• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Triangle Esprit Antal Ez Review (Tower Speaker)

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
No need to be skeptical. Since @amirm got the NFS there were several cases where its results raised doubts and in all cases it was proven that it was right, either by second source measurements or because the tested speaker was defective.

I don't think this is true. Can you point me to the discussion where the NFS was proven correct for the F328Be? I honestly don't think it has. If anything, I remember Amir saying he figured out why the NFS was wrong for that speaker, and he found a way to correct it.

The NFS says that the Revel M16 has deeper bass extension than the Revel F328Be. You really see 0 reason why I should be skeptical of it's correctness there?
 
Last edited:

Xyrium

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
574
Likes
493
This is truly disappointing. I had high hopes for the Triangle products. I suppose Focal has their work cut out for them.
 

B4ICU

Active Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
157
Likes
92
That would be a very thin cable to lose 50% of the power in it.
DF as a means to get a hard grip on the drivers is overrated since the serious impedance of the voice coil prevents it in the first place, not to mention any passive crossover.

Miss understanding my say. Sorry.
The DF is about control. Not about power. The speaker cable is series to the DF (Ro + Rc) when Ro=Output Resistance, RC=Cables Resistance.
When Rc = 0 ohms (theoretical super conductor), the Amp's DF is the amount of control it has over the speaker. The more the better.
Keep in mind, that a speaker is a complex load, with a coil moves in a magnetic field. That would generate (by Lentz low) an opposite current, with the same magnitude, but the opposite attitude, to the Amp's current. This is running continuously...
Speaker cables are not about the load (low!) or current. Most will do. It's about controlling the speaker.
It shall not be about price (thicker cables are more expensive than thin cables, they are more difficult to make). You can go on a DIY project, get the materials on eBay and get it done under $100.-
Back to cables, it not about the power drop over a series resistor, that a current flows through: P = Isq2 x R
So if you propose that I suggest that 50% of the power is dropping on the cables, you are very wrong.
 

Francis Vaughan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
933
Likes
4,697
Location
Adelaide Australia
Yes, I read the power ratings etc'. No DF figure to find. What is the DF?
I'm always get sceptical when a firm drops the DF for a reason. Some claim it is not important. Others rather not say. Yes, that is required.
Practically, it is more important than all others, when it gets to speaker cables resistance calculation.

There is no science to the idea that source impedance has anything to do with loudspeaker control. It doesn't. The voice coil resistance totally dominates the damping term. For damping to halve the source impedance would need to equal the voice coil. A non zero output impedance means the damping component of the speaker system changes from one defined by Zvc, to one defined by Zvc + Zs. So for a typical driver, and a DF of 100, from about 6Ω to 6.08Ω. A DF of 1000 would mean a change from 6Ω to 6.008Ω. The difference in damping here between a DF of 100 and one of 1000 is thus 1.2%. Given the voice coil resistance is changing dynamically by vastly more than this in response to the signal, we can be pretty sure that this is simply not an issue. The crossover adds typically 0.5Ω to 1.0Ω as well. This is in series with the damping resistance, so the effect is even smaller with passive crossovers. Why the existing series reistance inside a speaker is continually ignored in arguments about the nature of "control" of speaker movement is one of the great mysteries. It ignores fundamental understanding of circuit theory and the basics of dynamic loudspeaker physics. The well known analysis by Dick Pierce goes over this in careful detail. The physics has been well understood for many decades and is exemplified in the Theile Small analysis of loudspeaker operation.

When it comes to choosing speaker cables, I wonder if there is some misunderstanding derived from this viewpoint from Benchmark.

Note that even Benchmark agree, control of the speaker has nothing to do with damping factor.

This missive from Benchmark requires some careful reading, as it provides a very specific and limited set of constraints. It also does not provide a guide for how speakers should be evaluated. Nor does it actually provide any justification as to why you should purchase an amplifier with a very low output impedance, although they hint that perhaps you should be buying one of their very nice products.
Basically Benchmark are pointing out that speaker impedance variations coupled with a non-zero feed impedance can cause small variations in the speaker's frequency response. I don't think anyone ever suggested otherwise. What Benchmark then do is provide a very stringent requirement - no more than 0.1dB variation across the response range - and then calculate the maximum permissible feed impedance needed to meet this requirement for a given speaker. Thus the combination of speaker cable and amplifier impedances. It should be noted that their requirement is sufficiently stringent that even with speaker cables of zero length it cannot be met by the vast majority of amplifiers on the market for speakers that exhibit a messy load.

Does this matter for testing and auditioning loudspeakers? Mostly no. Their justification for the requirement is directed at auditioning amplifiers in controlled ABX settings when connected to very difficult speakers. Amplifiers, not speakers. This is important.

If one is designing, testing or auditioning speakers it makes sense to do so with an amplifier of the specification the speaker is likely to be used with. If the majority of amplifiers have an output impedance of say 0.08Ω, design to that, along with an allowance for a reasonable speaker cable. If the drive impedance varies dramatically from this and the speaker has some nasty impedance variations, the speaker will change its frequency response very slightly. Maybe +/- 0.2 dB. Note, this variation can be in either direction, a lower source impedance (aka higher damping factor, fatter speaker cables) will also cause variation. Very high DF is not a panacea that guarantees perfection. It simply provides the limit of change in one direction.

Benchmark are concerned about different amplifiers sounding different when connected to the same speakers when the only difference the amplifiers present is a different output impedance. If you are auditioning the amplifier, especially if you are conducting well controlled ABX tests between amplifiers, you could get a misleading result, depending upon what you are testing for, if input feed impedance into the speakers is not controlled. The converse is not true. Auditioning different speakers is not made more accurate by a very low source impedance. You should audition with the source impedance they will actually be used with, or more importantly, were designed for.

What does this mean for testing speakers?. The speaker's impedance is currently measured and presented. That gives you a starting point on the frequency response variations can expect from changes in source impedance. Unless your own amplifier and cables have exactly the same impedance as the test system's you can expect a well understood and definable slight variation in frequency response. However given that most people have modern amplifiers that don't have wildly different output impedances, mostly sitting around 100, there is good reason to expect that the results, in practice, will be very close.

For auditioning by ear, an argument can be made that extremes of feed impedance should be avoided. Auditioning might be best done with a source impedance that best reflects the expected real life use case. Not everyone has a Benchmark amplifier. This is especially true, as the designer of the speaker will almost certainly not have designed or tested the speaker assuming a very low feed impedance. They will (at least should) assume the most likely case. All computer based speaker design software systems I have seen include a term for source impedance. Only the very naive set this to zero. This is key. Speaker designers assume a reasonable source impedance from the outset. They do not assume an extraordinarily low one.

In the end, it is possible that small changes in output impedance of an amplifier can be used to subtly vary the frequency response of a speaker. Very subtle. Given the variations is response intrinsic to loudspeakers in a real life setting these variations are vanishingly small. A very low source impedance does not guarantee the best possible accuracy of frequency response. It provides the limiting case of one side of the possible variations. The best (and designed) frequency response may well be found at a different impedance. Typically the designer of the speaker will have chosen such a source impedance.
 
Last edited:

B4ICU

Active Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
157
Likes
92
There is no science to the idea that source impedance has anything to do with loudspeaker control. It doesn't. The voice coil resistance totally dominates the damping term. For damping to halve the source impedance would need to equal the voice coil. A non zero output impedance means the damping component of the speaker system changes from one defined by Zvc, to one defined by Zvc + Zs. So for a typical driver, from about 6Ω to 6.08Ω. A DF of 1000 would mean a change from 6Ω to 6.008Ω. The difference in damping here between a DF of 100 and one of 1000 is thus 1.2%. Given the voice coil resistance is changing dynamically by vastly more than this in response to the signal, we can be pretty sure that this is simply not an issue. The crossover adds typically 0.5Ω to 1.0Ω as well. This is in series with the damping resistance, so the effect is even smaller with passive crossovers. Why the existing series reistance inside a speaker is continually ignored in arguments about the nature of "control" of speaker movement is one of the great mysteries. It ignores fundamental understanding of circuit theory and the basics of dynamic loudspeaker physics. The well known analysis by Dick Pierce goes over this in careful detail. The physics has been well understood for many decades and is exemplified in the Theile Small analysis of loudspeaker operation.

When it comes to choosing speaker cables, I wonder if there is some misunderstanding derived from this viewpoint from Benchmark.

Note that even Benchmark agree, control of the speaker has nothing to do with damping factor.

This missive from Benchmark requires some careful reading, as it provides a very specific and limited set of constraints. It also does not provide a guide for how speakers should be evaluated. Nor does it actually provide any justification as to why you should purchase an amplifier with a very low output impedance, although they hint that perhaps you should be buying one of their very nice products.
Basically Benchmark are pointing out that speaker impedance variations coupled with a non-zero feed impedance can cause small variations in the speaker's frequency response. I don't think anyone ever suggested otherwise. What Benchmark then do is provide a very stringent requirement - no more than 0.1dB variation across the response range - and then calculate the maximum permissible feed impedance needed to meet this requirement for a given speaker. Thus the combination of speaker cable and amplifier impedances. It should be noted that their requirement is sufficiently stringent that even with speaker cables of zero length it cannot be met by the vast majority of amplifiers on the market for speakers that exhibit a messy load.

Does this matter for testing and auditioning loudspeakers? Mostly no. Their justification for the requirement is directed at auditioning amplifiers in controlled ABX settings when connected to very difficult speakers. Amplifiers, not speakers. This is important.

If one is designing, testing or auditioning speakers it makes sense to do so with an amplifier of the specification the speaker is likely to be used with. If the majority of amplifiers have an output impedance of say 0.08Ω, design to that, along with an allowance for a reasonable speaker cable. If the drive impedance varies dramatically from this and the speaker has some nasty impedance variations, the speaker will change its frequency response very slightly. Maybe +/- 0.2 dB. Note, this variation can be in either direction, a lower source impedance (aka higher damping factor, fatter speaker cables) will also cause variation. Very high DF is not a panacea that guarantees perfection. It simply provides the limit of change in one direction.

Benchmark are concerned about different amplifiers sounding different when connected to the same speakers when the only difference the amplifiers present is a different output impedance. If you are auditioning the amplifier, especially if you are conducting well controlled ABX tests between amplifiers, you could get a misleading result, depending upon what you are testing for, if input feed impedance into the speakers is not controlled. The converse is not true. Auditioning different speakers is not made more accurate by a very low source impedance. You should audition with the source impedance they will actually be used with, or more importantly, were designed for.

What does this mean for testing speakers?. The speaker's impedance is currently measured and presented. That gives you a starting point on the frequency response variations can expect from changes in source impedance. Unless your own amplifier and cables have exactly the same impedance as the test system's you can expect a well understood and definable slight variation in frequency response. However given that most people have modern amplifiers that don't have wildly different output impedances, mostly sitting around 100, there is good reason to expect that the results, in practice, will be very close.

For auditioning by ear, an argument can be made that extremes of feed impedance should be avoided. Auditioning might be best done with a source impedance that best reflects the expected real life use case. Not everyone has a Benchmark amplifier. This is especially true, as the designer of the speaker will almost certainly not have designed or tested the speaker assuming a very low feed impedance. They will (at least should) assume the most likely case. All computer based speaker design software systems I have seen include a term for source impedance. Only the very naive set this to zero. This is key. Speaker designers assume a reasonable source impedance from the outset. They do not assume an extraordinarily low one.

In the end, it is possible that small changes in output impedance of an amplifier can be used to subtly vary the frequency response of a speaker. Very subtle. Given the variations is response intrinsic to loudspeakers in a real life setting these variations are vanishingly small. A very low source impedance does not guarantee the best possible accuracy of frequency response. It provides the limiting case of one side of the possible variations. The best (and designed) frequency response may well be found at a different impedance. Typically the designer of the speaker will have chosen such a source impedance.

DF stands for Dumping Factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_factor
For a reason, it is given for an 8 ohms resistive load @ 1kHz. I didn't invented any of that. It's a given STD.
When analyzing the circuit of an Amp output, a pair of speaker cables and the speaker, you get nowhere.
The why to do it, is to look into the Amp's output through the cables. A common way of analyzing in the electronics world.
At the end, you realize that the load is of no importance, as speaker cables are referred.
With this approach, the cables resistance is an extension of the Amp's DF.
I am sorry, but I do not approve your way of going with the 6 ohms. This would suggest that cables have no effect on sound, but they do.
If so, your way, do not explain that, while mine does.
On top, I'd spent testing it extensively (years) with a sample groupe, statistics and more (by the book), so my say is solid and approved. I stand behind it. I'm sorry to say, that most stuff out there, is BS spread for a reason by cable makers. What a shame.
For all who sent me to read articles on the web, I take it as a practical joke, or a say out of the movie Straw Dogs (1971 film), when they sent Dustin hoffman to hunt ducks...

DF figures:
Tube Amps have a low DF (under 20, sometimes as low as 3!). In such a case the cables can be almost any. Even a line phone cord would do.
For the average Joe receiver with a DF of 40 or even 100 it is pretty much the same.
But when you step into SS or D class power Amp's, its a new game. They would rank above 200, and the mark levinson no°53, for $25k each,
would most likely do better. D class Amps tend to go really wild.
Devialet (tested some time ago here) has a DF of 8,000!
Hagels have 4,000.
The Luxman M-900u (http://www.luxman.com/product/detail.php?id=19#spec) has 710.
So when you invest into a pair of speakers $24,000.-, you most likely get one of those Amp's or in their class, rather than a $200.- receiver.
Going that path, if you spend $24,000.-, on a pair of speakers, that is to be 40% of the system, you end up with about $60,000 system. Add 10% on cables :).
Now back to this site and Mr. Amir are all about testing. In a test mode, you better get all components around, the minimal effect over the results (listening test). This is why I brought up the subject. What works at testing, should also work at home.
 
Last edited:

Haskil

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
317
Likes
534
Location
Gisors, Normandie, France
[QUOTE = "Vini darko, post: 732908, membre: 16552"] Une trompette peut-elle être une contrebasse? Une contrebasse peut-elle être un piano? Un orateur doit être tout cela et plus encore. Qu'il peut avoir besoin d'aide dans cette entreprise est compréhensible. [/citation]

+ 1 avec ton propos ...
J'ajoute pour répondre à B4ICU que le "DSP" d'un instrument de musique (qui produit du son à la différence d'une enceinte qui ne fait que le reproduire) ... est l'instrumentiste qui le joue car il agit de façon permanente sur les caractéristiques sonores de l'instrument qu'il a sous les doigts ... ou dans le cas de l'orgue le facteur d'orgue qui règle tuyau par tuyau, puis jeu par jeu la puissance sonore de chacun, de chaque jeu et enfin la totalité de l'instrument ...

Bref, on ne compare pas un instrument de musique et une enceinte acoustique.
 
Last edited:

Francis Vaughan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
933
Likes
4,697
Location
Adelaide Australia
For a reason, it is given for an 8 ohms resistive load @ 1kHz. I didn't invented any of that. It's a given STD.

Yes, it is. However I chose 6Ω because I was explicitly talking about voice coil resistance, not the overall impedance of a nominal speaker. A typical nominal 8Ω loudspeaker driver has a voice coil resistance of about 6Ω. You will note that I used 0.08Ω as the source impedance when DF is 100. That is based on the definition of DF.
 

Francis Vaughan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
933
Likes
4,697
Location
Adelaide Australia
This would suggest that cables have no effect on sound, but they do.
Maybe, but not for the reasons you suggest. I do suggest you go read the link from Benchmark, they link to the article by Dick Pierce as well.
You may approve or not. Science isn't a democracy. It doesn't care.
You might usefully research Neville Theiles work on speaker physics. That covers the ground in a manner that is generally accepted to be definitive. You understand Lenz's Law. Read up Neville's work and you can also understand the manner in which it applies to an actual loudspeaker.
You might also usefully read up on Thévenin equivalence.
 

Francis Vaughan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
933
Likes
4,697
Location
Adelaide Australia
Toward the best setting for sound - yes my stereo is usually better than anything I hear live. I rarely hear unamplified concerts and those sound reinforcement people work very hard just to get some decent sound that my home stereo generally surpasses.

I'm rather the opposite now. My days (or night's) of loud rock and roll are mostly behind me. A few concerts a year with some old favourites (Stranglers*, Radio Birdman of late) but nothing like days of yore when every weekend included at least one night of sweaty loud fun. What I do see is lots of un-amplified acoustic music, mostly classical. When a concert for one of these is amplified it is always a significant disappointment. We have both world class performers and world class acoustic spaces. Many concerts are recorded as well. The recorded experience is hard to compare in some ways. It never sounds the same as the live performance in fundamental ways. But no matter what equipment is used in recording or reproduction, nothing can get close to the real thing. It is almost indescribably better in reality.
There is the very occasional concert where the sound guys have a clue about how to reinforce an acoustic act. The simple way to tell if the sound guy is any good is when you wonder if the sound system was actually used, because you couldn't hear it. When that happens the sound guy was good.
I really encourage everyone to get out, support your local musicians and attend concerts. Now more then ever they need you. But get out and attend un-amplified music too. You will find it eye and ear opening.

* I attended the fourth to last concert before Dave Greenfield very sadly died of Covid. It will remain a treasured memory.
 

B4ICU

Active Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
157
Likes
92
Maybe, but not for the reasons you suggest. I do suggest you go read the link from Benchmark, they link to the article by Dick Pierce as well.
You may approve or not. Science isn't a democracy. It doesn't care.
You might usefully research Neville Theiles work on speaker physics. That covers the ground in a manner that is generally accepted to be definitive. You understand Lenz's Law. Read up Neville's work and you can also understand the manner in which it applies to an actual loudspeaker.
You might also usefully read up on Thévenin equivalence.

If your experience, that speaker cables do not affect sound, then we have no base to go on. You say they don't, I say they do and the rest is history.
I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) that the speakers are not part of the game. By keep having them, leads to nowhere. I tried...it's a dead end.
I'll tell you a story, about my friend in Vancouver BC. He owns an Emotiva (250W) amp and a beethoven vienna acoustics speaker. He used a pair of #14 AWG cables 15 feet long. He called for help for a couple of years, to replace a component to have a better sound. He was not happy, to say the least.
Some years ago, I suggested him to replace his speaker cables. The Emotiva has a DF of 400 and he needed only 10 feet long. My calculations came out with a #0 AWG cable. Yes, you have read it right. He ordered the material on eBay to my address, I built him a set of cables and sent it by post to him. Here are his insites, after replacing his #14 AWG 15 feet cable, with mine:

"My initial impressions: It’s like having new speakers. The sound is pure and clean. Minute details are suddenly apparent. The range is amazing. Highs, mid-tones and a new bass that I didn’t know my speakers were capable of.

It feels that for all these years my speakers were being choked, and now can suddenly breathe and have their full voice.

To say I’m happy about my new speaker cables is an understatement. I’m thrilled. Thank you for building these superbly engineered cables to unleash the full potential of my home sound system".

B. W. Vancouver BC, Canada

Since, no need to change or upgrade. He is happy with the sound.
A test conducted on Audiogon (twice) proved the same. I also had demos and a friend who got a set (#4 AWG for Pass Lab) here, in Israel. By the way, I tested the demo #0 AWG with his Pass lab (and B&W 802D) and it showed no difference in sound compared to his #4 AWG calculated cables.
This also proved that once the right cable is connected, nothing will improve it sound better.

There are happy guys who followed (spent up to $100 on a DIY cable) and are very happy all over the world: Israel, Canada, US, Singapore and England. It was like providing me the data: Amp's DF and cable length, I calculated it and answered with the correct AWG. They ordered the parts and cable on eBay, built it, or went to a work shop to get some help, hooked it up and...Bingo.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
Miss understanding my say. Sorry.
The DF is about control. Not about power. The speaker cable is series to the DF (Ro + Rc) when Ro=Output Resistance, RC=Cables Resistance.
When Rc = 0 ohms (theoretical super conductor), the Amp's DF is the amount of control it has over the speaker. The more the better.
Keep in mind, that a speaker is a complex load, with a coil moves in a magnetic field. That would generate (by Lentz low) an opposite current, with the same magnitude, but the opposite attitude, to the Amp's current. This is running continuously...
Speaker cables are not about the load (low!) or current. Most will do. It's about controlling the speaker.
I fear your understanding of the role a high DF plays with respect to controlling the speaker is wrong. See the correct explanation in posting #104. Please keep in mind that this is physics so denying it without offering a scientific proof is rather ignorant.

You may also read about the different biases we humans suffer from. Citing subjective opinions of before/after comparisons without controlled conditions (blind/double blind, level matched) are not scientific proofs, regardless of their number. I know what I'm talking about since I fooled myself at least twice in my life.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
I don't think this is true. Can you point me to the discussion where the NFS was proven correct for the F328Be? I honestly don't think it has. If anything, I remember Amir saying he figured out why the NFS was wrong for that speaker, and he found a way to correct it.

The NFS says that the Revel M16 has deeper bass extension than the Revel F328Be. You really see 0 reason why I should be skeptical of it's correctness there?
I don't remember the F328be. Maybe @amirm can tell what he had to correct to get a reliable result.

Regarding bass extension a small speaker can have a lower f3 than a bigger one. F3 depends one volume and sensitivity, it goes down with volume and up with sensitivity. Typical cases are big PA speakers with very high sensitivity and an f3 around 50 Hz. A hifi speaker with the same size and much lower sensitivity would easily reach 30 Hz or lower.
 

beagleman

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
1,164
Likes
1,584
Location
Pittsburgh Pa
Well, that settles it. A convincing anecdote was all that was needed to put the debate to rest.

And a reference to Audiogon, no less, for those still having doubts.

:facepalm:


I have been wrong all these years!!
My thoughts; At audio frequencies and the very short runs we normally use ( under 25 ft almost always) almost anything will convey the signal with very minimal losses.
I see it as simply minimizing losses. No magic.
 

Desmo

Member
Joined
May 13, 2020
Messages
56
Likes
34
Location
The Netherlands
If your experience, that speaker cables do not affect sound, then we have no base to go on. You say they don't, I say they do and the rest is history.
I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) that the speakers are not part of the game. By keep having them, leads to nowhere. I tried...it's a dead end.
I'll tell you a story, about my friend in Vancouver BC. He owns an Emotiva (250W) amp and a beethoven vienna acoustics speaker. He used a pair of #14 AWG cables 15 feet long. He called for help for a couple of years, to replace a component to have a better sound. He was not happy, to say the least.
Some years ago, I suggested him to replace his speaker cables. The Emotiva has a DF of 400 and he needed only 10 feet long. My calculations came out with a #0 AWG cable. Yes, you have read it right. He ordered the material on eBay to my address, I built him a set of cables and sent it by post to him. Here are his insites, after replacing his #14 AWG 15 feet cable, with mine:

"My initial impressions: It’s like having new speakers. The sound is pure and clean. Minute details are suddenly apparent. The range is amazing. Highs, mid-tones and a new bass that I didn’t know my speakers were capable of.

It feels that for all these years my speakers were being choked, and now can suddenly breathe and have their full voice.

To say I’m happy about my new speaker cables is an understatement. I’m thrilled. Thank you for building these superbly engineered cables to unleash the full potential of my home sound system".

B. W. Vancouver BC, Canada

Since, no need to change or upgrade. He is happy with the sound.
A test conducted on Audiogon (twice) proved the same. I also had demos and a friend who got a set (#4 AWG for Pass Lab) here, in Israel. By the way, I tested the demo #0 AWG with his Pass lab (and B&W 802D) and it showed no difference in sound compared to his #4 AWG calculated cables.
This also proved that once the right cable is connected, nothing will improve it sound better.

There are happy guys who followed (spent up to $100 on a DIY cable) and are very happy all over the world: Israel, Canada, US, Singapore and England. It was like providing me the data: Amp's DF and cable length, I calculated it and answered with the correct AWG. They ordered the parts and cable on eBay, built it, or went to a work shop to get some help, hooked it up and...Bingo.
Look at the size of that cable he sold too that poor guy.
 

Attachments

  • 0529s.jpg
    0529s.jpg
    23.5 KB · Views: 153

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,082
Likes
8,917
Thank you for the review @amirm. I wonder if there is some kind of gadget which would help with moving around tower speakers. I used to put them on a collapsed cardboard box and pull it along the floor.
 

Francis Vaughan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
933
Likes
4,697
Location
Adelaide Australia
I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) that the speakers are not part of the game.
I don't keep ignoring. I explicitly keep trying to point out that everything in current scientific understanding of circuit theory says that they are part of the analysis. I'm not exactly alone in this view. This sort of thing is taught very early on in undergraduate circuit theory. You would have a very hard time progressing out of a first year university electronics course without understanding this.

This issue has been one of the more strange and continued problems with non-scientists who mess about with misunderstandings of physics. Somehow physics seems to divided at the terminals of devices, and somehow the internals of a speaker are magically sacrosanct and do not enter into any analysis. Using 15 feet of 0 guage speaker cable will have its resistance totally overwhelmed by the few inches of cable connecting the speaker terminals to the crossover inside the box. But somehow, by a wave of a magic wand, it doesn't count. Nor do the hundreds of feet of inductor wire. Somehow, because they are "inside the speaker" that resistance doesn't count. The argument is hardly new. I have heard the same basic misunderstandings of circuit theory for at least the last 25 years.

But it is pure and simply wrong. Circuits don't work like that, and 150 years of science is pretty clear on this. Anecdotes of successful application of an idea, ones applied with no scientific process, don't somehow instantly disprove this. You might even have got a real improvement, but there is nothing that says that your reason for why it occurred is the reason it did.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
EQ is so 70's idea. we are way passed that approach...Look at the 10x more expensive speaker sounded, with no EQ. Would you EQ a $50k speaker?

if you knew how wrong you are? Almost all active monitor/speaker use eq one way or another. EVERY Genelec, Neumann, Focal monitors are eq’ed, including the $50K pair ones!

In general you cannot achieve flat frequency response from a speaker to a tight tolerance without using an eq. All decent speakers design their passive speakers to act as eqs, hence measure flatter. Many $50K plus speakers use dedicated and matching processors which are crossovers AND eqs allowing them to sound flat to a tight tolerance.

Not to mention EVERY wireless speaker on the market now use eq. Some of these costs many thousands of Dollars. Not what your average teenager would buy.
 
Last edited:

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
If your experience, that speaker cables do not affect sound, then we have no base to go on.

Agreed. You are on the wrong forum.
 
Top Bottom