[Aether Audio]

Guys,

Well... looks like Karsten has been busy with his new DAC.   Not to steal his thunder, but I've finally figured the "cable thing" out too.  Sorry... much to our mutual disappointment... I can't find any "alternative physics" at work in the whole process.  Not to say there isn't any  ... but I like to stick with what is "known" first.  Believe it or not, that can be WAY more complex than you might ever imagine to begin with.  Once you "dig in" like I have, you can see that there's enough complexity involved in the "standard physics' model to keep a guy plenty busy.

So... a few dozen SPICE models, a few cable prototypes and a lot of listening later... and we have my Zero Resonance Speaker Cables.  The "White Paper" is posted below.

Now... I'm busy building speakers right now so I don't have much time for answering questions.  Feel free to ask but expect to wait a while for my responses.  Our patiently waiting customers may not be patient much longer if I go off in countless dissertations.  Oh... before you ask... pricing is still being worked out.  I can say one thing though... the things are a PITA to make, so they're not gonna be cheap.  In that, I don't expect a lot of guys on the circle to be interested in them, but... one or two might be, so I figured I might as well make mention of them.  They aren't available just yet (no time right now to build them) but if anybody is interested, money talks and consequently "time" has a way of materializing out of thin air (or  a few sleepless nights ).

-Bob

[Aether Audio]

Zero Resonance Cables

-The White Paper-

INTRODUCTION:

The Zero Resonance loudspeaker cables where developed as a result of our inquiry into the dynamic nature of and mystery surrounding the many claimed reports of perceived sonic differences exhibited by various brands and types of speaker cables available in the high-end audio marketplace.  Orthodox engineering principles suggest that, assuming the wire gauge of a given cable for use with a given speaker is sufficient in size such that no significant power losses are incurred within the cable, there should be essentially no difference in the sound of one cable with respect to another  - all other variables being equal.  To this day the bulk of the engineering community has adopted this view and therefore, has been reluctant to seriously investigate the matter.

At the same time, we find a preponderance of anecdotal claims to the contrary.  It is the author’s view that dismissing such claims “out of hand” without due diligence expended in a thorough scientific investigation of the issues… would be an extremely vain and arrogant position to take.  It was our belief that statistically, it is just as unlikely that all such observations are the result of observer imagination, as it is that orthodox science has given sufficient scrutiny to the matter to begin with.  Besides, much to our initial chagrin, we have heard significant differences ourselves.  Consequently, we have sought to unravel the mystery and find ways of improving system performance through superior technological speaker cable solutions.

At the onset of our inquiry, we must state the author of this paper does not accept the possibility of “mystical” properties at work as we believe all physical observations to be causal in nature and therefore, subject to scientific scrutiny and analysis.  We also consider the principles of Occam’s Razor in our analysis, such that any so called “alternative physics” is unlikely to be the root cause of such observations.  Having taken this position, we have decided to undertake a course of analysis that requires a comprehensive view of the entire amplifier/speaker cable/ loudspeaker system.  In our view, such a system approach was and is the only course likely to yield potential for success and hence, has become the guiding light in our research and development of the Zero Resonance loudspeaker cables.


DEVELOPMENT:

Seeing that all conventional electrical parameters governing loudspeaker cables manifest themselves as relatively small resistive and reactive terms - in comparison to either that of the driving amplifier or the loudspeaker load, we have concluded and since proven (at least to ourselves) that the resulting differences in cables experienced by listeners are a result of the interaction of all three major variables.  This is in stark contrast to the common belief that an individual cable has a certain characteristic “sound” of its own.  Conversely, such observations are more likely to be the result of system “synergy” and how a given cable will interact with the amplifier/loudspeaker combination.  This is why we find that heretofore there has been little scientific information available to assist a potential customer in his speaker cable purchasing decisions.  To be sure, the situation is quite complex in nature and lends itself to a “hit or miss” approach.  One cable design may work well in one system and seem to perform poorly in another.  There seems to be no “method to the madness” whatsoever, so the consumer finds himself on an endless journey of experimentation to find a cable that brings out the best performance within the context of his system.  As complex as the problem may seem, we believe there must be a better way.

Upon examination, we find within the market that certain brands and types of cables are repeatedly perceived as being “superior” to others and therefore more “successful” in their quest for market share.  Upon further scrutiny we also find that this is often the case even when top performers are compared with respect to their differing geometries.  This would indicate that in fact, there is “more than one way to skin a cat” – so to speak.  In that, it seems reasonable to assume that a handful of manufacturers have “stumbled” upon a construction method that performs well in a variety of systems.  From our perspective we would interpret that to mean that a given cable formulation exhibits a certain combination of resistive and reactive terms that tend to work well with a higher percentage of system combinations… than those of the inferior competition.  This also means that if we can find out what the values for these “optimal” terms are, it may then be possible to reproduce the effect in a variety of construction formulas and geometries.  In the end, one type of construction should rise to the forefront as representing the most “optimal” solution.

Given the above, an even deeper analysis can be made.  Knowing these variables we can then create complete system models to study the complex component interactions, with the hope of adjusting key variables to further optimize results.  Such a model would include certain amplifier parameters, as many cable parameters as possible and as many loudspeaker parameters as can be known.  The author has undertaken this method of analysis and has since discovered a primary source of distortion that arises within virtually every playback system.  These distortion components tend to manifest themselves as small “resonances” as well as other types of errors within the system.  If a means to reduce or eliminate these distortion products is not provided within the system, then the loudspeaker will simply reproduce these undesirable artifacts.

In our analysis we have found that if certain variables are adjusted and optimized within the construction of the loudspeaker cable, these distortion artifacts can be significantly reduced, if not altogether eliminated.  Our observations have not only included the effect upon the loudspeaker, but also that of the driving amplifier.  It is a well-known engineering fact that if caution is not observed in the design of a cable, an excess of electrical reactivity can be presented to the amplifier.  Under extreme conditions, such a design can actually damage or destroy the amplifier.  Even in the event that a poor cable design does not actually cause any damage, it can still present and unstable condition within the amplifier that results in inferior sound.  The Zero Resonance cables have been constructed to exhibit a stable amplifier load all the way out to 100MHz – well beyond the operational limits of any audio amplifier.

As a result of our research we have found a combination of materials and geometries that yield both a stable load to the driving amplifier as well as a mechanism for reducing the heretofore-mentioned distortion products.  As a final consideration we have designed the cables to be “active,” in that a constant voltage source is applied across the cable dielectric materials.  This method is commonly known to reduce dielectric hysteresis and shorten cable break-in time for the end user. 

We have chosen two forms of metallurgy for the construction of these cables in order to provide solutions that will appeal to the broadest possible range of consumers.  Only the finest Mundorf OFC Copper or Silver-Gold Foil alloys are used in the Zero Resonance cables as well as dielectric materials exhibiting the lowest possible Dielectric Constants.  Additionally, the Zero Resonance speaker cables are made available in three separate forms, each optimized for use with a correspondingly appropriate amplifier.  The options are:  Solid-State/Low Output Impedance, Push-Pull Tube/Moderate Output Impedance, and SET/High Output Impedance.  As a final added feature, cable lifters made from fine American Hardwoods are included with each cable set as well. 

It is inevitable the audiophile market will continue to see loudspeaker cables being offered at staggering prices, but it is unlikely that it will find any product that offers more engineering, better materials or superior performance than that offered by the Zero Resonance loudspeaker cables.


Robert A. Smith
04/09/08

[seadogs1]

And the price for the various models would be??????????

Thanks!

[Aether Audio]

seadogs1,

No pricing worked out yet.  The copper version will be somewhere in the $1k/3 meter pair vicinity and the Silver/Gold nearer $2K/3 meter pair.  As I said, I don't expect to sell many here.  

Oh well.  They're so hard to make and the materials now so expensive (especially the S-G...anybody checked the price of metals lately?) and now... thanks to the evil oligarch bastards that run the banking industry, the Federal Reserve (make it go away!), the Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commision and the rest of the One World conspirators that are trying to bring about a collapse of the dollar so they can impliment their New World Order/cashless economic system/mark of the Beast  ...the exchange rate between the dollar and the Euro (Mundorf is in Germany, ya know?) is so bad that now that this Mundorf stuff has become so rediculously expensive, that I just can't make them for less!!!  Sorry.  For the price... and the rant.   Just ask me... I'll tell ya what I really think.

Now that I think about it, at the prices I'm suggesting they're actually a great deal... just like the price for a gallon of gas these days!

-Bob

PS.  Regardless of "type" (SS, push-pull or SET) the price will be the same, depending on the metals used.

[konut]

What if I only need a 1M pair? And no lifters?

[gerald porzio]

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/debunking-the-myth-of-speaker-cable-resonance

Perhaps a bat might hear cable resonances because they're so far out of the audible spectrum.

[JDUBS]

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/debunking-the-myth-of-speaker-cable-resonance

Perhaps a bat might hear cable resonances because they're so far out of the audible spectrum.

Geraldo, thanks for the link!!  We've never heard this viewpoint before, so much appreciated.   

-Jim

[Aether Audio]

Dear Mr. Porzio,

Yes...as JDUBS has stated...thanks for the link.  I wasn't aware of that one but now that I am, I encourage everyone to read it.  To be sure... we should all be wary of "snake oil."  Obviously you haven't been around the 'ol SP Tech circle much or you would know that Bob doesn't "go in" for such foolishness.    Science is our friend.

As duly noted in the article you posted, resonances in the ultrasonic region are clearly inaudible.  Although, certain (not necessarily ALL) amplifiers using negative feedback may not care for them.  The result of *THAT* can be clearly audible as amplifiers in a "state of confusion" usually create a few errors along with the ones they're trying to correct for - when forced to deal with such.  That's why we need cables that present a stable load to the amplifier - as I clearly stated.

As far as resonances (AND other "errors") in the audible band goes... could you please direct me as to where I made any claims that the *CABLES* and or cable/amplifier combination ALONE were resonating in the audible band?  Standing waves down the length of a typical speaker cable run require transmission-line analysis and in that, we find that any such artifacts reside well outside of the audible band.  If we were talking runs of Ethernet cable - then maybe.  Otherwise... please make note of my clearly stated claim regarding the complete amplifier/cable/speaker system.  Thank you.

I will say no more as I have no intention of educating the competition.  Needless to say, a little "SPICE" goes a long way in most applications.  Learning to use it correctly is what separates the real "cooks" from the "wannabes."

-Bob

[sts9fan]

Did you test this new topology with more modest wire?  I would think you could get most of the way there with a good belden.  Then offer a very attractive product.

[reflex]

Changes in the audio signal, distortions, even if beyond our ability to hear discretely, have an effect on what we do hear.  Take the original cd's that were released as a good example.  They sounded pretty bad, and the problem was not within the typical 20-20k hearing range of the average human.  It was well beyond that range that they became very non-linear.  So a brickwall filter was developed to limit the frequency range and improve sound quality.

If all that is addressed in audio equipment/cable design were the audible frequencies we, as humans, can hear, then alot will be missed in improving the performance and realism of our playback systems.

[Aether Audio]

reflex,

Thanks!    This is true.  But... the spectrum my cable design addresses IS in the audible band as well as the next couple of octaves beyond.  Well, as I also stated, they represent a stable load well into the MHz region as well.  Problems there reflect back to unstable feeback loops that then create errors in the audible band.  That's a bit of a different subject though.  ANY decent design should never present an instability issue in the ultrasonic region.

konut,

Sorry my friend... I didn't mean to forget you.   Let's talk about it at some point.  I haven't done a design that short yet, so that would mean going back to the models and coming up with what is essentially a new design.  No ... you can't just cut the cable shorter and call it "good."  I'd tell you why but then I'd be telling too much.  Let's put it this way: EVERY cable is designed such that the variables are adjusted for every different length.  This is not a trivial process either so that's why I'm not offering cables at every possible increment.  I'd go insane!  Ooops... too late.

sts9fan,

Well...my passion isn't to sell as many cables as I can at such a price that I'm forced to in order to make a buck.  Were I to do that I might end up with a moderately thriving cable business that eats up all my time and that I'm enslaved to just to survive.  HELP!!!...somebody get me my pills!  I'm shaking from the flashbacks of already having accomplished that with speakers!!!

-Bob

[konut]

konut,

Sorry my friend... I didn't mean to forget you.   Let's talk about it at some point.  I haven't done a design that short yet, so that would mean going back to the models and coming up with what is essentially a new design.  No ... you can't just cut the cable shorter and call it "good."  I'd tell you why but then I'd be telling too much.  Let's put it this way: EVERY cable is designed such that the variables are adjusted for every different length.  This is not a trivial process either so that's why I'm not offering cables at every possible increment.  I'd go insane!  Ooops... too late.

 -Bob

I had a feeling the answer would be along those lines. Even though my knowledge of electrical engineering is rudimentary at best, I've heard my ham radio operator bother, of 40 years, talk about antenna theory enough to know its not as simple as it might appear to the uniniciated. No worries. I'll wait until you're not busy for my pair.

[gerald porzio]

Heavens forbid that science triumph over spice (???????????????) when sales are involved. All you can furnish is an INDEFINITE MAYBE.

[satfrat]

Heavens forbid that science triumph over spice (???????????????) when sales are involved. All you can furnish is an INDEFINITE MAYBE.

From what I've seen from your 8 posts Gerald,, there's no doubt in my mind what you are furnishing here at AudioCircle. I can see many more of your posts heading to the Wastebin if you continue with your negativity oriented rants. 

[Double Ugly]

Mr. Porzio-

I have no idea what your most recent post is meant to convey, but if you care to post your thoughts on cables, science, spice or bats, I suggest you try -

• Audio Central for audio-related discussions which don't fit elsewhere,
• The Lab for discussions of a technical nature, and
• The Sports Bar for conversation unrelated to audio.

Additionally, assuming you decide to stick around, you will find Posting Guidelines and Guide to the rules invaluable to the continued health of your posting privileges.

However, if your primary interest is to antagonize, bait and irritate - as you posts to this point suggest - I strongly recommend you consider frequenting another website.

Thanks for your consideration, and welcome to Audio Circle.

Double Ugly
Facilitator/Audio Central

PS - Bob, I apologize if I've stepped on your facilitating toes.  This post is meant to address site-specific issues vs. those pertaining only to your circle.

[Aether Audio]

DU & satfrat,

Thanks my friends!   In all actuality... you are both quite correct and I can see the bigger picture regarding AC in general and why you felt the need to lay this guy out.  BUT  ... you know me well enough by now,  I never want to limit free speech unless profanity or directly defamatory and/or degrading comments are posted.

In fact, most of you know my position with regards to matters of faith.  Of course, AC isn't really the place to open that can of worms (at least not again ), but were it not for that and I had the time, I'd invite all satanists, pagans, hedonists, atheists, materialists, as well as those of every "standard" religion to enter into debate with me.  You know I love a good argument.

I figure that the Truth is it's own defense and will ultimately win out in any such debate - assuming that the concept of "winning" such a thing is actually possible.  Whether or not it is, the one thing you can be sure of is that those possesing the greatest levels of ignorance will be the first to expose themselves.

Take Mr. porzio here as a perfect example.  The guy comes out of nowhere and therefore doesn't even know who he's dealing with... that's at least 50% of any debate - KNOWING your opponent.  You know the old saying... "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

  Then... he doesn't actually READ half of what I originally wrote in the White Paper, then doesn't understand half of what he did read.  Therefore a minimum of 87.5% of any logic base he has to work with and try to contend against is already thrown out the window before he starts.   

Now...this all takes place in his head before he ever writes a word.  Then... armed with a "little" knowledge (again... a dangerous thing), he presupposes that his "enemy" (me - and for lack of a better word) is ignorant of his little "golden nugget" (the info contained in the Audioholics link).  Therein is the proof that he doesn't know me and therefore evidence of his first act of folly.

Then in the last post he puts the final bullet in his own head by proving his total ignorance of the subject he foolishly chooses to debate.  This he does when referencing my SPICE comment.  Mr porzio... for your information SPICE means Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis.  Flew right over your head - didn't it?  Now don't you feel silly?  

If you actually KNEW anything about electronics, you'd already know that.  But no... that would be too much work and not nearly as much fun as employing your little "hit and run" tactics - trying to pull peoples' chain and get them worked up... just so you can stand back to watch them "sit and spin."  You screwed up this time though.  You stuck your head in where angels (well, demons anyway) fear to tread - and it turned out to be a guillotine!

Ya know... I'd go easier on you if it was just a matter of ignorance.  We're all ignorant to an infinite degree about many things.  But the cynicism that pours out of you that's rooted in little more than your own vain arrogance... I have little patience for.  I'd invite you back for further debate, except that I don't have the time and our friends here don't need to waste their time on it either.  That being said... your not welcome back.  Go be your miserable self somewhere else.

-Bob

[gerald porzio]

If the shoe fits wear it!

[jneutron]

Gents,

Methinks a bit of a slowdown is in order.  (Yes, Porzio needs work on his presentation)...

First porzio post:

""Perhaps a bat might hear cable resonances because they're so far out of the audible spectrum.""

Indeed, this is an accurate statement.  The topic is in regard to the electrical resonances which are above those of human hearing..

That said, Porzio neglected the fact that the amplifier system is extremely fast with respect to human hearing, and possibilities of a fast amplifier responding to it's load in a poor way do exist, and have blown amps or tweeters or crossovers. (or all three)

What he also missed (most likely because he doesn't know) is that localization parametrics are in the 2 to 5 uSec and sub .5 dB range, a key concept with high end audio reproduction..


Second porzio post:
""Heavens forbid that science triumph over spice (???????????????) when sales are involved. All you can furnish is an INDEFINITE MAYBE.""

A far more convoluted statement.  It seems to be leaning towards the "white paper" as science vs spice..so it would appear to be an attack on the white paper as pseudo-science.  Perhaps Porzio can enlighten us as to his primary intent??

Bob, in reading your white paper, I must admit that it does give the impression of a lot of balderdash.  If I were predisposed to judge it from the perspective of "all cables sound alike", I too would consider it pseudo-scientific rubbish mixed in with a modicum of facts....

HOWEVER....and that is a big however....I am well aware that you were working with an excel spreadsheet which had within it equations relating the inductance, capacitance, dielectric constant, Transmission line impedance, and the geometric boundary conditions...so I already know that you have been using ROCK SOLID derivations of maxwell's equations..

So I am aware you have been using an excellent tool to provide you the basis of your cable designs, as well as conceptuals with regard to what you want the cable to do electrically.

The solid physics and engineering basis upon which you are designing your cables is not evident in your white paper...so I believe you will get more of the responses typical of porzio. (edit, misspelled his name..sorry)

Good luck with the wires as well as the speakers.

Cheers, John

[Aether Audio]

John,

Welcome!    I figured it wouldn't be long before I heard from you.

As far as your comment goes:

Bob, in reading your white paper, I must admit that it does give the impression of a lot of balderdash.  If I were predisposed to judge it from the perspective of "all cables sound alike", I too would consider it pseudo-scientific rubbish mixed in with a modicum of facts....

Could you elaborate on the "balderdash" & "pseudo-scientific rubbish" parts of your statement?  I admit that the paper is certainly "vague" in various aspects, but there's a darn good reason for that.  Nevertheless, I tried being real careful not to say anything that could be shown as a basis of "pseudo-science," "alternative physics" or the like.  Basically, I just conveniently left the part out about "how" they work. 

My reason for being vague is first, any engineer even a tenth as smart as you are could figure out how my cables work if I got into any serious detail.  After all, I sure ain't no "jneutron" !!!   If that happens then, well... let's put it this way.  I can't see any good reason to educate the competition.

Second, if I do so I believe I run a greater chance of increasing said competition than increasing any resulting sales.  Guys that want science first and foremost don't typically spend much on wires in the first place.  Even if they did, virtually everybody judges by their ears anyway, so about the only thing I might accomplish is to win a debate.  I learned a long time ago that you can win a battle but by doing so, still end up loosing the war.  "Iraq" comes to mind as a most recent example.

So... I guess I've laid a trap for the science crowd as once they begin to scrutinize, I end up leaving them hanging.  Oh well, that's the way it has to be for now.  Even if I end up getting a patent, it isn't worth the paper it's written on if you don't have the funds to defend it.  Hey... that's me.

That means you hard-core "science" guys... you might want to skip this thread, cause I ain't tell'n.  Sorry.    That's the way it is.  You probably wouldn't buy them even if I could prove they were made from room temperature super-conductors anyway.  Well... maybe you would John.

And finally, thanks for your support.  Believe me. that spreadsheet has been my right arm along with SPICE.  Were it not for you, I may have just said "screw it."

Take care my friend!!!
-Bob

[sts9fan]

What is the definition of a "white paper'"?  I think you would be better off doing something else during the time it took to write because it does not say anything except you used $$$$$ wire.  I work in the biotech business and we hold onto our secrets very strongly.  Even with that being the case we constantly present at conferences with competitors in the audiences.  Why not mask the data somehow?  CableA, CableB and CableC then show measurments.  Why not show measurements of the "bad" wire just to show what you are "fixing"?  Blinding data is not that hard.