The cable conundrum

audioarcher · Nov 20, 2012

amirm said:
Before we get to decide what to measure, we need to decide if the observation is true by nature of at least good percentage of people saying that is the case. Then we can interview them and find out what they are hearing. I am trying to go one step at a time here.

The fact that the cable industry exists is good evidence that lots of people are hearing differences. I don't think marketing alone is responsible. Everyone's system is different so there will be differences in the perceived sound changes. It would cost a fortune to do an exhaustive study.

If you don't trust what your ears are telling you then why waste your time listening at all?

DaveyF · Nov 20, 2012

audioarcher said:
The fact that the cable industry exists is good evidence that lots of people are hearing differences. I don't think marketing alone is responsible. Everyone's system is different so there will be differences in the perceived sound changes. It would cost a fortune to do an exhaustive study.

If you don't trust what your ears are telling you then why waste your time listening at all?

+1

ack · Nov 20, 2012

amirm said:
Davey in his starting post said it was a HUGE difference. I am trying to see if we can get consensus that if the difference is that big, it should be measurable at speaker terminals.

Personally, I think it all depends... if you have a resolving-enough system, then with _some_ cables yes the difference can be indeed huge: just plug in most Cardas and watch the treble be clearly attenuated (you should be able to measure this); I call that huge. Or plug in the latest MIT Matrix that I am trying and the improvement over their older designs is also huge in terms of clarity and articulation all across the spectrum (a major component upgrade, is what I called it). Since I have the Tyr, I very well believe Davey's claim, and Nordost happen to be one of the few than can make a huge difference, if what they are replacing isn't up to the task.

A.wayne · Nov 20, 2012

amirm said:
Davey in his starting post said it was a HUGE difference. I am trying to see if we can get consensus that if the difference is that big, it should be measurable at speaker terminals.

Big difference in measurement or sound ...?

Bruce B · Nov 20, 2012

DaveyF said:
Someone had brought up the fact that cables ONLY make a difference in a more resolving system. IF that is true, and I am now thinking that it definitely is, it would explain
the many non-believers that are in the public. D

I'd say cables always make a difference. It's just you can only hear the difference on more resolving systems.

I was going to say something yesterday too before the thread got shut down. People always dump on "Audiophiles" that spend boat loads of money on cables. What about the Bob Ludwigs and the Michael Bishops of the world?? Now that's a thought!

amirm · Nov 20, 2012

A.wayne said:
Big difference in measurement or sound ...?

Sound. I may be mistaken but I am starting to hear that the actual difference may be subtle but the impact on the listener is large? Or is it large in both cases?

microstrip · Nov 20, 2012

amirm said:
Before we get to decide what to measure, we need to decide if the observation is true by nature of at least good percentage of people saying that is the case. Then we can interview them and find out what they are hearing. I am trying to go one step at a time here.

I can not understand. You are asking if there is a consensus that the difference in sound due to cables is big - such an ambiguous question. Or are you just asking for a kind of poll on cable sound?

IMHO you do not need to ask questions to decide. Anyone having participated or just read the threads about the cables in WBF knows the answer. Better still, the answer will depend on the methodology - if you exclude all who found differences stating that have not carried proper blind tests you will surely conclude that the number who found differences is very small or null.

microstrip · Nov 20, 2012

amirm said:
Sound. I may be mistaken but I am starting to hear that the actual difference may be subtle but the impact on the listener is large? Or is it large in both cases?

IMHO, what matters is if the impact on listener perception is large. Then someone needs to be there to measure the actual difference.

ack · Nov 20, 2012

microstrip said:
You have to consider two possibilities for speaker cables:

1. Cables do not matter as soon as they respect some well established values of R, L and C that you assume constant within the audio range and all else does not matter. Then you should not spend money in anything more expensive than thick zip cord and decent connectors. Just hide them with some nice braided sleeve if you want to avoid debates with audiophile friends.

I don't think this is as easy as described. Ignoring RMI and other external influences for argument's sake, said LC values would have to be vanishingly low for them to not matter; LC, in fact, are solely responsible for phase issues introduced (to various degrees) by cables (what MIT is attempting to address with their designs), and to find such a cable (effectively a pure resistive conduit) would cost you a lot of money, if one exists (btw, I am really curious about this T3 alloy that van den Hul was advertising in a recent video posted by Myles). Having read the MIT patents, I am beginning to suspect these phase issues are more evident where there is significant voltage _and_ current involved, thus more of a factor in speaker cables than interconnects (where current is usually very low). I suspect this is why many suggest that speaker cables should be as short as possible (to keep total L and C values as low as possible), with longer interconnects to amplifiers. In fact, if I could, I would move my amps inside the speakers.

amirm · Nov 20, 2012

microstrip said:
I can not understand. You are asking if there is a consensus that the difference in sound due to cables is big - such an ambiguous question. Or are you just asking for a kind of poll on cable sound?

The former. Not sure why it is ambiguous to try to find out if some difference is big or small. It either is big or it isn't.

IMHO you do not need to ask questions to decide. Anyone having participated or just read the threads about the cables in WBF knows the answer. Better still, the answer will depend on the methodology - if you exclude all who found differences stating that have not carried proper blind tests you will surely conclude that the number who found differences is very small or null.

Whether a blind test is "proper" or not depends on the answer to the question I am seeking. If I took two identical speakers and disconnected the tweeter in one of them, I think no matter what apparatus I put together to AB them, folks would not object that the fixture is impacting the testing. By the same token, if the difference is big and obvious to anyone who would bother to listen, then we can get away with a lot in setting up that test fixture. But if we are talking about differences down in -100 db, then it is a different animal.

microstrip · Nov 20, 2012

amirm said:
The former. Not sure why it is ambiguous to try to find out if some difference is big or small. It either is big or it isn't.

Bruce already answered to it in another thread - the perception of the value of the differences will depend on the resolution of the system.

amirm said:
Whether a blind test is "proper" or not depends on the answer to the question I am seeking. If I took two identical speakers and disconnected the tweeter in one of them, I think no matter what apparatus I put together to AB them, folks would not object that the fixture is impacting the testing. By the same token, if the difference is big and obvious to anyone who would bother to listen, then we can get away with a lot in setting up that test fixture. But if we are talking about differences down in -100 db, then it is a different animal.

We already know from a long time we are addressing differences in the very low dBs. What is being debated it the perceptual effect of these differences.

A.wayne · Nov 20, 2012

ack said:
I don't think this is as easy as described. Ignoring RMI and other external influences for argument's sake, said LC values would have to be vanishingly low for them to not matter; LC, in fact, are solely responsible for phase issues introduced (to various degrees) by cables (what MIT is attempting to address with their designs), and to find such a cable (effectively a pure resistive conduit) would cost you a lot of money, if one exists (btw, I am really curious about this T3 alloy that van den Hul was advertising in a recent video posted by Myles). Having read the MIT patents, I am beginning to suspect these phase issues are more evident where there is significant voltage _and_ current involved, thus more of a factor in speaker cables than interconnects (where current is usually very low). I suspect this is why many suggest that speaker cables should be as short as possible (to keep total L and C values as low as possible), with longer interconnects to amplifiers. In fact, if I could, I would move my amps inside the speakers.

This is what he was implying .....Micro was being rhetorical !!!!

Speaker wires , shorter the better, still better to have long speaker runs than interconnects , best to have both short ....

Gregadd · Nov 20, 2012

The former. Not sure why it is ambiguous to try to find out if some difference is big or small. It either is big or it isn't.

Amir
Only we men would think that is an easy question.

I thought whether the the difference is big or small is the question rather than the premise. Just me thinking out loud.

microstrip · Nov 20, 2012

ack said:
I don't think this is as easy as described. Ignoring RMI and other external influences for argument's sake, said LC values would have to be vanishingly low for them to not matter; LC, in fact, are solely responsible for phase issues introduced (to various degrees) by cables (what MIT is attempting to address with their designs), and to find such a cable (effectively a pure resistive conduit) would cost you a lot of money, if one exists (btw, I am really curious about this T3 alloy that van den Hul was advertising in a recent video posted by Myles). Having read the MIT patents, I am beginning to suspect these phase issues are more evident where there is significant voltage _and_ current involved, thus more of a factor in speaker cables than interconnects (where current is usually very low). I suspect this is why many suggest that speaker cables should be as short as possible (to keep total L and C values as low as possible), with longer interconnects to amplifiers. In fact, if I could, I would move my amps inside the speakers.

Just for curiosity, can you quantify the values of these famous phase differences you are referring? I would suggest an interesting test to your theory. Add a 1000 pF to either side of your speaker cables. It is probably an order of magnitude higher than the intrinsic capacity of the cable and will not change the sound quality.

BTW, I have the vdH T3 XLR interconnect cables on my desk. A bad synergy in my system. Probably they should be used with the matching speaker cables.

microstrip · Nov 20, 2012

A.wayne said:
This is what he was implying .....Micro was being rhetorical !!!!

Speaker wires , shorter the better, still better to have long speaker runs than interconnects , best to have both short ....

No, I was not being rhetorical. I am a believer in the effects of cables in high-end systems, but do not want to use or see pseudo-science being used to justify my very subjective opinions. I know that soon people with different views will easily turn the arguments against me.

For example, my belief is that in high-end cables sometimes shorter is not better ... But I can't and do not pretend to prove it electrically. And that the pseudo science arguments that cable manufacturers include in their marketing do not stand close inspection, although their cables in the proper system can sound great!

Phelonious Ponk · Nov 20, 2012

the perception of the value of the differences will depend on the resolution of the system.

When I read this common statement, I find it very easy to assume that:

a) Very few people, in fact a vanishingly small % of people listening to speakers playing into a room, have a low enough ambient noise floor to hear anything I can't hear on my headphone system, regardless of the detail resolution capabilities of their system.

b) Absolutely no one whose signal chain begins with the setting of a needle on vinyl has either a system noise floor or the detail resolution to hear anything I'm not hearing on my headphone system.

Not that I have a dog in this tired old hunt; my systems -- headphone and speakers -- have very few cables, just that many of the people throwing this notion about as a reason why others don't hear what they do are whistling in the dark.

Tim

A.wayne · Nov 20, 2012

microstrip said:
No, I was not being rhetorical. I am a believer in the effects of cables in high-end systems, but do not want to use or see pseudo-science being used to justify my very subjective opinions. I know that soon people with different views will easily turn the arguments against me.

For example, my belief is that in high-end cables sometimes shorter is not better ... But I can't and do not pretend to prove it electrically. And that the pseudo science arguments that cable manufacturers include in their marketing do not stand close inspection, although their cables in the proper system can sound great!

I can assure you length makes a difference .........

microstrip · Nov 20, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
When I read this common statement, I find it very easy to assume that:

a) Very few people, in fact a vanishingly small % of people listening to speakers playing into a room, have a low enough ambient noise floor to hear anything I can't hear on my headphone system, regardless of the detail resolution capabilities of their system.

b) Absolutely no one whose signal chain begins with the setting of a needle on vinyl has either a system noise floor or the detail resolution to hear anything I'm not hearing on my headphone system.

Not that I have a dog in this tired old hunt; my systems -- headphone and speakers -- have very few cables, just that many of the people throwing this notion about as a reason why others don't hear what they do are whistling in the dark.

Tim

Tim,

Happily this tired old hunt about the limitations of headphone listening have been addressed many times and I will not repeat myself. Resolution in sound reproduction is not only detail as you seem to imply. Happily F. Toole addresses it in a chapter of his book about the bad and the good of sound reflections. I will not summarize it, as it can not be done in a short sentence, any one interested can read there. A few random quotes, that need further reading of book:

"Nowadays, stereo recordings are enjoyed by multitudes through headphones. What is heard, though, is not stereo; it is mostly inside the head spanning the distance between the ears, with the featured artist placed just behind and maybe slightly above the nose. There may be a kind of “halo” of ambience in some recordings. This is sound reproduction without standards, but the melodies, rhythms, and lyrics get through. "

"His subjects listened through headphones (which, as noted in Chapter 9, is not the most revealing circumstance) Chapter 9 The Effects of Reflections on Sound Quality/Timbre page 141"

FYI F. Toole finds that the differences between proper designed cables have minimal effect on sound.

DaveyF · Nov 20, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
When I read this common statement, I find it very easy to assume that:

a) Very few people, in fact a vanishingly small % of people listening to speakers playing into a room, have a low enough ambient noise floor to hear anything I can't hear on my headphone system, regardless of the detail resolution capabilities of their system.

b) Absolutely no one whose signal chain begins with the setting of a needle on vinyl has either a system noise floor or the detail resolution to hear anything I'm not hearing on my headphone system.

Not that I have a dog in this tired old hunt; my systems -- headphone and speakers -- have very few cables, just that many of the people throwing this notion about as a reason why others don't hear what they do are whistling in the dark.

Tim

Tim, while I like listening on my headphone system on occasion, it really isn't of the same level of reproduction as I can get on my system. For one, the ability of the headphone system is far inferior when it comes to recreating the overall 'gestalt' ( here I use this term again, as it really does sum up the feeling) of being at the 'live' venue. My headphone system is based around Senn 600's with Cardas cabling. ( which BTW was an audible improvement over the stock cable

) and was heard by all when my audio group did an AB' with the same phones with the stock cable.
I know YMMV.

ack · Nov 20, 2012

microstrip said:
Just for curiosity, can you quantify the values of these famous phase differences you are referring? I would suggest an interesting test to your theory. Add a 1000 pF to either side of your speaker cables. It is probably an order of magnitude higher than the intrinsic capacity of the cable and will not change the sound quality.

BTW, I have the vdH T3 XLR interconnect cables on my desk. A bad synergy in my system. Probably they should be used with the matching speaker cables.

I can't quantify these phase angles (they are not my theory, this is basic electronics), but the patents do make specific claims based on mathematical formulas, and they are huge; see http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5956410.pdf which claims that: "[for a cable with total distributed capacitance of 90pF] using the impedance meter it was shown that at a frequency of 80Hz the impedance phase angle was found to be -85.46 degrees, and at a frequency of 431Hz the phase angle was found to be -87.37 degrees". He then mathematically calculates power losses at 80Hz as being 7.92% and at 431Hz 4.41% - if true, these are significant losses; read the whole patent if you have more technical questions. Of special interest to me here is that total capacitance of 90pF in that cable under test... why? because this is very low as is, and if you look at the specs of very pricey cables, like Nordost's Odin, which measure about 9pF/foot or 90pF for a 10ft run, then one begins to wonder: do expensive cables also really suffer from such extreme phase issues??? That's HUGE, if true. MIT basically claim that there is exactly one frequency where the power transfer is optimal, and everywhere else there are losses, small or large: "The parallel capacitance of the cable is predisposed to store a greater magnitude of electrical energy than at other frequencies. Furthermore, the series distributed inductance of the cable is also predisposed to store a greater magnitude of electrical energy at certain frequencies than others."

These claims then lead to those MIT articulation-pole designs and another patent http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6658119.pdf which explains those designs (btw, it was claimed by others recently that this patent is now in the public domain), and wherein it is also claimed that the networks are chosen such that their phase angle is around -45 degrees at the chosen frequency, to compensate for the cable's positive phase angle deviation at the same frequency. The end goal, they claim, is to produce a "more uniform audio output". On the other hand, they also do admit that "in other embodiments the network can be designed to emphasize certain frequencies".

Peter

The cable conundrum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Banned

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

Banned

VIP/Donor

New Member

WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

New Member

New Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

Similar threads