, and cancel at ninety degrees intersection to other like electric fields. The problem is, you can't go "forward" with one wire stuck at ninety degrees to another. That's an "X"! So, you try to manage RF by as good a cross-field cancellation as you can with passive field cancellation through reasonable wire crossings of LESS THAN ninety degrees. Remember, the magnetic fields are cancelled by the close parallel proximity of each wire where closer is better, and the electric fields cancel by cross-field interaction cancellation. A design has passive RF cancellation or it doesn't.
Overall shields? YIKES! This pretends we ALL HAVE A PROBLEM (we do, just not in our systems) and uses a another less bad, but still bad solution...a shield. This is still bad as it drives up capacitance to unnecessary level UNLESS the second worst problem (a shield) is better than the worst (no shield). If you have no real RF issues, ditch the shield! On a speaker cable the problem is probably egress FROM your speaker cable TO you electronics, not ingress FROM the outside world into your speaker cable.
Another interesting factoid is that a dielectric polarizes by nature (that's WHY it is a dielectric) in about 10 to the minus fourteen seconds! Hey, that's fast. The polarity reversals need little help at audio frequencies to switch polarities. Yes, at HIGH, HIGH and I mean HIGH frequencies in the many giga hertz, the dielectric can lose the ability to keep up. But it’s fastest at 1 Hz and gets slower from there. But at 20 kHz it's not even an issue at all. And, most polarization modes don't even count in audio. Yes, there are about three, and I won't bore you with them all.
So, we never have perfect sound. Every cable will be a fingerprint of its design, more than materials. A good-looking people tend to always look good! The clothes aren't going to fix the major issues with the person’s looks, as an example. Buy the person FIRST. DESIGN, DESIGN, and DESIGN! No, you can't measure all the effects of a system as complex as an audio cable as it lives in the electromagnetic transition zone, and drives an unstable load (speaker) with respect to frequency. BUT, you can segregate good design from bad based on a BALANCE of electricals for truly superior cable. Take those type cables home, and I'm certain that what I've mentioned will perk up to the top of the list when you listen.
Digital cables are more about reflection errors. Lengths are important based on cable bit rate speeds that define the cables worst reflection lengths, called RL or Return Loss. Rise time errors aren't so bad with modern electronics (thank-you 100 Gig Ethernet!) and pretty short leads. If a zero or a one is sent and received, the DAC is the sound as it re assembles the data. Not an easy job, by the way! You never get to hear a zero or a one as they are simply logic "states" that the electronics uses to compile analog data. Digital starts with analog, so it's goal is to not screw that up in the middle between A to D and D to A converters.
Cables I use? I have ONE TYR 2 NORDOST XLR interconnects that is good sounding. I'll use it as a reference when I work on other XLR cables. I've auditioned the NORDOST speaker’s cables. I brought them home based on their good overall DESIGN, NOT the not so good price! But, the fact that the design is solid is weighed out in the sound. The price is emotional. I was looking at DESIGN and the connection so sonic ability. Good cable stays good all the time. You do NOT want to use cables to "tune" your system, especially if you buy them. Make sure they go ANYWHERE with ease. A well-designed neutral cable is what you really want. A perfect cable, for instance, is what we really want, and it does NOTHING to the signal. So if you are really into this for a good DESIGN cable you want an equal hand of justice to weight the attributes just so. I listen for an even tonal balance top to bottom. Trust me, use three or four cables an you'll hear an even handed product pretty quick.
Speaker cables? Oh I have some. You can't buy them. |
you must be another want to be scientist that thinks cables are irrevelant!LOL!,or a new audiophile that does not want to spend money on cables!,very exspensive hobby not to have cables better ones sound!,a quality cable WILL improve a audio system substantialy!,How would I know?,34 years of hearing the difference that real high-end cables can do to sound!,my first system was when I was 12 that my mother obtained for me,now I am 46 and still hearing what esoteric cables are capable of!,obviously you have not listened to the few of the best cables available!good luck with convincing people that know esoteric cables make a difference with your science that means squat!,you really need to research better brands of cables out there than what you have encountered! Happy listening! |
|
Rower,
I'd be interested in your opinion of some more esoteric designs that are more towards the reasonable cost end of high end audio products, specifically DNM Reson and MIT (with network boxes) analog ICs.
Analog ICs specifically because I am sure I hear some distinct advantages with these more esoteric IC designs and have not had reason nor desire to experiment with speaker wires very much.
Also, digital cables are a different story and I am of the opinion it is even easier to do those well than it is analog wires. |
Rower is most likely an engineer and not in marketing. :^) |
Wow Rower, what a great post!! As you alluded to, cables are audio's last refuge for scoundrels. When marketing hype takes precedence over excellent design, good-quality parts, and solid construction, the audiophile world suffers.
And your post has made it clear to me that one need not spend ridiculous sums of money to get "proper" cabling. When I read about guys spending thousands (or even hundreds) of $ per ft. for cabling, I inwardly smile...
-RW- |
Your original premise about other electrical cabling bought up a good point and I certainly can agree. Then you went on to divulge just what is Scientifically necessary to achieve a good (meaning accurate, I guess) cable. You certainly know the Science here, so just for fun, why not tell us all what products you have heard that sound good to you AND show respectable design? I didn't know we actually knew what to do here since you can't really "measure" sound quality. Sure we can measure capacitance, resistance, etc. but no matter how "prefectly" we transmit a signal, does that always result in perfect sound? This all may be too subjective. Does a bad sounding, but perfectly measuring amplifier ressult in a pleasurable listening experience? I'd hate to be forced to only listen to that instead of my vintage Tube Amps. I'll bet Good sounding cables result from a bit of black art along with proper electrical Science. Probably a delicate balancing act for the designer. Still, I can agree, why so many different topologies. We have thin wire, thick wire, ribbons, solid, stranded, twisted, parallel,shielded, unshielded, copper, silver,aluminum, even bronze ala Dave Magnan. |
