Stereophile article on speaker wire measurements

[ahofer]

Could be - but you're generalizing. My setup uses horns and a SET amp for the highs. This SET amp has about .02% distortion at the loudest I would listen. The speakers themselves (any speaker) would easily have over an order of magnitude higher distortion.

Yes, my point was that it wasn’t necessarily distortion, because of the wide range of frequency response alteration possible due to impedance matching. The wide range includes zero, But a set up like this seems to be more likely to have something than nothing. My bias, freely admitted, is that a setup like this is creating equalization and customized harmonic distortion by the most expensive means possible. Which is good for Aries Cerat.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

When I look at that system, I perceive ancient tech wrapped in luxurious containers. So there’s definitely some bias from that point of view... But when I listen to the binaural recording of that system, I’m thinking there’s something very wrong with that system’s sound. That’s not what I expect from a “hi end” system.

You're right, it is ancient tech and sounds horrible, but the problem is the room, not the gear. I absolutely hate the looks of 'high end HiFi' gear, but that's another subject.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Yes, my point was that it wasn’t necessarily distortion, because of the wide range of frequency response alteration possible due to impedance matching. The wide range includes zero, But a set up like this seems to be more likely to have something than nothing. My bias, freely admitted, is that a setup like this is creating equalization and customized harmonic distortion by the most expensive means possible. Which is good for Aries Cerat.

You don't know this - you're just speculating. Yes, the electronics could have a roller coaster frequency response, but I highly doubt it. Vacuum tube technology doesn't automatically equal bad performance - that is just a misguided stereotype. I would wager that the speakers are far, far, far worse. Those are not horns I would care to spend much listening time with

 

[ahofer]

You're right, it is ancient tech and sounds horrible, but the problem is the room, not the gear. I absolutely hate the looks of 'high end HiFi' gear, but that's another subject.

But he might have achieved that sound with some second hand Klipschorns and an old Fisher amplifier.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

But he might have achieved that sound with some second hand Klipschorns and an old Fisher amplifier.

You're undoubtedly right, but I suspect that the real motivation is having something which impresses his country club buddies who don't know good sound from Good Humor Ice Cream.

 

[ahofer]

You're undoubtedly right, but I suspect that the real motivation is having something which impresses his country club buddies who don't know good sound from Good Humor Ice Cream.

Heh, the choice of music supports that notion. I didn’t listen to the whole thing, did he put on something more challenging later? Orchestra? Or was it all small ensemble, close-miked stuff?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Heh, the choice of music supports that notion. I didn’t listen to the whole thing, did he put on something more challenging later? Orchestra? Or was it all small ensemble, close-miked stuff?

I just sampled a little bit of it, but it was enough to hear what was going on.

 

[EchoChamber]

If I had 1M to burn on an audio setup I’d start with the listening room and build my house around it. And keep no more than 50K on the side for audio gear. Top end Genelec would cost me about 30k.

 

[EchoChamber]

Heh, the choice of music supports that notion. I didn’t listen to the whole thing, did he put on something more challenging later? Orchestra? Or was it all small ensemble, close-miked stuff?

Nothing challenging, all audio friendly... Not the kind of music I listen to for sure. Play a piece of a symphony and it will likely become one big blur.

 

[thewas]

Sounds a bit muddy to me.

Just muddy? Almost like underwater l̵o̵v̵e̵, err sounds but this can be partially also due to the micro setup.

 

[SimpleTheater]

Its because all cables are basically antennas!! What he is showing is how RF interference affects cables (be it interconnect or speaker wires or even power cables). Noise is a big big issue in cables, even more so for network cables. Thats why you need twisted pair for noise rejection. Then its not enough for higher speeds, you need separation of the wires and additional shielding (mainly foil shielding). And then, even with all the stuffs, there is still a limit to how long the cables can go before you need a repeater. Thats why fiber is needed for long distances.

At least this thread can now die.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...f-interference-in-speaker-cables-video.20520/

 

[navrsale]

It seems that measurements in the frequency domain show no difference while measurements in the time domain show difference according to that article by Duncan in 1995. That time domain counts we know from human ear physiology. Apparently, left and right ear receive signals that are delayed for a tiny fraction of the second (15us or msec, I forgot). This is used to determine the direction of the sound and was a product of evolution in order to escape predators as quickly as possible. The other aspect is infinite bandwidth. Swiss were the first to use 3MHz bandwidth with their amplifiers and solve stabilization problems associated with it e.g. Goldmund. Infinite bandwidth seems to be important in digital cables as well e.g. ethernet cables. Apparently, you minimize the LF/HF noise before it enters the cable as much as possible as once it enters the cable and downstream it will be impossible to get rid of it without filtering (but if you add filtering you will automatically constraint the already constrained bandwidth). Some residual noise will always propagate via the cable. Ideally, if the bandwidth of the cable is infinite that noise would have zero effect on jitter. But since there is no infinite bandwidth in the real world, the goal is to have as much bandwidth as possible. Hence $1000 1m ethernet cables. ASR needs to test this in the time domain.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

It seems that measurements in the frequency domain show no difference while measurements in the time domain show difference according to that article by Duncan in 1995. That time domain counts we know from human ear physiology. Apparently, left and right ear receive signals that are delayed for a tiny fraction of the second (15us or msec, I forgot). This is used to determine the direction of the sound and was a product of evolution in order to escape predators as quickly as possible. The other aspect is infinite bandwidth. Swiss were the first to use 3MHz bandwidth with their amplifiers and solve stabilization problems associated with it e.g. Goldmund. Infinite bandwidth seems to be important in digital cables as well e.g. ethernet cables. Apparently, you minimize the LF/HF noise before it enters the cable as much as possible as once it enters the cable and downstream it will be impossible to get rid of it without filtering (but if you add filtering you will automatically constraint the already constrained bandwidth). Some residual noise will always propagate via the cable. Ideally, if the bandwidth of the cable is infinite that noise would have zero effect on jitter. But since there is no infinite bandwidth in the real world, the goal is to have as much bandwidth as possible. Hence $1000 1m ethernet cables. ASR needs to test this in the time domain.

I'm a bit confused.

 

[Beave]

I'm a bit confused.

Nah, I don't think it's you who is confused.

 

[egellings]

Frequency and time domains just offer different ways of looking at the same thing.

 

[navrsale]

Frequency and time domains just offer different ways of looking at the same thing.

Compare

https://www.stereophile.com/content/what-difference-wire-makes-page-2

 

[navrsale]

Frequency and time domains just offer different ways of looking at the same thing.

Measurement setup:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/what-difference-wire-makes

 

[navrsale]

Basically, there are time domain, s domain and frequency domain in signal analysis. Signal is propagating in time domain naturally, we take the sample, and analyze. We need to convert time domain to s domain or frequency domain (there are many domains, but those 2 are the most important for signal analysis) to find other perspectives. There is a parameter that is same for both domains, called s parameter.

S domain is the domain without loss of the information of originating signal. It’s the generalization of power series formula. Convert time domain to s domain with Laplace transform for continuous signal. We can inverse s domain to time domain without loss of information. The parameter s mathematically is =σ+ω. It’s transient and steady state analysis.

Application:

1. Math tool (simplify integral and derivative, ODE problem, PDE problem, anything else. Great tool for circuit analysis)
2. Analyze the stability of system (but that’s not enough, there are routh hourtwitzh criterion, nquist criterion, analyze bode plot, etc)

Frequency domain is the domain to see how often the signal oscillate. It doesn’t take into account the stability parameter of s domain. Convert time domain to frequency domain with fourier transform. When we inverse frequency domain to time domain, we assume initial condition and stability. Mathematically the parameter =ω. It is steady state analysis.

Application:

1. Analyze frequency response of signal (Resonance frequency, bandwidth size for example)
2. Microwave telco hardware design (signal generator, amplifier, filter, attenuator, combiner, etc)
3. Analyze system’s impulse response and telco signal (but not enough, sometimes you need Hilbert transform, etc)
4. Math tool for convolution operation and Parseval’s theorem

 

[David Harper]

Hmmm, it seems like nobody read the article and everyone just dismiss the result that clearly shows there are difference between each cables.

I don't think anyone here is saying speaker wires cannot possibly change the sound at all. What we're saying is that under normal circumstances and with a typical home audio system a copper wire of sufficient gauge and reasonable length will perform perfectly and will not have any effect on the sound. It will be audibly transparent. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact.

 

[egellings]

Agree with the above post