Morrow SP3 Review (Speaker Cable)

[D700]

look, this review shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. Everyone knows cables don't change the sound. Cable elevators though...

 

[SIY]

I have never complained that music is more complex. Simply point out that I would not expect a capacitor and resistor and w'e combination of parts to behave the same way with a simple tone vs. a complex musical signal. And I dont' see why we should assume that an amplifier that can produce a simple test tone with less distortion than a different amplifier would have a consistent result with more complex music.

I can tell for a fact that different speaker wire sounds different. I hooked up a ten gauge and a sixteen gauge, about ten feet of each, to a subwoofer. The increased bass response in the ten gauge was easy to hear.

OK, so you discard Fourier and superposition, on the basis of no analysis or evidence. And you're unfamiliar with transfer function measurement and difference analysis.

I think that before you mistrust authority, it will help to understand what it is you're mistrusting.

 

[Louie]

Please see posts:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...er-wire-measurements.14263/page-4#post-448836
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...er-wire-measurements.14263/page-4#post-449386

Thanks. Interesting thread.

 

[amirm]

@amirm I was told years ago that basic lamp cord from the hardware store performed the same as (any) speaker cable. I bought some (maybe 16-18AWG?) and have noticed no difference. This would be an interesting test, especially considering these were never intended for audio use/spectrum.

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the generic cable I used and lamp cord. OK, one leg has a marking for positive but otherwise, it is more or less the same.

 

[Chrispy]

look, this review shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. Everyone knows cables don't change the sound. Cable elevators though...View attachment 126507

Yeah you have to get the bling to excite the lust and greed thing as well as the odd sense of aesthetic.... LOL.

 

[Chrispy]

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the generic cable I used and lamp cord. OK, one leg has a marking for positive but otherwise, it is more or less the same.

But even lamp cord usually has a ridged vs smooth thing

 

[Bruce Morgen]

But even lamp cord usually has a ridged vs smooth thing

Yup -- you'd have to go back several decades into the previous century to find lamp cord without that handy indication in a retail store.

 

[beefkabob]

That last chart is ziggy and zaggy. There's an actual measurable difference! I don't know what all those zeros mean after the decimal point, but I bet they mean the differences are HUGE!

 

[GWolfman]

That's what amirm used....zip cord/lamp cord. Many do. Audiophiles can be very silly thinking its audio specific.

Ah, I wasn't sure exactly what he mean by "zip". Got it (now).

 

[ousi]

IMO as long as it's shielded and doesn't have an enormous resistance or capacitance, it's good enough. Sturdy construction will contribute to keeping the conduction points in check (I did broke some 16AWG cables in the past by stepping or pulling on it by accident and wondered where my rear channels had gone). But then a lot of other folks have different idea and can hear stuff I cannot - glad that I cannot hear that actually.

I'm cheap but lazy, so I usually buy from this seller on AMZN:
https://www.amazon.com/Foot-Coaxial...rlds+best+cable+speaker&qid=1619497640&sr=8-3

 

[Beave]

IMO as long as it's shielded and doesn't have an enormous resistance or capacitance, it's good enough. Sturdy construction will contribute to keeping the conduction points in check (I did broke some 16AWG cables in the past by stepping or pulling on it by accident and wondered where my rear channels had gone). But then a lot of other folks have different idea and can hear stuff I cannot - glad that I cannot hear that actually.

I'm cheap but lazy, so I usually buy from this seller on AMZN:
https://www.amazon.com/Foot-Coaxial...rlds+best+cable+speaker&qid=1619497640&sr=8-3

Shielded? This thread is about speaker cable.

 

[B4ICU]

Not this again. Sure it is an idea. However it has exactly no underlying physics to support it. Even the most basic circuit analysis shows that this is simply wrong. It shows a total lack of understanding of basics of physics. Even mid-grade high school physics will teach you enough to know this is just made up. Not listening in school is not an excuse to continue to pedal this rubbish.

Realy?
1. You go against without giving it a try? Why?
2. The idea was tested and proved to work exactly as the physics (calculations) suggest. 100% did.
3. Even when a thicker cable was used, it proved that above the calculated value it won't improve sound.
This was tested and a bunch of happy people all over the world are happy with the results: Israel, Canada, US, Singapore. England and more...
I'll ignore your language and rudeness.

 

[ousi]

Shielded? This thread is about speaker cable.

Right I was talking about cables in general. For speaker cables and power cables no shielding needed

 

[Beave]

Realy?
1. You go against without giving it a try? Why?
2. The idea was tested and proved to work exactly as the physics (calculations) suggest. 100% did.
3. Even when a thicker cable was used, it proved that above the calculated value it won't improve sound.
This was tested and a bunch of happy people all over the world are happy with the results: Israel, Canada, US, Singapore. England and more...
I'll ignore your language and rudeness.

You gonna share those (paid?) testimonials again as your "testing" and "evidence" and "proof?"

 

[Francis Vaughan]

2. The idea was tested and proved to work exactly as the physics (calculations) suggest. 100% did.

Calculations are not physics. The problem is that the physics you claim to base your calculations on is non existent. You can come up with any formula you like, and correctly do the arithmetic. It does not make it physics or correct.

This was tested and a bunch of happy people all over the world are happy with the results: Israel, Canada, US, Singapore. England and more...

I have well over a century of science behind me in physics research and accepted science. You have a few emails from random people on the internet. You are claiming a specific well understood aspect of fundamental circuit analysis is wrong. Basically saying that scientists from Faraday onwards are wrong and that you have a specific understanding that is greater than theirs. Such things usually involve free trips to Stockholm. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You have not got that. It isn’t even clear you understand what the physics you claim to be using is.
I already suggested you research Thevenin equivalence. You so far haven’t bothered. This is circuit theory 101.
The internet is replete with this sort of nonsense. Audio however is a fertile ground.

 

[amirm]

Video review posted:

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Video review posted:

Misspelled "Premium" in the white on black title block on the upper left.

 

[solderdude]

@amirm can you make this plot but with both scales linear and or at least the frequency scale linear ?

Can you do a similar test with the Isolda cable ?

When possible test using music or multitone, which will lead most likely lead to the same result as this is nulling with a time delay which is responsible for the difference seen in the higher frequencies and thus length dependent.
The resistive part of the cable might also be shown when using a complex load.

 

[amirm]

Can you do a similar test with the Isolda cable ?

Yes, I plan to.

 

[BigusDikus]

Ummm, Amir, sweetie, even if we were able to travel the speed of light you wouldn't be able to measure cables.