[Nick B]

Nick,

Sorry so late getting back to you – been busy building your speakers. aa  I checked out LessLoss’ cable info.  Looks to me like they’re pretty right on.  Their shielding method seems a little funky though.  It seems to me that it may “give” when flexed more in some areas than others and that could cause some impedance “bumps” down the length of the cable.  I suppose if you treat it gently and don’t move it once its installed in the system, it would be OK. 

Nevertheless, I think they’re a little “over the top” about the shielding issue, as we all know that there are cables that don’t even use shields and are considered to be pretty darn good.  IMHO, basic engineering practices dictate that a good shield is a very good idea though.  I just think going to such extremes is a little excessive, especially if doing so runs the risk of degrading the “smoothness” of the transmission-line’s impedance (which is what a cable is).

As a little “adjunct” to what they’re saying, I would add the following:  They have their “priority list” that outlines factors governing cable performance in order of importance.  Seeing that they don’t offer speaker cables, it all makes sense to me.  But…if you were going to add them too you would need 2 separate lists, as the criteria for each are different – at least in my mind.

It’s all a matter of impedance.  With interconnects you’re typically looking at what we call relatively high impedances.  The output stages of most preamps have an output impedance of 100-Ohms or higher and they feed into power amp inputs of 10-Kohms or higher.  That being the case, the “carrier” of the signal is mostly a matter of voltage.  If you were to measure the actual currents that flow they would be extremely small.  This means that issues that effect voltage are the dominant causes for concern.  In that case, it looks as if the LessLoss guys have it right.

If we were talking speaker cables, that’s a considerably different set of criteria so that list would need revision.  Power amp output stages often exhibit an impedance of 0.1-Ohm or even less (high current sourcing models).  Speakers usually represent an impedance of 2-Ohms  - or higher (let’s hope so anyway).  Such a condition doesn’t really represent a “flip-flop” of the interconnect case above, as the voltages involved are scaled up a lot too.  But…current flow can be increased by 6 orders of magnitude or more.  This means we really need to take a look at how current flow affects things.

If we have significant current flowing in a conductor, significant magnetic fields are produced as a result.  Magnetic fields have a direct relationship with inductance, whereas electrostatic fields are more associated with capacitance and voltages.  In the case of interconnects we should be primarily concerned with the dielectric materials used in the cable, as dielectric constants affect capacitance, which affects voltage.  Not to dismiss the current issue altogether, rather, it simply moves down the priority list.  In that, the LessLoss list seems to be “right on.”

For speaker cables, which are forced to handle both high voltages (relatively speaking) AND high currents, capacitance vs. inductance tend to do a “flip-flop” in order of importance.  Not by a lot though as in all actuality, inductance issues would only lead capacitance issues (in importance) by a relatively small margin.  In my mind, this means cable geometry and conductor materials move up in rank due to the greater importance of resistance and inductance.  Conversely, capacitance and hence the dielectric materials used move down a bit, but they certainly should not be neglected or dismissed.

As an example of what I would consider a “poor” speaker cable design would be those types that treat each +/- conductor as a separate cable.  Such a design permits random spacing of the conductors relative to each other and hence, produces random levels of both inductance and capacitance that the combination exhibits. 

A “good” design would not permit this extreme level of “user adjustment” of the L/C values, which certainly won’t permit their optimization.  This is because the large amounts of insulation used (to cover each conductor) will not permit them to be placed close enough to one another to balance the L/C values (particularly the inductance), which is necessary to achieve the optimal “characteristic impedance.”  Such designs will obviously “work” and possibly still sound good – they just won’t achieve the maximum level of performance they otherwise would.

Well…there you go – another thesis.  I hope I didn’t confuse you or offend anyone by “dissing” his or her favorite cable design.  That was not my intention.  Please remember…this is just “my” opinion.  After all – what do I know?

-Bob

Hi Bob
Thanks for your perspective on this. Since I don't know much about the subject, I have no favorite cable products. It either sounds good or it doesn't or it's somewhere in between. Your comments about the differences in IC and speaker cable designs are right on. Have tried some products by the same company where either one or the other sounded good, but not both. Never knew this was such a complicated topic, although many would disagree.
That's good news indeed that you're working on my speakers . That means that Ken is soon to have his as well
Nick

[TONEPUB]

HI Bob:

Whenever you have time and if you are so interested, we'd love to give your cables
a listen and review...

I'm very intrigued by what you have to say and very dismayed about the folks
taking a shot at you.  This just seems to be the MONTH OF BIG NEGATIVITY
going around. (I've had my own fair share of potshots this month as well)

So, you are welcome at TONE should you ever be so inclined!

[Aether Audio]

Robert,

Sorry so late getting back to you.  Been busier than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Evidently older than dirt has caught up - you had never been at our place when we were on Ridge street.

Wow, if that's true - I guess so!   Uh...are you sure?  I remember a  setting where the system we were listening to was in an enclosed front porch.  Well, it was at least at the front of the house nearest the street.  It's not a big deal either way, other than the fact I fear I may really be loosing it. 

The reason being is that I'm pretty familiar with the area.  When I was born my folks brought me back from the hospital to the house at... 805 Ridge.  Then years later, my half brother bought the house from them.  Then years after that my other half brother on my dad's side bought it from the first one.  And...nowadays my nephew lives on the corner of McCollom (sp ?) and Ridge!  So, I guess you could sort of say I'm pretty familiar with that street.  If I'm mistaken then I really need to start taking some new pills - or quit taking the old ones.

But whatever.  Heck yeah!  Let's hook up.  As soon as I have a system ready I'll PM you.  I probably won't have my cables ready to compare though, as the first ones go internal to a pair of Revelations that are sitting here waiting for them.  Those speakers need to go to their owner as soon as they're done so I won't have time to build external ones too before they ship.  It will only be a matter of 2 or 3 weeks, so be expecting a PM.


TONEPUB,

Thanks for the vote and especially the kind offer!   As soon as I get the ol' production machine fired up and deliver the first orders, I'll get a pair out to you.  By the way, we're re-doing the SP Tech website and my designer asked me to give him a couple of examples of what I liked.  I gave him yours and another one that's similar.  Congrats!  I really like the look - especially the GEAR page.

Take care all!
-Bob

[John Casler]

Robert,

Sorry so late getting back to you.  Been busier than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Evidently older than dirt has caught up - you had never been at our place when we were on Ridge street.

Wow, if that's true - I guess so!   Uh...are you sure?  I remember a  setting where the system we were listening to was in an enclosed front porch.  Well, it was at least at the front of the house nearest the street.  It's not a big deal either way, other than the fact I fear I may really be loosing it. 

The reason being is that I'm pretty familiar with the area.  When I was born my folks brought me back from the hospital to the house at... 805 Ridge.  Then years later, my half brother bought the house from them.  Then years after that my other half brother on my dad's side bought it from the first one.  And...nowadays my nephew lives on the corner of McCollom (sp ?) and Ridge!  So, I guess you could sort of say I'm pretty familiar with that street.  If I'm mistaken then I really need to start taking some new pills - or quit taking the old ones.

Take care all!
-Bob

Hey Bob,

Hope all is well,  If you start "loosing your marbles", try Gingko Biloba every morning.  It'll put lead in your pencil and lose the eraser.

Kidding aside, it is generally thought to keep the old noggin doing its thing.

Better write it down so you don't forget it

Take Care

[OTL]

Anybody that thinks cables can make a difference in the quality of audio reproduction in the home is just too damn observant!

Will all you folks lighten up and just stop listening so intently?  What are you listening for anyways?  Could it be....music?

[bpape]

Ah but that's the whole point.  Eliminate the distractions so we can just sit back and enjoy the music. 

Bryan

[konut]

Great thread! Of course cables make a difference. But how much of a difference? I think the core of the problem is that in order to hear the differences a system (by system, I'm including every piece of electronics as well as the room)  must have a certain minimum threshold of resolution in order to evaluate the differences. It is obvious that the the SP Tech speaker products exceed this threshold easily. A lot of the proponents of 'cables are pretty much the same' philosophy do not own systems that meet the minimum resolution requirements. There are exceptions of course. Frank Van Alstine comes to mind, but, I digress. The other problem is that it takes a certain amount of experienced listening to discern differences. The analytical listener is different from the casual listener is different from the musical listener. Knowing what to listen for is not a inborn sense. It is a learned behavior. It takes practice listening to a variety of equipment in a variety of situations. We don't all have the same sense of hearing accuety either. So its not a big surprise that this topic is so divisive and frought with potholes along the aural highway. Another thing is that how MUCH of a difference will different cables make? Source components, generally, are a much greater determanent of SQ than cables. Cables are a, relatively, minor piece of the puzzle. But to those of us who are interested in the best SQ, still an important piece. Lastly, there are a lot of us who are hesitant to spend a unproportionally large amount of cash on cables relative to the rest of our systems. SP Tech products appeal to the upper end of the audiophile and pro audio community.  Will these new cables be in the same price class as the speaker products? When considering pricing for these cables please keep in mind that if the manufacturing of these cables does not preclude a high cost, that you'll sell a TON of them if they are within the grasp of the frugal audiophile. Bob, thanks for your quality products, well reasoned approach, and good natured presence here on the Circles.

[Daygloworange]

Konut,

Great post. 

I think the core of the problem is that in order to hear the differences a system (by system, I'm including every piece of electronics as well as the room)  must have a certain minimum threshold of resolution in order to evaluate the differences

I totally agree. After having gone through a half dozen or so speakers in the last 2 years, some resolve much better than others. Even though one pair might have a really good even frequency response, and sound really good by most standards, some speakers, just don't have the clarity, speed, low level resolution, and low distortion to resolve the minute differences that might exist in components. I would also add room acoustics and low noise floor as very important factors as well.

The other problem is that it takes a certain amount of experienced listening to discern differences. The analytical listener is different from the casual listener is different from the musical listener. Knowing what to listen for is not a inborn sense. It is a learned behavior. It takes practice listening to a variety of equipment in a variety of situations. We don't all have the same sense of hearing accuety either. So its not a big surprise that this topic is so divisive and frought with potholes along the aural highway.

Yup. Couldn't agree more. Sometimes you need a lot of exposure to find all the sonic indicators to be able to hear a difference. Overall, on the surface things might sound the same between two components, but it may take many hours of casual, and alternately intensely focused listening to be able to discern differences. I also suspect that the more components in the signal chain can throw a monkey wrench into the equation. Not sure, but, it might actually work in favor of hearing differences, due to impedance and so forth, or maybe a minimalist setup highlights it better. There is no doubt, our levels of perception will get better with more exposure to listening.

I've pointed out things to seasoned audiophiles that they never heard before. Buzzes, squeaks, rattles, thump's, that are embedded in recordings, only because in all my years of recording, that was something I had to listen for when recording, so that we could go back in a remove these anomalies, because when you're dealing with multitracking, all these things add up, and add to noisefloor. So it's hardwired in my brain to listen in that way. Not everybody does. But when you point it out to someone, they usually comment that they can't believe they had never noticed that before. Sometimes they are annoyed because now it stands out like a sore thumb everytime they listen from that time forward. 

Another thing is that how MUCH of a difference will different cables make? Source components, generally, are a much greater determanent of SQ than cables. Cables are a, relatively, minor piece of the puzzle. But to those of us who are interested in the best SQ, still an important piece. Lastly, there are a lot of us who are hesitant to spend a unproportionally large amount of cash on cables relative to the rest of our systems.

Having said all that, I haven't yet had a eureka moment with cables yet. I have by no means done exhaustive comparisons, and my system components have been changing too frequently. So for the moment the jury is still out for me. Honestly, I fear it might actually upset me if I start hearing easily noticeable differences in IC's, PC's, and SC's.  I have more than enough things in my life to agonize, and obsess over. 

Cheers

[konut]

DGO, thanks for expounding on EXACTLY what I meant. As to your last paragraph, I'm sure you've noticed that the more you find out, the more you realise that there is even more to find out. The curse of the perfectionist. We're doomed.

[Karsten]

The funny thing is that these SP Tech speakers (with a proper front end) makes it so easy the hear differences even in cables. It takes a few swapping back and forth and the signature of the cable is so obvious. Every unpartial listener has heard pretty much the same as I, and I do everything I can to avoid biasing during an evaluation.

Karsten

[Double Ugly]

The funny thing is that these SP Tech speakers (with a proper front end) makes it so easy the hear differences even in cables.

Yes, it is, which is both a blessing and a curse.   

-Jim

[jneutron]

This is an interesting article with relevance to the original post, make sure to check out the links on the second page.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/silversmith-audio-cables-interview

The hawksford links to the asylum really didn't provide much information.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

Of course GDS as he is known by, is a really smart and smooth talker, that support himself on the "correct" theory and math...

Gene does know a bit, but when a discussion gets heavily into theory, he has to bring in others.

I for one regard him as a good tech dude... with insight into what he has learned, and found to be measurable...

Agreed.  He does love that measurin stuff.

A very good promoter of the "science clan" you might say...A very very stubborn person...

Yes, and yes.  So much so that if you stick to your guns regarding a technical analysis which conflicts with his beliefs, he may end up banning you.  As I was threatened with in the biwire thread.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

He's supposed to be treating a waveguide in cylindrical geometry, yet he's using planar equations and assuming there's no variation of E&B transverse to the propagation direction. Thus, this paper only presents standard solutions to an EM wave propagating in a conductor of planar geometry (ie, not a waveguide/transmisison line), not what the author set out to show.

Yup.  Planar TEM, nuttin but.  And the discussion is heavily into the regime where the approximation equation is becoming unreliable for a cylindrical construct...curvature and all.

i found it a little unexpected that he treated the conductivity/permitivity as scalar constants. Maybe this is okay at audio frequencies (it's not cool in plasma physics, but the frequencies are much higher).

Yes, it's ok at audio frequencies.

He makes a comment towards the end that Bob paraphrased, "I wonder if current vortices can result, like whirlpools in a stream of water." This comment really makes me wonder about this guy/article. What he's discussing sounds like an eddy current to me. Eddy currents are the source of the skin effect he spends a good deal of the paper discussing.

He does not address eddys.  To him, everything is external trying to get in.  The 15 nH per foot internal inductance of a cylindrical conductor is ignored.  Not only that, but his final article uses a steel conductor (with a mu of 100), and yet he still ignores the internal.  At 1.5 uH per foot and a low Z measuring setup, I would not have ever expected a clean shutoff of a sine. 

To actually see eddy currents in the examination, he'd need to relax his problem to include variations in the r and theta direction (ie, actually do the problem he set out to do).

Or, he could read HoJo's high speed signal transmission book. I detailed the toroidal eddy currents internal to the conductor over at AH about a year before HoJo published his book, so his concurrence may or may not be independent  (caveat empty, give or take.. ..)

Alas, given 20 years, I do not expect Hawksford to revisit the problem. It's a no-win for him.

Cheers, John

[Zero]

Quick answer;  no

[Aether Audio]

Friends,

I would like to thank him and announce that I am honored to have Mr. "jneutron" contributing to our discussion.  I will not disclose his real name but rest assured, he is a very knowledgeable man and researcher in advance physics.  To have him here on our circle is quite a "feather in our cap" as far as I am concerned and his offerings are greatly appreciated.

In that, I consider any "correction" he offers to my thinking and/or any misunderstanding concerning the physics involved in cable design to be a true gift and blessing. 

As I hope you have all read from my previous posts, I have clearly claimed that I have no proof or even means to acquire any in support of my cable musings/pseudo-hypothesis.  For me, this whole exercise has been based in nothing more than my own imaginations and resulting visualizations of "possible" heretofore unknown cable physics.  Although, being more of a "science club" member than not, I am totally open to the possibility that such "possibilities"...aren't possible.  jneutron may just be than man to clear the matter up.

I must say though that I do  believe folks are hearing a real difference as I myself have, and am simply searching for a possible explanation.  Just be forewarned...such hypothesising on my part is rooted in my ignorance as much or even more so than any knowledge I may posses.

In closing I would like to add one thing.  It has come to my attention that my elaborating on this topic may have "scared off" a few that where previously interested in SP technology's loudspeaker products.  Please let me assure you, this cable "business" was as much about having fun as it was about anything serious.  Sure...on a certain level I take it seriously...seriously enough to try my hand at building some and selling them.  Serious enough to follow accepted methods and practices to make sure I don't violate the basic tenants of science, such that they should still perform very well.  And serious enough to let everyone know that I don't claim to be any "self proclaimed" expert.  I'm not attempting to sell "snake oil" here in any form or fashion whatsoever.

But...I'm a science nut.  Why?  Because I'm intrigued with nature and truth...and I love mysteries.  Like a child in awe of the stars in the sky, I would not want to live in a universe without mysteries.  On a certain level, my lifelong pursuit has been a quest of truth - all truth - science, religion...you name it.  So...at times I entertain my mind with the unknown.  Twisted as it may seem, pondering the unknown is entertainment for me.  In that I like to dream and imagine "what if."  It keeps me young - I think.

On the other hand, as far as SP Tech speakers are concerned...cables and mysteries "be damned."  You can bet your booty that everything I do there is "by the book."  Science and measurements are the guiding forces.  They always have been and always will be.  Why?  Well, mainly because loudspeakers typically "suck" so bad with regards to distortion and the rest that they're easy to measure.  Solutions to their problems may not come easily or cheaply and may require new thinking and serious ingenuity but...science clearly points the way with regards to their dominant issues.  Refinement thereof may come by listening and the resultant selection of superior crossover components and wire, but those things won't make a bad design good.  As the old saying goes..."You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."  So rest assured...Bob doesn't base SP Tech designs on his "flights of fantasy."  That would be a waste of valuable time and doomed to failure.

Just thought you needed to know.

-Bob

[Big Red Machine]

Bob, I am interested in trying a pair of the new IC's.  Let me know when they are available please.  Thanks for the information.

Pete

[Aether Audio]

Pete,

Do you mean Line-Level Interconnects or speaker cables?  I'm doing the speaker cables first.  I'll let you know when the materials get here (speaker cables only this go around), so if that's what you're interested in I'll be sure to build a pair for you too.

Thanks man! and...

Take care,
-Bob

[AJinFLA]

Thanks John. Wasn't sure if you caught my post before it got zapped by the Ministry of Information .
Detective too eh?
You da man.

cheers,

AJ

[Big Red Machine]

I wanted IC's not speaker cables.  After I reread your info I saw the words speaker Cable's.  I thought when I saw meter lengths it meant IC's.