Speaker Wire Noob Thinking About Silver

[pcosmic]

Dear Audioholics-
Historically, i have never spent any money on cables. I am a real skinflint when it comes to cables. The only speaker wire i have cost me 40 bucks for 100ft of copper and it has served me very well.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MQVETL7/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

But, lately, i am a bit curious about silver. I do know that silver is a better conductor than copper (sounds good). But, i hear that silver wire can sound bright??!! Is this true in your experience?? Can a blind test + polygraph prove this? My dac/amp in one of my setups has no tone controls unfortunately and i could use a tad bit more brightness in some of my goofyass (audophile disapproved) recordings. Amp manufacturers who drop the tone controls should have their ornery asses whipped, but, that's a topic for a different thread.

Most importantly, i want to try something different, a.k.a bring more bling into my life. Hence, i was thinking about getting some silver wire, dropping it inside some transparent PVC tubing and make it look nice and blingy for Christmas.

Can silver wire actually make my sound brighter? Thanks in advance.

 

[Movie2099]

Dear Audioholics-
Historically, i have never spent any money on cables. I am a real skinflint when it comes to cables. The only speaker wire i have cost me 40 bucks for 100ft of copper and it has served me very well.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MQVETL7/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

But, lately, i am a bit curious about silver. I do know that silver is a better conductor than copper (sounds good). But, i hear that silver wire can sound bright??!! Is this true in your experience?? Can a blind test + polygraph prove this? My dac/amp in one of my setups has no tone controls unfortunately and i could use a tad bit more brightness in some of my goofyass (audophile disapproved) recordings. Amp manufacturers who drop the tone controls should have their ornery asses whipped, but, that's a topic for a different thread.

Most importantly, i want to try something different, a.k.a bring more bling into my life. Hence, i was thinking about getting some silver wire, dropping it inside some transparent PVC tubing and make it look nice and blingy for Christmas.

Can silver wire actually make my sound brighter? Thanks in advance.

Go to your local Best Buy and replace and purchase everything AudioQuest. You won't regret it! The sound difference is truly astonishing. Don't worry about the final price, it will be well worth it!

 

[slipperybidness]

Dear Audioholics-
Historically, i have never spent any money on cables. I am a real skinflint when it comes to cables. The only speaker wire i have cost me 40 bucks for 100ft of copper and it has served me very well.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MQVETL7/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

But, lately, i am a bit curious about silver. I do know that silver is a better conductor than copper (sounds good). But, i hear that silver wire can sound bright??!! Is this true in your experience?? Can a blind test + polygraph prove this? My dac/amp in one of my setups has no tone controls unfortunately and i could use a tad bit more brightness in some of my goofyass (audophile disapproved) recordings. Amp manufacturers who drop the tone controls should have their ornery asses whipped, but, that's a topic for a different thread.

Most importantly, i want to try something different, a.k.a bring more bling into my life. Hence, i was thinking about getting some silver wire, dropping it inside some transparent PVC tubing and make it look nice and blingy for Christmas.

Can silver wire actually make my sound brighter? Thanks in advance.

View attachment 42289

I hope you catch the sarcasm on post #2, that was tongue-in-cheek advice!

Silver won't change anything on the audio (despite what you may read on some audiophool websites).

Now, if you are looking for bling and audio jewelry, don't let me stop you from that! When I re-did my cables, I went with 12AWG OFC, a slick diamondback snake skin flex wrap, cable pants, and nice banana plugs. It looks great! Mostly, I decided that for this setup, for now, I would just make the cables look very nice, rather than trying to hide them.

It is also very amusing to me, to hear someone talk about silver cables and rant about no tone controls in the same post! Silver cables = audiophile Koolaid, tone controls = audiophile heresy!

 

[slipperybidness]

@pcosmic
all you really need to know about speaker wire has been well documented here

Speaker Wire

 

[pcosmic]

@pcosmic

It is also very amusing to me, to hear someone talk about silver cables and rant about no tone controls in the same post! Silver cables = audiophile Koolaid, tone controls = audiophile heresy!


all you really need to know about speaker wire has been well documented here

Speaker Wire

Thanks for the concise read. I am a "EXTREMELY SCIENTIFIC" guy actually! I am uuge on tone controls n all. But, there are some things science can't quite comprehend ya know? For instance, i was on trekking in the Himalayan mountains on the Nepal/Chinese border a coupla decades ago. I ended up chilling with some barely clad Buddhist/Hindu monks hanging out in sub freezing temperatures up there. I would have died in 20 mins if i was clad like those lads, but, they were rocking butt naked. My science couldn't explain that, for instance.

Anyways, i just wondered for a minute if there was an element of truth to silver cables sounding brighter (since many dudes seem to swear that it is true). No kool-aid has been drunk on my end, just wondered about it for a sec.

 

[slipperybidness]

Thanks for the concise read. I am a "EXTREMELY SCIENTIFIC" guy actually! I am uuge on tone controls n all. But, there are some things science can't quite comprehend ya know? For instance, i was on trekking in the Himalayan mountains on the Nepal/Chinese border a coupla decades ago. I ended up chilling with some barely clad Buddhist/Hindu monks hanging out in sub freezing temperatures up there. I would have died in 20 mins if i was clad like those lads, but, they were rocking butt naked. My science couldn't explain that, for instance.

Anyways, i just wondered for a minute if there was an element of truth to silver cables sounding brighter (since many dudes seem to swear that it is true). No kool-aid has been drunk on my end, just wondered about it for a sec.

How about a thought experiment.

Bright = more treble

So for a wire to give you more treble, it would mean that the frequency response of the wire must have an elevated response on the high end treble, OR it must be attenuating all of the frequencies on the low end. Right?

Therefore, this would be a phenomena that would easily be measured with electronics gear which is orders of magnitude more sensitive than your ears. Show me the measurements.

At least for the audio band frequencies, the wire should not be altering the frequency response! If it does, then something must be defective.

How about equipment like electronics lab or chemistry lab instrumentation? Physics research? Medical equipment? Do these critical applications use fancy wires? Nope, because there is absolutely no benefit.

 

[mazersteven]

Teflon

Exotic Materials and Audio Cable Construction

Exotic audio cables often use fancy materials such as silver wire or teflon dielectrics. But do these materials really translate to a performance difference? Read the article and watch our Youtube.

www.audioholics.com

 

[Speedskater]

a Silver wire is a few percent more conductive than a copper wire, if and only if:
both wires are exactly the same length and have exactly the same cross-section area.
So a 9 foot long copper wire will be more conductive than a 10 foot long silver wire (all else being equal).
* * * * * * * * * * * *
on the same note: an 11AWG aluminum wire will be more conductive than a 14AWG copper wire.

 

[pcosmic]

How about a thought experiment.

Bright = more treble

So for a wire to give you more treble, it would mean that the frequency response of the wire must have an elevated response on the high end treble, OR it must be attenuating all of the frequencies on the low end. Right?

Therefore, this would be a phenomena that would easily be measured with electronics gear which is orders of magnitude more sensitive than your ears. Show me the measurements.

At least for the audio band frequencies, the wire should not be altering the frequency response! If it does, then something must be defective.

How about equipment like electronics lab or chemistry lab instrumentation? Physics research? Medical equipment? Do these critical applications use fancy wires? Nope, because there is absolutely no benefit.

Ok, i know what the run of the mill measurements are for a DAC, amp, etc and i understand it. But, since we are talking about measurements, i may have a couple of questions.

- My former house had lots of glass paneling in the room i was in. It sounded lousy/"glassy". I covered them all up with wood panels and it sounded a whole lot better. Measurements at my listening position were identical with the exposed glass vs glass covered with wood paneling. But, the sound changed. If you know any better, would you be able to show me a graph and point me to what measured variable it is that caused this change?

- I have a couple of R2R DACs that don't measure as well (if you look at the regular run of the mill measurements for a DAC) in comparison to some DS DACs i've had. But, this R2R DAC has a unbelievably precise and deep soundstage (oh yes, that illusive thing). Can you point me to a graph and a measured variable that shows why that soundstage is the way it is and why it can feel more precise and deep with usage of a certain DAC in a A/B test.

- I have some speakers with concentric drivers that sound very holographic. It literally feels like i can reach out and grab somebody (kinda like VR for the ears, as weird as this sounds). What is a measurement, graph, variable etc that can point to this?

These are legitimate things in my experience i am curious about. Can everything that is perceived by the human ear be measured and represented graphically/numerically? I think not. But, i stand corrected if it can be.

 

[lovinthehd]

How could a dac affect soundstage?

ps You might find this thread interesting in that regard, as amps are often credited also with affecting soundstage https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-measure-amplifier-sound-stage-capability.17669/

 

[Kvn_Walker]

Ok, i know what the run of the mill measurements are for a DAC, amp, etc and i understand it. But, since we are talking about measurements, i may have a couple of questions.

- My former house had lots of glass paneling in the room i was in. It sounded lousy/"glassy". I covered them all up with wood panels and it sounded a whole lot better. Measurements at my listening position were identical with the exposed glass vs glass covered with wood paneling. But, the sound changed. If you know any better, would you be able to show me a graph and point me to what measured variable it is that caused this change?

- I have a couple of R2R DACs that don't measure as well (if you look at the regular run of the mill measurements for a DAC) in comparison to some DS DACs i've had. But, this R2R DAC has a unbelievably precise and deep soundstage (oh yes, that illusive thing). Can you point me to a graph and a measured variable that shows why that soundstage is the way it is and why it can feel more precise and deep with usage of a certain DAC in a A/B test.

- I have some speakers with concentric drivers that sound very holographic. It literally feels like i can reach out and grab somebody (kinda like VR for the ears, as weird as this sounds). What is a measurement, graph, variable etc that can point to this?

These are legitimate things in my experience i am curious about. Can everything that is perceived by the human ear be measured and represented graphically/numerically? I think not. But, i stand corrected if it can be.

Most layman’s measurements are only looking at amplitude vs frequency. Pink/brown/white noise are static phenomena. Sweeps are good for a characteristic but not necessarily a “sound.” There are many other factors that would explain why two identical frequency graphs would correlate to different sounds.

With your windows, the wood panels changed the reflective properties of your room. You also could more than likely hear the vibration of the glass itself at your listening position. That might be much lower than the music, but it can color the sound while not necessarily making a notable change on the spectrum.

R2R DAC’s fall into a similar characteristic as tube amps: “pleasant distortion.” Audiophiles prefer positive terms like “warm” and “liquid” because “distortion” is a bad word, even though it’s the harmonic distortion they hear that gives the sound texture they prefer. I don’t have a problem with that. Almost everybody on this board EQ’s their sound in some fashion, even if they start out with flat speakers, flat sources, and flat amplifiers. It’s all about enjoying what is going into your ears. As far as the soundstage, the analog implementation of a DAC can vary wildly from one to the next. Left/Right level matching, channel separation, delay... all of those variables can indeed affect the soundstage considerably.

Phase and time alignment are also something you’re not likely to see on a spectrum either. Very few passive speakers are designed for time alignment (typically a recessed tweeter in relation to the midrange on the front baffle), and almost none outside of the higher-end stuff. A properly designed concentric driver would have time aligned output, and should give you a more accurate presentation than a speaker with a flat front baffle. But at the same time, those two speakers could still measure nearly identical, because the spectrum is, again, just amplitude vs frequency. When you get to see speaker measurements done with the Klippel, they go so far above and beyond the typical 2 dimensional chart provided by manufacturers.

 

[lovinthehd]

[Q

Most layman’s measurements are only looking at amplitude vs frequency. Pink/brown/white noise are static phenomena. Sweeps are good for a characteristic but not necessarily a “sound.” There are many other factors that would explain why two identical frequency graphs would correlate to different sounds.

With your windows, the wood panels changed the reflective properties of your room. You also could more than likely hear the vibration of the glass itself at your listening position. That might be much lower than the music, but it can color the sound while not necessarily making a notable change on the spectrum.

R2R DAC’s fall into a similar characteristic as tube amps: “pleasant distortion.” Audiophiles prefer positive terms like “warm” and “liquid” because “distortion” is a bad word, even though it’s the harmonic distortion they hear that gives the sound texture they prefer. I don’t have a problem with that. Almost everybody on this board EQ’s their sound in some fashion, even if they start out with flat speakers, flat sources, and flat amplifiers. It’s all about enjoying what is going into your ears. As far as the soundstage, the analog implementation of a DAC can vary wildly from one to the next. Left/Right level matching, channel separation, delay... all of those variables can indeed affect the soundstage considerably.

Phase and time alignment are also something you’re not likely to see on a spectrum either. Very few passive speakers are designed for time alignment (typically a recessed tweeter in relation to the midrange on the front baffle), and almost none outside of the higher-end stuff. A properly designed concentric driver would have time aligned output, and should give you a more accurate presentation than a speaker with a flat front baffle. But at the same time, those two speakers could still measure nearly identical, because the spectrum is, again, just amplitude vs frequency. When you get to see speaker measurements done with the Klippel, they go so far above and beyond the typical 2 dimensional chart provided by manufacturers.

The Denafrips dac he has does measure well, tho, doesn't it or is that just one particular dac of theirs doing well on audiosciencrewview's results list?

 

[Beave]

Ok, i know what the run of the mill measurements are for a DAC, amp, etc and i understand it. But, since we are talking about measurements, i may have a couple of questions.

- My former house had lots of glass paneling in the room i was in. It sounded lousy/"glassy". I covered them all up with wood panels and it sounded a whole lot better. Measurements at my listening position were identical with the exposed glass vs glass covered with wood paneling. But, the sound changed. If you know any better, would you be able to show me a graph and point me to what measured variable it is that caused this change?

An in-room frequency response measurement does not capture the complexities of the 3 dimensional soundfield nor the complexities of what we are hearing.

- I have a couple of R2R DACs that don't measure as well (if you look at the regular run of the mill measurements for a DAC) in comparison to some DS DACs i've had. But, this R2R DAC has a unbelievably precise and deep soundstage (oh yes, that illusive thing). Can you point me to a graph and a measured variable that shows why that soundstage is the way it is and why it can feel more precise and deep with usage of a certain DAC in a A/B test.

I can point you to all of the scientific literature describing the need for testing to be controlled for extraneous variables. When it comes to audio, that means level matching, quick switching, and blinded listening (not knowing ahead of time what device you're listening to).

- I have some speakers with concentric drivers that sound very holographic. It literally feels like i can reach out and grab somebody (kinda like VR for the ears, as weird as this sounds). What is a measurement, graph, variable etc that can point to this?

Frequency response - but not just on-axis. You also need off-axis response.

These are legitimate things in my experience i am curious about. Can everything that is perceived by the human ear be measured and represented graphically/numerically? I think not. But, i stand corrected if it can be.

Yes, theoretically, at least. Test gear is much more accurate and sensitive than human hearing is.

 

[Beave]

As for silver wire sounding brighter, that's audiophool mythology. No more, no less. And it's an excellent example of how fallible our hearing can be when expectation bias comes into play.

 

[Beave]

...

R2R DAC’s fall into a similar characteristic as tube amps: “pleasant distortion.” Audiophiles prefer positive terms like “warm” and “liquid” because “distortion” is a bad word, even though it’s the harmonic distortion they hear that gives the sound texture they prefer. I don’t have a problem with that. Almost everybody on this board EQ’s their sound in some fashion, even if they start out with flat speakers, flat sources, and flat amplifiers. It’s all about enjoying what is going into your ears. As far as the soundstage, the analog implementation of a DAC can vary wildly from one to the next. Left/Right level matching, channel separation, delay... all of those variables can indeed affect the soundstage considerably.
...

Sure, the analog implementation *can* vary wildly from one DAC to the next, but it *shouldn't* and usually doesn't. Most DACs, even including the analog output stages, have excellent L/R level matching, excellent channel separation, excellent delay, etc. It's pretty hard to screw those up, actually, unless you're actually *trying* to do so. And even then, they couldn't account for all the soundstage width/depth claims made by audiophools when doing sighted, uncontrolled listening comparisons (sometimes even listening to different DACs with different speakers in different rooms and ascribing perceived soundstage differences to be coming from the DACs).

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

These are legitimate things in my experience i am curious about. Can everything that is perceived by the human ear be measured and represented graphically/numerically? I think not. But, i stand corrected if it can be.

May want to join ASA(Acoustic Society of America) and look for journal papers on the subject. Same would apply to AES(Audio Engineering Society for their journal articles that has been peer reviewed and know to science, certainly not not everything know is there.

Testing protocols can be found in human subject testing research. In essence, like in medicine, double blind testing is a must to be credible. All else is just mythology.

 

[John Parks]

@pcosmic i try to avoid discussions on this site regarding cables/dacs/amps/what have you because there is a prevalent (and sometimes justified) mindset against such hooliganism. My own experiences are to the contrary, though and such things can (not always) make a difference (and this is important) in my system.

That being said and since you rock the Adante line, I thought I would share a truly sad picture: you see, it is moving weekend and my own have to go back into the box for a while...

 

[lovinthehd]

@pcosmic i try to avoid discussions on this site regarding cables/dacs/amps/what have you because there is a prevalent (and sometimes justified) mindset against such hooliganism. My own experiences are to the contrary, though and such things can (not always) make a difference (and this is important) in my system.

That being said and since you rock the Adante line, I thought I would share a truly sad picture: you see, it is moving weekend and my own have to go back into the box for a while...
View attachment 42310

Yes, discussing things that are based on only subjective opinions isn't really what this site is about.

 

[pcosmic]

1
An in-room frequency response measurement does not capture the complexities of the 3 dimensional soundfield nor the complexities of what we are hearing.


2
I can point you to all of the scientific literature describing the need for testing to be controlled for extraneous variables. When it comes to audio, that means level matching, quick switching, and blinded listening (not knowing ahead of time what device you're listening to).


3
Frequency response - but not just on-axis. You also need off-axis response.


4
Yes, theoretically, at least. Test gear is much more accurate and sensitive than human hearing is.

1
To my knowledge, the audio guys do not have the capability to model anything at that level. In the area of rotor dynamics (helicopter rotors, turbines, etc), some coarse 3D fields can be modeled as an input that are fed into lumped parameter models (built in ADAMs etc). Thinking back, the only guy I knew (in a different industry) who did anything with concurrent run CFD models as a input to FEA back in the days was me. Maybe, someone picked it up these days after I left engineering and became a paper pushing manager. I haven’t checked. But, either way, When I briefly brought up things like this to the engineering team at a very reputable audio company recently (many of you guys own their speakers), their eyes just glazed over. Anything FEA they do is rather limited in scope. So, I will safely assume at this time that none of ya can show me anything.


2
Yes, this is the common excuse (in forums like ASR) when it is blatantly obvious while comparing a DAC of a certain caliber to one that is not. If it is level matched and I didn’t know what I was listening to, it was all just a hallucination and I never heard the difference in a soundstage right? We can do this all day long.


3
Sure, show me the off-axis response and show me where exactly on your data trail, it went all holographic. If you can’t, just let me know that I hallucinated there too...........Where's Andrew Jones? ANDREW!! Drop the hidey and reveal yourself! I know you're hiding here somewhere or wait, was it Audiogon....


4
If you can plug a microphone into a DAQ and assume that it can capture all the sophistication of the human auditory system tied to the CNS, all the bioengineering dudes I know modeling the human spine, etc these days would be having a field day.

 

[Beave]

1
To my knowledge, the audio guys do not have the capability to model anything at that level. In the area of rotor dynamics (helicopter rotors, turbines, etc), some coarse 3D fields can be modeled as an input that are fed into lumped parameter models (built in ADAMs etc). Thinking back, the only guy I knew (in a different industry) who did anything with concurrent run CFD models as a input to FEA back in the days was me. Maybe, someone picked it up these days after I left engineering and became a paper pushing manager. I haven’t checked. But, either way, When I briefly brought up things like this to the engineering team at a very reputable audio company recently (many of you guys own their speakers), their eyes just glazed over. Anything FEA they do is rather limited in scope. So, I will safely assume at this time that none of ya can show me anything.

I have no idea what your point is here. Do you have one? I never claimed to have an accurate 3-D model of soundfields and their perception. In fact, I simply pointed out that a single frequency response sweep at a single position isn't sufficient to capture such complexities. So I take it you're just agreeing with me.

2
Yes, this is the common excuse (in forums like ASR) when it is blatantly obvious while comparing a DAC of a certain caliber to one that is not. If it is level matched and I didn’t know what I was listening to, it was all just a hallucination and I never heard the difference in a soundstage right? We can do this all day long.

It's a common excuse because it's correct. So try a level-matched, double-blinded DAC comparison and listen for soundstage differences. Get back to me with your results. I've done such comparisons. I'm guessing you haven't.

3
Sure, show me the off-axis response and show me where exactly on your data trail, it went all holographic. If you can’t, just let me know that I hallucinated there too...........Where's Andrew Jones? ANDREW!! Drop the hidey and reveal yourself! I know you're hiding here somewhere or wait, was it Audiogon....

I have no idea what your point is here either.

4
If you can plug a microphone into a DAQ and assume that it can capture all the sophistication of the human auditory system tied to the CNS, all the bioengineering dudes I know modeling the human spine, etc these days would be having a field day.

I have no idea what your point is here either. Nobody claimed what you're arguing against. Having a model of human hearing that incorporates brain processing is entirely different from knowing limits of human hearing.
Edit to add: I have no idea why you mention the 'bioengineering dudes' you know modeling the human spine. I don't recall the spine having much to do with hearing. Unless your ears are somehow located in a different place than mine, your auditory nerves don't go through the spine. They are cranial nerves. So I get the impression you're just bullsh!tting to try to impress us.