Capacitance and Inductance

nathanm · « **Reply #20 on:** 18 Oct 2004, 08:55 pm »

Blindfold somebody and have a guitar player first play a Fender Strat through an amp and then play a Les Paul through the same amp. Then swap out a regular guitar cable with one of these overpriced ICs they sell to the hifi crowd on the same guitar. If that blindfolded listener can honestly tell me he or she hears more difference between cables than between guitar models I will eat my hat.

If you hear differences in wire that's fine, have at it, but is it really such a major change as to be worth hundreds and thousands of dollars? What if you were so convinced that wire A was better and were ready to drop 5 grand for it and then you find out you were lied to and the guy doing the swap was fooling you and you were actually listening to a 20 dollar wire? Wouldn't that tell you something about your own perception?

Like I said before, the marketing is not based upon subjective merits, they give you stuff about purity of the metals and geometry and dielectric materials and all that. But since the only thing people seem to care about is how much the thing cost why not put a disc in your DVD player that flashes $5000 and a picture of your precious wire everytime you listen to music? That way you'll keep reminding yourself how amazing it sounds.

What if music CDs were priced based on "emotional responses"? What if it was more than the costs of recording, printing and releasing the album and was based instead on what the record label guys felt was the emotional content of the music? "Boy this new John Smith album is a real tear-jerker! My daughter got all misty listening to his heartfelt ballads. Tell you what, we're gonna charge $600 for each of these CDs. Surely an emotional involvement like that is worthwhile, right?"

It's wire, people. How many possible ways are there to get electrons from one place to another? How many different ways can you cobble strands of copper or silver together to get different sounds? More than you can with combinations of resistors, caps, tubes, transformers etc? I doubt it. They make it seem like these cable differences are so magnificent that you could have a guitar pedal with nothing but hifi cables curled up inside and a bunch of switches and this would function like a graphic EQ circuit. Give me a break!

The more complex the device the easier it should be to hear differences between them, right? Then how come it is possible that many people cannot tell the differences in amplifiers, CD players, DACs etc much less cables? Shouldn't nearly everybody be able to spot the ACME 2000 speakers in a blind test and fewer people able to spot the Super Duper amplifier and fewer still be able to spot the Wowza XT cables in a blind test?

The most meaningful and significant differences occur at the moment of transducing from air to electricity. That's where the big changes are, both subjective and objectively. Once the music has been converted to one of the forms it is more stable than when transferred to another form. Yes, of course it can be changed whilst in the electrical realm, but making that jump is where the results are.

I don't really care that much about measurements either, but if somebody wants to charge me what I paid for my car for the juice to get from the CD player to the amp they better have some solid, objective data and measurements to back up why they claim it is so superior to what you can use to hookup your disc player and still send your kids to college. Of course your ear\brain CARES more about what you're hearing but an instrument is far more sensitive than you are. Can you hear a 1MHz tone? No? Well, measurement devices can. Can you hear vanishingly low levels of differences in resistance or capacitance? There's electronic devices which are far more sensitive, plus they are only tuned into one parameter whereas your ears and brain are processing far greater amounts of stimuli above and beyond what the wire is doing.

Why audiophiles wax on about cable differences and not about the infinitely more complex music they are actually hearing is something I'll never understand. With that line of thinking it would be perfectly reasonable for CDs to have the same range of cost differences as can be found the cable industry as I said before. Maybe a Creed disc should be $15 and a Pavoratti disc $45? Norah Jones $250 vs. $3000 for a 2-disc Mozart set? I mean if the cable tonalities are so vastly different why not have prices on the music itself go all over the map? Maybe those awesomely-recorded Mapleshade discs should cost thousands and some super-compressed pop record should only cost ten bucks? If people are willing to pony up the dough for superior wire would they also be willing to pony it up for superior sounding recordings too?

warnerwh · « **Reply #21 on:** 18 Oct 2004, 10:38 pm »

Thanks nathanm, I feel like I got it out of my system now. I agree, sometimes it drives me up the wall all the talk about wire and so little about room acoustics. It's almost surreal. Even any differences there may be are so small as to be the last problem to be looked at considering people don't seen to be able to detect them with any certainty. There's plenty else to worry about. I doubt too many people would have the guts to put in some el cheapo speaker cable or interconnects due to the fact they'd hear the same thing or damn close and wouldn't want to think they spent that much money for a difference they aren't even sure exists.

I've done it. I had a friend who's an EE no less that loaned me several (5)sets of interconnect cables from Cardas to Kimber Kcag. After spending days trying to hear something I gave up. I'm sure it's because my equipment that I spent thousands on though isn't resolving. Like the Krell pre(at the time) or my VMPS Supertower/R SE's. Maybe my ears needed to be cleaned or probably the placebo effect going the wrong way.

One thing is for sure though and that's that many exotic cables for speakers can cause the amp problems due to high capacitance which can cause some amps including highly touted ones to go into oscillation. The speakers can get damaged from the high distortion from oscillation. Once the tweeters get burned out it's a sure sign the wire is burned in though which I suspect is audible.

audiojerry · « **Reply #22 on:** 19 Oct 2004, 12:47 pm »

Nathan and warnerwh make valid and compelling arguments, and Nathan makes them especially entertaining, but at the end of the day, measurements still do not help much to determine how good or bad a component will sound. There are too many components with stellar measurements that just sound bad to most folks. I agree with most of your points about wire and all the hype around them, but there's still a lot of mystery about why one cable can sound "significantly" better than another for some of us. For many others this "significant" difference is not even perceptable or not worth paying "significant" dollars for.

I have owned some very expensive wire myself, and though I still own wire priced in the hundreds, it's far less than wire I owned previously. Why did I change? A number of factors such as a better trained ear, lots of auditions, and the emergence of a number of designer/mfg'rs who have advanced the art at much lower prices. Do I like my wire better because it's more expensive than $20 - $100 wire. I can say without a doubt the answer is no. Would I buy wire for $20 - $100? I'd love to if I liked it enough. There is some $30 Canare interconnect that gives me maybe 85% of my reference Poiema, but I was willing to fork out a few hundred more because the extra 15% was more than worth it to me.

Did the designer of Poiema, Robert Schult, base his design on science and measurements? I don't think so. I think it was based on experimentation with different combinations of materials and lots of listening. But I'd enjoy hearing Robert's and other designers' views on this.

One thing I will admit, in most a/b direct comparisons it is difficult to clearly identify the differences between wires. But with extensive listening over hours and days, the differences emerge, and once you pick up on a quality or flaw, it becomes more easily identifiable from that point on. It's probably one of the reasons why most of my non-audiophile friends think audiophiles like me are nuts. They can't understand why I am so fussy about what I'm hearing when it all sounds the same to them.

It's like being an expert wine or beer taster. I had a hard time believing that a wine taster can identify so many qualities and differences between wines, but as I became more of a wine drinker, I began to notice them myself on a novice level.

hibuckhobby · « **Reply #23 on:** 19 Oct 2004, 01:31 pm »

I'm with Jerry on this one. There are differences in sound between various wires/cables. My position is that if an objectivist can't measure a difference, it is perhaps because they are not measuring the right things. I am also aware that some will argue that the only reason people hear a difference between expensive cables and inexpensive ones is that they want/need to justify the extra expense they went to. While this is certainly within the realm of possibility, it is an argument that the objectivists can't "prove" because they can't provide data to support their hypothesis.

Jerry's point is also well taken about learning what to listen for. I listened at length to two difference brands of speaker cable. Each had it's strengths...and it got easier to identify them over time. One cost three times what the other one did. At the end of the day, which cable one would choose would depend on the depth of their pockets as well as which particular characteristics they were looking for. Since so much of a system is about synergy, the cable that works best in your system at a price point you can afford would seem to be the best choice.

In regard to the guitar comparison that was given, there was one aspect I feel was overlooked. If you play those guitars through a guitar amplifier, you are usually attempting to reproduce all of the frequencies (harmonics included) through one or more 10"-12" speakers. This will not provide you with the resolution necessary to make any judgments...unless the midrange (to which we are most sensitive) is altered. Since the high frequencies and harmonics are rolled off due to the size of the speaker reproducing them, it would be hard to make an accurate assessment.

my .02
Bob

dado5 · « **Reply #24 on:** 19 Oct 2004, 02:34 pm »

And this brings us back to the beginning.

Perception and subjective values of quality/price are just not objectively quantifiable. Jevons and Meneger changed economics forever when they proved that this subjectivity is what drives prices, not the cost of materials or the unit addition of labor. The bottom line is that people will pay whatever they deem fair for something they desire. This is a purely individual function and is not subject to an absolute value sale. In addition, only the very weakest of correlation is possible between any measured physical parameter and a report of audibility. This means that there is no proof that the differences in factor X of cables A and B is the cause of a reported audible change.

Ultimately, it is disingenuous for cable makers to claim that these physical factors are solely responsible for the superior sound of their product. Likewise, it is hypocritical at best for naysayers to follow the same faulted logic in the service of essentially calling manufactures charlatans and consumers dupes.

Thanks,
Rob

nathanm · « **Reply #25 on:** 19 Oct 2004, 02:36 pm »

Quote from: hibuckhobby

In regard to the guitar comparison that was given, there was one aspect I feel was overlooked. If you play those guitars through a guitar amplifier, you are usually attempting to reproduce all of the frequencies (harmonics included) through one or more 10"-12" speakers. This will not provide you with the resolution necessary to make any judgments...unless the midrange (to which we are most sensitive) is altered. Since the high frequencies and harmonics are rolled off due to the size of the speaker reproducing them, it would be hard to make an accurate assessment.

Do you play guitar?

hibuckhobby · « **Reply #26 on:** 20 Oct 2004, 01:24 pm »

Yes...both acoustic and electric for over 40 years.
Bob

JoshK · « **Reply #27 on:** 20 Oct 2004, 01:59 pm »

These debates are always amusing to read/watch.

Tell me a couple things though:

Why is it that $40 set of wonder cables is always ruthlessly scrutinized while $1000 set of wonder cables is praised without little scrutiny?

Do you have to charge kilobucks for your cables to be taken seriously by audiophiles?

Steve, I tend to agree with your perspective on the math of these things. As a mathematician by training is always amuses me when some quant jock is pounding the table about the models saying it must be so. The models are only as good as their assumptions, and assumptions are always made. Inevidably they are simplifying assumptions that typically don't hold true in reality for some reason or other but do well (hopefully) at approximating the truth.

My question to you, Steve, is this; if the objective of speaker cable designing is to minimize R*C*L product, and do a couple of other things well then why not make that the objective that can be performed at the least possible cost? I.e. why can it not be done at say $200 a set instead of $1200 a set. I am not convinced it needs to be the later.

Taz13 · « **Reply #28 on:** 20 Oct 2004, 02:51 pm »

When audiophiles start doing true double blind listening tests and then are able to tell me what cables are being used just by sound then I will believe that listening justifies ridiculous amounts of money being spent on drawen metals that we call audio cable. If you can't measure it but you tell me you can hear the difference then you should be able to pass a double blind test. Haven't seen it done yet, but I am still looking for that audio wizard. Personal preference in sound yes that I believe anyone can hear, but when audiophile and cables are mentioned I just think of snake oil and traveling medicine shows. There are people who will pay anything for audio nirvana and that is great, but when statements that people will pay anything they feel is fair,well!

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #29 on:** 20 Oct 2004, 04:02 pm »

Josh,

I'm not sure Steve is saying it takes 'X' amount for a great cable to be made. Most of the cost that goes into small scale cable manufacturing is in the labor. At least $50 an hour in the US; versus far less than a $1 per hour in many other countries. It's simple math, Mathboy

IF the materials were widely available and IF the marketplace could mass consume $100 cables, you would have many-a-$1200 cable made in lower cost countries like China, Malaysia, Indonesia in the marketplace. If you added up all the folks with Home Theatre or audio systems, you'd probably only find a couple % with ANY cable that costs above $100. We, those of us that devout obsessive time to audio and spend PC time on AudioCircle, are in the vast minority. Such small minorities are too small to set-up an assembly line for them. Assembly lines are set up for $29.99 cables from Acoustic Research, Radio Shack, et al, folks all the time...because that is where the volume and scale is.

At US and other industrialized countries labor rates that $29 cable would surely escalate to 4x that if made domestically.

I'm a businessperson with many quality contacts in China. If I thought there was a significantly large market to have a hi-quality audiophile, continuous cast, cryo'ed silver IC with air-teflon insulation made and sold successfully for $100...I may have already done it. However, to get it down to the right manufactured cost I'd probably have to buy a run of 5000 pcs +. To whom and where would I unload 5000 cables within a reasonable period of time to realize my investment back? Most of the small scale manufacturers here on AC and other that we, the 2%, buy from probably don't sell 5000 pcs of any combo of wire in a decade.

Reality is, the 98% of the entire public sector that buys audio and video equipment couldn't care less. I believe there are differences in cables, but I am of the minority. Until my beliefs stand in a larger pool of minority opinions, or form a majority, we will forever pay $500 or $1000 for cables that COULD be made in Asia for many time less.

It's the price you , literally, have to pay for your disease.

audioengr · « **Reply #30 on:** 20 Oct 2004, 04:44 pm »

Thanks for the wise words, John.

As for the cable non-believers: just because you have never heard a difference with the particular cables you tried in the particular systems you tried them in does not mean that differences do not exist.

Just come by my suite at THE Show in January and I willl swap some cables in my reference system. I guarantee you will hear a difference. I do this every year.

JoshK · « **Reply #31 on:** 20 Oct 2004, 04:55 pm »

for the record, I wasn't trying to take steve to task, my question was more of a comment that optimizing cable performance without regard to budget I think isn't as interesting as doing it with budget in the equation.

audiojerry · « **Reply #32 on:** 20 Oct 2004, 05:42 pm »

It seems there are several of points contention.

One is the prices charged for high-end cables. Posts range from dismay to disgust that mfgrs can get away with the prices they charge. The prices are not based on cost of materials and man/hours of labor and R&D. They are based on supply and demand - always. As a designer/mfgr(hypothetical), my objective is to profit from my efforts. If I price a cable at $1000+ for something that costs me $20 in material, and sell enough units to meet my sales objective, then I've done nothing wrong - the consumer wants what I'm offering. My objective may be $20,000/monh in net revenue or it may be $1000 - whatever. If, on the other hand, I price it at $100 per unit and can surpass my objective, then it would make sense for me to price it accordingly.

It seems like some of the posters are angered because they don't believe they or others can hear any differences or at least differences worth wasting any money on, while others are angered because they believe that differences are audible, but curse the mfgr for charging so much that it is priced beyond what they are willing to pay.

I believe there are quite of few of these folks who know that cables can sound much better than what they currently own, but refuse to admit it to themselves because the of the prices. Kind of like convincing yourself that your $9k Hundai is every bit as good as your brother-in-law's $45k Beemer.

nathanm · « **Reply #33 on:** 20 Oct 2004, 06:53 pm »

Quote from: hibuckhobby

Yes...both acoustic and electric for over 40 years.
Bob

Then you would know that just about EVERY guitar cab out there uses 10 or 12" paper cone drivers. You are telling me that these speakers are the limiting factor that would prevent a person from being able to tell a Strat from a Les Paul!?

You can't be serious man!

For whatever technical reasons guitar speakers are the way they are for a reason, they sound good, they are very colored and non-linear but they ultimately compliment the tone the guitarist wants. Usually if you play a guitar amp through a wide-bandwith speaker like what a keyboardist might use (with a tweeter added) it sounds awful.

But again, I say there's no way in hell that two different guitars will sound less different than two different cables. If anyone wants to run such a test please contact me and we'll do it, bring your guitars and your blindfolds!

Quote

I believe there are quite of few of these folks who know that cables can sound much better than what they currently own, but refuse to admit it to themselves because the of the prices. Kind of like convincing yourself that your $9k Hundai is every bit as good as your brother-in-law's $45k Beemer.

Once again, there are numerous factors between two cars or two guitars than there are with a cable of a specific length. The cable is a FAR more simple device. Far more people would be able to appreciate the differences between those two car models than would be able to appreciate the differences between two cables. If differences in sound are what you want and paying a high price is too there are much better ways to achieve that than cables if you ask me. And if a simpler circuit equals higher fidelity then why isn't everyone buying a device that integrates a CD player and pre\power amp in one case instead of joining different ones together with super costly wires?

Occam · « **Reply #34 on:** 20 Oct 2004, 07:54 pm »

Carl.

Here are some URLs that provide some parameter measures (R,L&C) of various speaker cables -
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/other/cable-test-data-table.html
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/speakercablefaceoff01.php
one already provided by Steve -
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/speakercablereviewsfaceoff.php
and lastly one that is specific to diy and includes a number that use the same wire but differ in their geometry-
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/setup/interconnects/DIYSpeakerCablesp1.html

Take Audioholic' conclusions for what you will, but their actual, raw measurements are quite informative.

FWIW

Robert C. Schult · « **Reply #35 on:** 21 Oct 2004, 11:54 am »

Hey Steve...Just had a great idea! Lets you and I become the Brian/Danny Love Couple of the cable mfgers' here on AC! Hell, I'll even slam your mods! and you can slam the fact that I don't have an EED! Nah...forget about it. You're too good at what you do and I trust I'm pretty good too.

Couldn't resist for openers.

Anyway...

Quote from: audiojerry

Did the designer of Poiema, Robert Schult, base his design on science and measurements? I don't think so. I think it was based on experimentation with different combinations of materials and lots of listening. But I'd enjoy hearing Robert's and other designers' views on this.

Thanks for the invitation Jerry.

Science and measurements certainly have a valued place when designing any audio gear, amps, cables or otherwise. But, in my view, they only point in a direction that may or may not be promising to fulfill a goal. For me, the goal is do what my ears perceive impact me emotionally. I believe there's a lot of virtue in this. Emotions are what they are and you can't make them what you might want or wish for. I'll do whatever is necessary (and non-hazardous) to accomplish that and I've found that it seems numbers, graphs and etc. that are currently available don't and can't tell us everything. They are insufficient at least and can be misleading if they are your sole or primary reliance. For many, including myself sometimes, this is a hard pill to swallow.

I don't think I'm too far off in saying engineers, designers or however one might label themselves and even enthusiasts want to proceed in any "audio" endeavor/adventure "safely" and with certainty. That's only natural I think. But, too many times, science and measurements are a great excuse to use to think one is certain and come to an apparent conclusion. I mean really, for many, science and the measurements it's come up with are the great god on a stick! Then, depending on the "religion" you decide to ascribe to, that's the banner that gets waved. And look...it's true 2+2 does equal 4 and L/C squared does = Z. Numbers don't lie right! It's safe and it's certain and it's a place that's comfortable for all of us to hang our hat. But what if we need to be looking at 3+1=4 or 2 to the power of two =4 or worse yet, what if it's 4-2=2 and we don't know how to get there. Do we not discover and use something just because we can't quantify it or it doesn't fit within the frame of a formal education and practices? Does L/C squared = Z tell the whole story of Z. No.

However, in my opinion and experience, the hat rack doesn't make a great piece of audio gear. But it is good place to hang my hat so I'm not encumbered while I work or enjoy music! I know I'm being abstract here and I hope you're following what I'm saying.

Understand also I'm not bambasting science and measurements, only the loftiness (jeez...I almost thought I spelled lonewolf there) we hold them as. They are great tools and every kitchen should have one. But tools they are, no more and no less. I believe this also: Tools, without ears and the heart behind them, are useless. Those same ears without tools can be trained and educated to communicate to the heart and hence, a great adventure! Those ears and tools together are like a somewhat unperfectly clear token hand leading us on the great adventure.

audioengr · « **Reply #36 on:** 21 Oct 2004, 05:33 pm »

Whew! That was wordy... Actually it's L/C = Z squared, not L/C squared = Z, but you know that...

I think that point that I would make is that it takes measurements, lots of personal theories (this years pseudo-science and next years science) and empirical testing to develop really great-sounding cables, IMO of course.

As always, and recently becoming more prevalent, everyone and his dog thinks he can be a cable designer. As a result, the market is flooded with pseudo-scientific cable companies whose only goal is to make the highest possible profit and steal technical tidbits from the other companies to make their products seem "magical" and give them credibility. This makes it really discouraging for companies that actually have some technical knowledge and promising theories that are actually scientifically-based. This is why I have all but stopped developing new cable technologies and focused on mods instead.

Steve Rothermel · « **Reply #37 on:** 21 Oct 2004, 10:46 pm »

I just have to say that I still find it unbelievable how much time and effort it takes for Robert (I say "Bob") to construct a set of cables! I am the only one privileged enough to see the entire process and it is exhaustive!

Sorry - I am just very proud to be associated with such an individual.

And I approve this message.

audiojerry · « **Reply #38 on:** 22 Oct 2004, 03:48 am »

Quote

BTW Jerry, I doubt you remember this but one of the first posts I read from you about me was my poor spelling skills. Probably a little over a year ago

I don't think that was me, Robert. I think that was Lonewolf who commented about your being "flatted", which must feel similar to being run over by a truck.

Robert C. Schult · « **Reply #39 on:** 22 Oct 2004, 02:12 pm »

Jerry...this was it:

Quote from: audiojerry

Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:03 am

Flatted? what the heck is that?
I think you interpreted it correctly, Sa-dono.

Because of his flair for mispelling in his posts, I Initially wondered if Robert had misspelled his reference model...