DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,357
|
Post by DYohn on May 1, 2014 11:51:21 GMT -5
I say buy whatever you want to buy that you can afford. If you like it, that's all that matters. Just don't start proclaiming it as the biggest thing since sliced bread to the rest of the world, unless you recognize that your next big thing might be someone else's old hat, and that what you experience in your system in your home has no bearing on what anyone else might experience. It's audio so your experience with it is 100% subjective. Almost anything you can buy today will meet the technical threshold of being able to create good sound.
|
|
|
Post by Golden Ear on May 1, 2014 12:12:01 GMT -5
There has a been a theory about skin effect and magnetic field generate into the cable that affect the sound. There's a lot theory but not enough practice. Whether that theory is true or not let you ear decide. My ears tells me solid core conductor roll off highs which is a good thing if you have live room with many reflective surface. One to keep in mind no human hear the same thing and we describe things subjectively. Some may say it's bright while other say it's just right amount. None of these will be accepted since it did not came from test data other than ears.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 1, 2014 12:23:07 GMT -5
I always say I am glad I hear with my ears and not an ocilloscope. All the technical data means nothing to my ears as I can only see the data and I don't hear with my eyes....
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on May 1, 2014 12:33:07 GMT -5
I always say I am glad I hear with my ears and not an ocilloscope. All the technical data means nothing to my ears as I can only see the data and I don't hear with my eyes.... Speak for yourself, buddy. There are plenty of audiophiles out there who do hear with their eyes. Just visit the audio forums and see for yourself.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,357
|
Post by DYohn on May 1, 2014 12:37:21 GMT -5
There has a been a theory about skin effect and magnetic field generate into the cable that affect the sound. There's a lot theory but not enough practice. Whether that theory is true or not let you ear decide. My ears tells me solid core conductor roll off highs which is a good thing if you have live room with many reflective surface. One to keep in mind no human hear the same thing and we describe things subjectively. Some may say it's bright while other say it's just right amount. None of these will be accepted since it did not came from test data other than ears. Skin effect is a critical factor in high frequency signals - high frequency as in RF and microwave (Megahertz and Gigahertz signals) but it is not really present in audio signals. The frequency of audio signals is simply too low to create significant skin effects. Attributing skin effects to audio is not a theory, it's a misunderstanding of the physics. Magnetic field generation occurs as it does with any electrical signal but again, the power levels are so low that even in high powered loudspeaker systems it is largely moot... and there is very little difference in those fields created in solid or stranded wire (indeed, they are measurably less a factor with stranded wire but it is a very small effect.) Just because something can happen does not mean it does.
|
|
|
Post by Golden Ear on May 1, 2014 12:50:50 GMT -5
There has a been a theory about skin effect and magnetic field generate into the cable that affect the sound. There's a lot theory but not enough practice. Whether that theory is true or not let you ear decide. My ears tells me solid core conductor roll off highs which is a good thing if you have live room with many reflective surface. One to keep in mind no human hear the same thing and we describe things subjectively. Some may say it's bright while other say it's just right amount. None of these will be accepted since it did not came from test data other than ears. Skin effect is a critical factor in high frequency signals - high frequency as in RF and microwave (Megahertz and Gigahertz signals) but it is not really present in audio signals. The frequency of audio signals is simply too low to create significant skin effects. Attributing skin effects to audio is not a theory, it's a misunderstanding of the physics. Magnetic field generation occurs as it does with any electrical signal but again, the power levels are so low that even in high powered loudspeaker systems it is largely moot... and there is very little difference in those fields created in solid or stranded wire (indeed, they are measurably less a factor with stranded wire but it is a very small effect.) Just because something can happen does not mean it does. Many audio cable manufacturer talks about that. People who don't understand will buy it thinking it does something without hard facts. As with anything in life, if there is a pro there is a con.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 1, 2014 16:30:16 GMT -5
I'm not too sure what your point is other than being antagonistic (to a certain extent). Everyone purchases equipment where they like the sound the get from it, so in essence everyone is using gear as a crude EQ. At least by the definition of the argument you are trying to make. Thankfully Keith spent a few hundred words explaining, far better than I could, exactly what I was getting at. Cheers Gary
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,962
|
Post by KeithL on May 1, 2014 17:04:57 GMT -5
My biggest problem with claims about things like skin effect is NOT that they're difficult to prove - or to measure. My problem is the exact opposite: the effects of skin effect on frequency response are VERY EASY to measure.... but the measurements show that they simply aren't significant in interconnects at audio frequencies. (They may be significant if you're running a high-powered ultrasonic welder, or sending hundreds of amps of AC current hundreds of miles through a train track power rail, but that isn't what I'm asking here.) I don't see all the manufacturers making these outrageous claims backing them up with those easy-to-make measurements. Instead, they start with a deep discussion about why such-and-such " SHOULD" matter, followed by the claim that their miracle product solves the problem that they claim SHOULD exist. We seem to have missed the parts where they prove that the problem is actually real, and that their product actually really solves it. (And, if we ever get to that stage, then we can move on to whether anyone can HEAR the difference or not.) I get very tired of hearing how "the electrons jumping between the strands in a stranded conductor MUST add harshness to the sound" and "if the conductor is too fat, or laid out the wrong way, then you'll get time smear as the electrons ricochet around and back instead of traveling in a straight line". It's easy enough to measure noise and distortion (if there's more of it with the stranded wire), and it's also easy enough to measure time smear (whatever the cause). It's easy, guys. SHOW ME THE MEASUREMENTS that show the difference between the two wires. SHOW ME the extra noise caused by the electrons skipping between grooves (er.... strands). SHOW ME the damage skin effect is causing to the frequency response of that cheap wire (and show me how the expensive wire is better). SHOW ME the "time smear" that's being caused by the wire being too fat, or the wrong shape, or the wrong color. SHOW ME the distortion, measured at the speaker, that's occurring because of the capacitance between the speaker wire and my yucky nylon carpet. Once you've proven to all our satisfaction that there actually is a difference, and that the "premium product" is actually better and not worse, then we can get down to the serious business of figuring out whether any of us can hear it. (And, incidentally, since all the strands in stranded cable are touching each other, they count as a single strand. The stranded wire might have a tiny bit less skin effect because an 18 gauge stranded wire is going to be a tiny bit fatter than an 18 gauge solid wire. However, since skin effect is related to the amount of current being carried, and audio interconnects don't carry very much current, there simply isn't going to be much skin effect either way. Also incidentally, the amount of noise generated by any material - like copper - is defined by a constant and by the temperature... so warm copper makes more noise than cold copper. Skin effect causes an increase in resistance at higher frequencies. In other words, IF skin effect produces an audible effect, then it will be a roll off of higher frequencies. It WON'T make the sound "harsher" or add distortion. ) Skin effect is a critical factor in high frequency signals - high frequency as in RF and microwave (Megahertz and Gigahertz signals) but it is not really present in audio signals. The frequency of audio signals is simply too low to create significant skin effects. Attributing skin effects to audio is not a theory, it's a misunderstanding of the physics. Magnetic field generation occurs as it does with any electrical signal but again, the power levels are so low that even in high powered loudspeaker systems it is largely moot... and there is very little difference in those fields created in solid or stranded wire (indeed, they are measurably less a factor with stranded wire but it is a very small effect.) Just because something can happen does not mean it does. Many audio cable manufacturer talks about that. People who don't understand will buy it thinking it does something without hard facts. As with anything in life, if there is a pro there is a con.
|
|
|
Post by Golden Ear on May 1, 2014 19:01:22 GMT -5
My biggest problem with claims about things like skin effect is NOT that they're difficult to prove - or to measure. My problem is the exact opposite: the effects of skin effect on frequency response are VERY EASY to measure.... but the measurements show that they simply aren't significant in interconnects at audio frequencies. (They may be significant if you're running a high-powered ultrasonic welder, or sending hundreds of amps of AC current hundreds of miles through a train track power rail, but that isn't what I'm asking here.) I don't see all the manufacturers making these outrageous claims backing them up with those easy-to-make measurements. Instead, they start with a deep discussion about why such-and-such " SHOULD" matter, followed by the claim that their miracle product solves the problem that they claim SHOULD exist. We seem to have missed the parts where they prove that the problem is actually real, and that their product actually really solves it. (And, if we ever get to that stage, then we can move on to whether anyone can HEAR the difference or not.) I get very tired of hearing how "the electrons jumping between the strands in a stranded conductor MUST add harshness to the sound" and "if the conductor is too fat, or laid out the wrong way, then you'll get time smear as the electrons ricochet around and back instead of traveling in a straight line". It's easy enough to measure noise and distortion (if there's more of it with the stranded wire), and it's also easy enough to measure time smear (whatever the cause). It's easy, guys. SHOW ME THE MEASUREMENTS that show the difference between the two wires. SHOW ME the extra noise caused by the electrons skipping between grooves (er.... strands). SHOW ME the damage skin effect is causing to the frequency response of that cheap wire (and show me how the expensive wire is better). SHOW ME the "time smear" that's being caused by the wire being too fat, or the wrong shape, or the wrong color. SHOW ME the distortion, measured at the speaker, that's occurring because of the capacitance between the speaker wire and my yucky nylon carpet. Once you've proven to all our satisfaction that there actually is a difference, and that the "premium product" is actually better and not worse, then we can get down to the serious business of figuring out whether any of us can hear it. (And, incidentally, since all the strands in stranded cable are touching each other, they count as a single strand. The stranded wire might have a tiny bit less skin effect because an 18 gauge stranded wire is going to be a tiny bit fatter than an 18 gauge solid wire. However, since skin effect is related to the amount of current being carried, and audio interconnects don't carry very much current, there simply isn't going to be much skin effect either way. Also incidentally, the amount of noise generated by any material - like copper - is defined by a constant and by the temperature... so warm copper makes more noise than cold copper. Skin effect causes an increase in resistance at higher frequencies. In other words, IF skin effect produces an audible effect, then it will be a roll off of higher frequencies. It WON'T make the sound "harsher" or add distortion. ) Many audio cable manufacturer talks about that. People who don't understand will buy it thinking it does something without hard facts. As with anything in life, if there is a pro there is a con. These were subjective and objective come into clash when it comes to audiophile. There are listeners that don't believe anything unless there are hard facts or solid data to prove their point. There are people who don't care about test data because their ears are not test equipment. We all know there are cable company that does tell you skin effect and magnetic field affect the sound and how it muddy the sound. Test data is good for technical standing point for the designer but we as consumers we listen to gears and less on tech data. If we like what we hear, we buy them. I don't believe on anything unless there is hard evidence that such thing does exist. I don't have test equipment to prove it other than my ears which is not consider a facts because it's subjective. My AB testing between stranded vs solid core has it's own pros and cons. On stranded cable it provide good dynamic but find them harsh on the top end. I can't even listen for a long time without ear fatigue. On solid core sounds was relax, smooth but lack the dynamic. I can listen for a long time without my ear ring in pain. Maybe because solid core does roll off highs and made the sound smooth. This may become coloration for some people because it's no longer flat response.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,357
|
Post by DYohn on May 1, 2014 19:23:32 GMT -5
Like I always say: what YOU perceive, what you HEAR is 100% subjective. Everyone hears things differently because everyone's brain processes the information differently. But the electronics, electricity and acoustics that are used to create the sound waves you hear are 100% objective. There is nothing in the process from creating sound to recording it to reproducing it in your home that is not 100% understood, measurable and predictable. It's physics. It's easy to measure, although perhaps more difficult to understand.
One of my pet peeves about audiophiles is they will read or hear about some real phenomenon like high frequency skin effect, and then assume that it has some impact on audio signals even if the science says it does not. But man oh man, they heard about it, they believe it is important and no amount of science will convince them otherwise, ESPECIALLY if they think they hear something different when they do what someone else tells them is the right thing to address it.
It reminds me of the story about the elephant stick. A man in New York City is given an elaborately carved stick. "What's this?" he asks. "It's an elephant stick. It keeps dangerous elephants away." "How does it work?" "Do you see any elephants? No. That means it's working." So to protect himself from the dangerous elephants of New York City, he carries it from that day forward and tells everyone he meets that they need one too.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 1, 2014 20:10:33 GMT -5
Okay guys please bring it down a notch or two because this is getting too difficult for my ears to understand.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,921
|
Post by hemster on May 1, 2014 20:26:53 GMT -5
Okay guys please bring it down a notch or two because this is getting too difficult for my ears to understand. Haha... just remember that the Skin Effect is enough to make your skin crawl... (but only if you can hear it!) When I was in the service in the UK they spent a lot of time, effort and £££s making sure that us field operatives understood the "skin effect". That's all I'm sayin' .
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 1, 2014 20:51:54 GMT -5
These were subjective and objective come into clash when it comes to audiophile. There are listeners that don't believe anything unless there are hard facts or solid data to prove their point. There are people who don't care about test data because their ears are not test equipment. We all know there are cable company that does tell you skin effect and magnetic field affect the sound and how it muddy the sound. Test data is good for technical standing point for the designer but we as consumers we listen to gears and less on tech data. If we like what we hear, we buy them. I don't believe on anything unless there is hard evidence that such thing does exist. I don't have test equipment to prove it other than my ears which is not consider a facts because it's subjective. My AB testing between stranded vs solid core has it's own pros and cons. On stranded cable it provide good dynamic but find them harsh on the top end. I can't even listen for a long time without ear fatigue. On solid core sounds was relax, smooth but lack the dynamic. I can listen for a long time without my ear ring in pain. Maybe because solid core does roll off highs and made the sound smooth. This may become coloration for some people because it's no longer flat response. I'll have one more go.................. Let's forget for minute that you hear a difference and others might not, let's just assume that there is a difference and move on. What I was saying, and what Keith far better explained, was that a difference, any difference, caused by cables is not desirable. Whether you like the sound or don't like it doesn't matter, either way it's not desirable. What happens when the cable finally fails, gets accidently cut, you move the amp, speakers, locations, even houses? To use Keith's analogy you have to go and find another odd shaped rock to fill the hole. How many rocks (cables) do you have to try (buy and test) until you achieve a sound that you like? Simply put, I see it as a technically flawed solution and, worst of all, uneconomical in both time and money. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by thepcguy on May 1, 2014 21:00:14 GMT -5
Stranded or Solid, you still have to protect the exposed part with this:
|
|
|
Post by siggie on May 1, 2014 22:00:43 GMT -5
Stranded or Solid, you still have to protect the exposed part with this: For £100 a pair, I'm glad they're made of strong rice paper! Siggie
|
|
|
Post by sweetpea on May 1, 2014 22:05:55 GMT -5
In the spirit of this thread, I searched for some bi-wire cable online, thinking I'd see (hear) if I can detect a difference from the standard speaker connection, but man-o-man the bi-wire cables I found were expensive!
|
|
|
Post by lionear on May 1, 2014 23:16:19 GMT -5
Gary Cook wrote: "I've used pretty much every style (not brand) of cable over the years and I've yet to hear a difference."
OK, that's fine. But surely that does not support an assertion that "there's no such thing". There's no such thing for you, but there might be such a thing for someone else.
As for measurements and "accuracy", ultimately, we're dealing with an emotional reaction: am I enjoying myself? I think we should not lose sight of this. It doesn't matter if it measures well - the big question is: how does it sound - to me?
Audio measurements are fine as long as they correlate with our experiences. Once upon a time, amplifiers measured exceedingly well, with 0.001% THD, but sounded terrible. Some people stuck to their position that this was what music was supposed to sound like. Fortunately, others discovered TIM. And that led to the view that one just needed to keep THD below 0.1%, but keep TIM below 0.01%. So measurements are constrained by the level of knowledge.
When digital audio first came out, it sounded a certain way. All the theory and math indicated that everything should be perfect. And for what it was invented for - long distance phone calls - it is perfect. But when applied to music, came the discovery of certain errors, then the solution - add error (dither) so that they don't all show up in one place - when they show up in one place, they're really noticeable. Should we have resisted dither, and held out for something better?
It's interesting that amplifier measurements now omit the TIM figure, and all amps have THD below 0.1% and all have flat frequency response. Do they all sound the same? No, but we don't have measurements to differentiate them. As for the LCR values of cables, these are measured from time to time in magazine articles - so it's not like the info is absent. The bigger question is: if a cable happens to have a bigger L (or C or R) than another cable, does that mean it's not as good? Well, not necessarily..... Wouldn't you have to consider L, C and R across the whole frequency range, and in combination with each other? And how does this interact with the LCR and Q of your speaker? (Nordost let's you know the speed of the signal in their wire - but I don't know what that has to do with sound quality.)
It has been said that measurements or specs are attempts to "dumb down" the audience. For example, a 10 megapixel camera is only half as good as a 20 megapixel camera, right?
Alternative measurement techniques are out there. Goldmund, MIT and Nordost use tests, but they're not in the public domain. I wouldn't preclude them from consideration just because they don't want to give their competitors any info. And I'd ignore what their marketing departments put out - if you read them, then have a good laugh. I'd go and hear their gear, and if I like it, I'd be fine with buying it. Life is too short - you owe it to yourself to try stuff out.....
I would also caution against the concept of "common sense". Once upon a time, common sense held that the universe had existed forever. This was such a powerful notion that Einstein fudged Relativity to fit this view. Then came Hubble's discovery of red shift, and then the Big Bang. To me, "common sense" is a form of bias.
How then can we choose between two components? To me (and this is just me) I want soundstage. The component that can show the soundstage better is the component that stays - and this is true for interconnect and speaker wire, too. I am ready to forgive small errors in frequency response. There's no soundstage index or soundstage% - so I ignore all measurements.
That's what led me to Emotiva as well as my use of Cat5/6 cable for interconnect (with no-brand RCA connectors) and my previous use of Metal Monster Audio Speaker Cable Wire (that looks a lot like lamp cord). This has, however, also led me to replace the Metal Monster Audio Speaker Cable Wire with Nordost Red Dawn II - the soundstage is awesome, the bass is amazing and I get better integration with my sub. I'm also impressed all over again with the XPA-100 - it's a truly awesome amp.
PS: Can I afford the Nordost Odin? No. Would I want to hear it? Yes!
|
|
|
Post by lionear on May 1, 2014 23:37:01 GMT -5
I will add one more thing: why is a discussion like this important?
If you're happy with the sound of your system, then great.
But my own experience was different. When I got into the hobby seriously, in the late 1980's, I had a long length of Naim Audio speaker wire running from my integrated amp to my speakers. It was nice, thick wire and I thought that was all one needed. I wasn't happy with the sound, and blamed my amp. My audio mentor disagreed, saying that Naim Audio speaker cable was probably ok with Naim Audio amps. He lent me a length of solid-core copper wire. I was amazed at the difference. If it was not for my mentor, I'd have used that speaker wire for years and years, always searching for better sound.
I think it's important to know that cables may (and I stress may) have an impact on your system. And if one is not happy with the sound, then one might want to look into whether its because of the wires, or some other component.
That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Golden Ear on May 1, 2014 23:54:16 GMT -5
There are people who can hear it and people who don't. There are some explanation on this and will give some of my thought. You hearing maybe limited to certain range and anything above you can't hear it. Your brain that translate the sound wave maybe either confuse or can't explain what it was. To me, (solid core) as soon I plug the cable and push play button it was an immediate difference. The midrange and treble was smooth and can listen all day without fatigue, whereas stranded cable would hurt my ear in the first five minutes. There some people can hear it like lion ear.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 2, 2014 0:37:20 GMT -5
Gary Cook wrote: "I've used pretty much every style (not brand) of cable over the years and I've yet to hear a difference." OK, that's fine. But surely that does not support an assertion that "there's no such thing". There's no such thing for you, but there might be such a thing for someone else. As for measurements and "accuracy", ultimately, we're dealing with an emotional reaction: am I enjoying myself? I think we should not lose sight of this. It doesn't matter if it measures well - the big question is: how does it sound - to me? Audio measurements are fine as long as they correlate with our experiences. Once upon a time, amplifiers measured exceedingly well, with 0.001% THD, but sounded terrible. Some people stuck to their position that this was what music was supposed to sound like. Fortunately, others discovered TIM. And that led to the view that one just needed to keep THD below 0.1%, but keep TIM below 0.01%. So measurements are constrained by the level of knowledge. When digital audio first came out, it sounded a certain way. All the theory and math indicated that everything should be perfect. And for what it was invented for - long distance phone calls - it is perfect. But when applied to music, came the discovery of certain errors, then the solution - add error (dither) so that they don't all show up in one place - when they show up in one place, they're really noticeable. Should we have resisted dither, and held out for something better? It's interesting that amplifier measurements now omit the TIM figure, and all amps have THD below 0.1% and all have flat frequency response. Do they all sound the same? No, but we don't have measurements to differentiate them. As for the LCR values of cables, these are measured from time to time in magazine articles - so it's not like the info is absent. The bigger question is: if a cable happens to have a bigger L (or C or R) than another cable, does that mean it's not as good? Well, not necessarily..... Wouldn't you have to consider L, C and R across the whole frequency range, and in combination with each other? And how does this interact with the LCR and Q of your speaker? (Nordost let's you know the speed of the signal in their wire - but I don't know what that has to do with sound quality.) It has been said that measurements or specs are attempts to "dumb down" the audience. For example, a 10 megapixel camera is only half as good as a 20 megapixel camera, right? Alternative measurement techniques are out there. Goldmund, MIT and Nordost use tests, but they're not in the public domain. I wouldn't preclude them from consideration just because they don't want to give their competitors any info. And I'd ignore what their marketing departments put out - if you read them, then have a good laugh. I'd go and hear their gear, and if I like it, I'd be fine with buying it. Life is too short - you owe it to yourself to try stuff out..... I would also caution against the concept of "common sense". Once upon a time, common sense held that the universe had existed forever. This was such a powerful notion that Einstein fudged Relativity to fit this view. Then came Hubble's discovery of red shift, and then the Big Bang. To me, "common sense" is a form of bias. How then can we choose between two components? To me (and this is just me) I want soundstage. The component that can show the soundstage better is the component that stays - and this is true for interconnect and speaker wire, too. I am ready to forgive small errors in frequency response. There's no soundstage index or soundstage% - so I ignore all measurements. That's what led me to Emotiva as well as my use of Cat5/6 cable for interconnect (with no-brand RCA connectors) and my previous use of Metal Monster Audio Speaker Cable Wire (that looks a lot like lamp cord). This has, however, also led me to replace the Metal Monster Audio Speaker Cable Wire with Nordost Red Dawn II - the soundstage is awesome, the bass is amazing and I get better integration with my sub. I'm also impressed all over again with the XPA-100 - it's a truly awesome amp. PS: Can I afford the Nordost Odin? No. Would I want to hear it? Yes!
Firstly, the most import part of the paragraph containing the sentence that you quoted was "let's get past that and examine the effects of that difference". I expressed the same in the subsequent post "Let's forget for minute that you hear a difference and others might not, let's just assume that there is a difference and move on." Secondly, you would be incorrect if you assumed that just because I said that I haven't heard a difference that I automatically believe that you don't. I've had this very discussion countess times over the decades and it always gets polluted by a argument over who can hear what. Which is in fact nothing more than a distraction, sometimes I suspect a deliberate one.
With the above in mind, I don't need to be convinced that you can hear a difference, so it's a waste of time quoting examples that you have heard to try and convince me, I'm there already, I believe you. My questions have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not cables make a difference. They simply ask do we want really cables that make a noticeable sound difference in our systems at all?
Cheers Gary
|
|