Speaker Cable Faceoff 2: Introduction & Measurements

[gene]

It cannot be modelled by RLC analysis..

Thank you

 

[gene]

I believe some of you guys need to upgrade your systems so you can hear some of waht I am hearing. Many audiophiles feel that they have reached audio nirvana and cannot go any further, only to find that with mods, they can go several levels higher in performance. Unless you have REAL DEEP pockets, you cannot get there without mods IMO.

Steve, I am a bit disappointed in your commentary listed above. It is the typical argument used by cable dealers/manufacturers to discredit folks that don't buy into the expensive exotics. As a professional reviewer I have found much of the high end (expensive) esoteric gear to be either mediocre at best or far worse in performance to quality mass market gear but lets not go into that here. Many people on this forum do have excellent equipment, which incidentally isn't expensive and more importantly they have controlled acoustics in their listening rooms. The argument that gear has to be expensive to be good is totally without merit.

Offering aftermarket mods to gear can also be a mixed blessing and again I will not dive into that topic here.

I think some of the advice you give on your site (speaker positioning, cable loss vs length charts) is useful, but simply telling people if you can't hear a difference between Zip Cord and expensive cable b/c your equipment isn't revealing enough is a baseless claim and frankly does your cause a disservice.

 

[Steve Nugent]

Gene - come see me at THE Show in Jan. and I will have a 10 foot pair of Monster ZIP and 10 foot pair of Clarity7 to shoot-out.

 

[Mudcat]

Hi guys,

I was away this past weekend and see nothing has changed much.

Anyway to get back to my modeling analysis:
Looking at Steve's proposal based on the magnitude of the impedances, I was wrong in that the importance of Inductance is artifically inflated.
(BTW - I think some of Steve's constants are also wrong)

So Lets take an indepth look at Steve's equation.

R = R
Inductive impedance = 2*pi*f*L (where L=henry's)
Capacitive impedance = 1/(2*pi*f*C) (where C=farads)

At 20 Hz, 2*pi*f = 125.6636
At 20k Hz, 2*pi*f = 125663.7

Clarity 7 measured parameters
R (100 Hz) = 0.00324 Ohms
R (20k Hz) = 0.003399 Ohms
L (100 Hz) = 0.049 x 10^-6 Henry's
L (20k Hz) = 0.058 x 10^-6 Henry's
C (100 Hz) = 98 x 10^-12 Farads
C (20k Hz) = 97.2 x 10^-12 Farads

Steve proposed 20 Hz, but since Gene did not measure at 20 Hz but 100 Hz, we'll probably be safe using the 100 Hz numbers and calling them 20 Hz numbers. Even if we changed f to 100, the results below would change in number only, not relative to each other.

HF (& LF) = (R*0.5) + (L*2*pi*f*0.35)+((1/C*2*pi*f)*0.15

20 Hz Merit = (R*0.5) + L*125.6637*0.35) + (0.15/(C*125.6637)
20 Hz Merit = (R*0.5) + L*43.982) + (1.194 x 10^-3/(C)
20 Hz Merit = 0.0017 + 2.155 x 10^-6 + 12180225.8
20 Hz Merit = 12180225.8

20k Hz Merit = (R*0.5) + L*125663.7*0.35) + (0.15/(C*125663.7)
20k Hz Merit = (R*0.5) + L*43982) + (1.194 x 10^-6/(C)
20k Hz Merit = 0.0016995 + 7.2885 x 10^-3 + 12280.47
20k Hz Merit = 12280.47

Since it's casual to the most obvious observer that capacitance is the only thing that matters in Steve's equation I stand corrected. But maybe I'm missing something so obvious I can't see the forest through the trees.

BTW - I think I'll stay with my dimensionless model, which BTW uses similar weighting factors to the ones Steve proposes (i.e. 50% for R, 35% for L, and 15% for C). Which to answer John's question too, were arrived at by yanking numbers out of my butt. Really they were, but then I also asked Gene about it for verification.

My new question asks, how is the RLC circuit modeled?

Are all elements (real and imaginative) in series, are L and R in series and parallel to C, are all three parallel to each other? Because 1/(2*pi*f*C) is a really big number when C is picofarads (10^-12 Farads).

And for a really big finale, do harmonics really affect the impedance to the degree emphasized by modding the equations, I'm thinking of 2*pi*f*n*L or 1/2*pi*f*n*C?

 

[markw]

I believe some of you guys need to upgrade your systems so you can hear some of waht I am hearing. Many audiophiles feel that they have reached audio nirvana and cannot go any further, only to find that with mods, they can go several levels higher in performance. Unless you have REAL DEEP pockets, you cannot get there without mods IMO.

I look at cables like tires. I buy tires to match my car. I don't go out and buy tires and then look for a car that will suit them.

 

[Mudcat]

John - if cables dont resonate, then why is the value of my ferrite a function of the length of each cable????

I can add an iron block to my cable and make it's mass or length or diameter a function of my ( I won't go there).

I case you're not up to date

Resonant Frequency = 1/(2*pi* (LC)^0.5)

F_r = 1/(2*(355/113)*(0.049 x 10^-6 * 98 x 10^-12)^-0.5

F_r = 1/ 1.376864 x 10^-8

F_r = 72628831 Hz (72.6 MHz)

If your cables resonate, I can probably cook my steak with them.

P.S. one of these day I'll learn how to make the radical sign on this forum.

 

[Mudcat]

I believe some of you guys need to upgrade your systems so you can hear some of waht I am hearing. Many audiophiles feel that they have reached audio nirvana and cannot go any further, only to find that with mods, they can go several levels higher in performance. Unless you have REAL DEEP pockets, you cannot get there without mods IMO.

Just out of curiosity, what's in your home? I have a Yamaha RX-V1400, Alesis amps, Mirage, Yamaha, and Sapphire speakers, and a few other gizmos. I'll be the first to admit that none of it is top of the line, so maybe the cables I use are what's best for what I have. To imply that your cables are only suitable for systems only the filthy rich can afford is a disservice to all. IMHO, anyone who pays automobile prices for wire deserves to be taken by people like you. Only don't defend the practice here.

 

[Audioholics]

Let's all remember to keep this civil, please.

 

[jneutron]

I case you're not up to date

Resonant Frequency = 1/(2*pi* (LC)^0.5)
F_r = 1/(2*(355/113)*(0.049 x 10^-6 * 98 x 10^-12)^-0.5
F_r = 1/ 1.376864 x 10^-8
F_r = 72628831 Hz (72.6 MHz)

Ummm, Mudcat?

Go back a few posts to where I explain how resonators work..your analysis is correct w/r to lumped elements (I didn't review your actual math, but understand what you are deriving..), but those equations are not valid for transmission line resonators, nor for pipe organs..hmmm...you'd have a field day trying to figure out a high Q SAW filter...(Surface Acoustic Wave)

What Steve has said is entirely correct...I would be all over him (figuratively speaking), if it were'nt.

What I am questioning, however, is the validity of damping the frequency response of a cable at 9 Mhz..and why a signal that is not typically an audio signal (35 nanosecond risetimes), is of concern for reflections, when I do not believe there are many audio amps out there that can deliver that slew rate with any power..without even considering the audio sources..Is it necessary to damp out a signal which more than likely won't exist on the line?

So, I feel that damping at that frequency has little merit..while, I consider his feelings towards inductance and capacitance worth persuing..

I can't help but feel that the ferrite thingy is just what he adds to distinguish his product from all the other low L cables, whereas he should be concentrating on getting his effective relative dielectric constant down via geometry optimization..he's got 3.9 as the DC, and it's trivial to get that down to 2.7, and even 1.9 is not too difficult...

I'd like to get the DC down to 1.5, allowing me to make a 10 nH per foot cable, with 154 pf per foot capacitance..

Cheers, John

 

[Mudcat]

You mean I went and read the entire chapter 2 of my Fink and Beaty for nothing!

I was especially confused because they did not have a model of R and L in series and perpendicular to C.

What did Emily Lutella[sic] (SNL) always say? Ummmmmmm....Never Mind.

Sorry hawke

 

[Steve Nugent]

Just out of curiosity, what's in your home?

Transport: Modified Sony DVP-S7700
DAC: Modified Perpetual Tech P-3A
Preamp: Modified Mark Levinson #38
Amps: Modifed Parasound Halo JC-1's
Speakers: Modifed Kef Reference 104/2's
Cabling: you guessed it, all Empirical Audio

Steve N.

 

[Mudcat]

I can add an iron block to my cable and make it's mass or length or diameter a function of my ( I won't go there).

My apologies to all I offended here. But the point I was trying to make is why is the ferrite a function of length? What about the ferrite is a function of length? Is it mass, length, diamter, all of the above? Or is it actually based on something else that is a function of length, like overall inductance, capacitance, or resistance?

Does Steve roll his own, or does he buy stock from Canare, Belden, Alpha? Do the RLC parameters change with each bulk order, and therefore the ferrite will have to change? Or was it measured once, and everything is based on that ancient measurement?

 

[jneutron]

But the point I was trying to make is why is the ferrite a function of length? What about the ferrite is a function of length? Is it mass, length, diamter, all of the above? Or is it actually based on something else that is a function of length, like overall inductance, capacitance, or resistance?

Does Steve roll his own, or does he buy stock from Canare, Belden, Alpha? Do the RLC parameters change with each bulk order, and therefore the ferrite will have to change? Or was it measured once, and everything is based on that ancient measurement?

The length of the cable defines the transit time from one end to the other..double the length, and the frequency of resonance halves. Since the frequency is length dependent, the ferrite has to be modified to the length..

Don't forget...the ferrite is not serving as an impedance matching device, but rather, as an absorber..so, as the frequency of interest changes, so does the ferrite.

Cheers, John

 

[Unregistered]

Transport: Modified Sony DVP-S7700
DAC: Modified Perpetual Tech P-3A
Preamp: Modified Mark Levinson #38
Amps: Modifed Parasound Halo JC-1's
Speakers: Modifed Kef Reference 104/2's
Cabling: you guessed it, all Empirical Audio

Steve N.

What?....not Modified Emperical Audio?????

Cheers, John

 

[Unregistered]

What?....not Modified Emperical Audio?????

Cheers, John

Everything in my system is either built from scratch (cables) or modified by me.
Steve N.

 

[jneutron]

Everything in my system is either built from scratch (cables) or modified by me.
Steve N.

Ummm, Steve? You really gotta sit back and enjoy the ride...I was making light of the fact that everything on your list is modified by your hands, and already knew that you made the cables..

In other words, it was an attempt at humor..yes, I'll keep my day job..


Cheers, John

 

[boe]

An excercise in frustation

I've read furniture assembly instructions that were easier to follow.

At a distance of 12 feet of the 7 cables tested the freem ratio (FA/S) of the Audio Concertinas was clearly higher than the others but lower than they had originally stated. Of all the cables the TransConnect had the highest tenrac (TND) at lower frequencies than the others in the group. - While the terms in the report actually mean something they may as well be the gibberish I made up to anyone without an advanced degree in electrical engineering. While I appreciate the authors attempt to share information, try sharing at a level that benefits those of us who do not work at quantum accelerator plant.

It would be REALLY nice if all the charts showing the nifty lines would state if higher was better or lower was better for each chart. I'd hate to have to call Steven Hawkins just to get an interpretation of the results posted.

All I wanted to know from reading the article was - is there a pair of speaker wires in the $100-$200 range that would provide a noticeable difference in audio quality over the ones I have now (monster 10AWG). I realize that might seem like a low dollar amount but I think it would probably fit 90% of the audio enthusiasts out there who can't afford Mark Levinson, Krell or some other VERY nice equipment.

 

[cornelius]

word .

 

[Mudcat]

I've read furniture assembly instructions that were easier to follow.

While the terms in the report actually mean something they may as well be the gibberish I made up to anyone without an advanced degree in electrical engineering. While I appreciate the authors attempt to share information, try sharing at a level that benefits those of us who do not work at quantum accelerator plant.

It would be REALLY nice if all the charts showing the nifty lines would state if higher was better or lower was better for each chart. I'd hate to have to call Steven Hawkins just to get an interpretation of the results posted.

Sorry about this, but you just stepped into the middle of a gunfight armed with only a pea shooter. And there are no good guys and bad guys, only targets.

In my job, I often have to explain a lot of engineering concepts based on calculus or differencial equations (calculcus with a lot of imaginary thingies) to people who know how to add and subtract (accountants and bean counters). Maybe we will get there in this thread, but don't count on it.

Part of the problem is that Mr. jnuetron likes to tease me and delves into electrophysics concepts that only he, a few other members of Audioholics and Stephen Hawking understand. The thing that I find most difficult is trying not to talk like the sailor I was, and still licensed to be. So, often times I arrive at convient numbers by anal-retraction (pull it out of my butt).

Anyway if you are using 10 gauge wire now, you are fine. Because except for some very high RLC (Resistance, Inductance, Capacitance) values, I do not think we established where bad RLC values become audible.

But, to answer your other question, always lower is better. Whether it is resistance, inductance, capacitance, gauge, THD, freem ratio, THC (maybe not), and tenrac (although it's a bird, I don't want many around). Only velocity propagation (expressed as a percentage) should be high. (Well maybe if we were all high it would be better.)

 

[boe]

Excellent - thanks for clearing that up! I've heard some talk about sheilding and speaker wires. Is there anything to know about that?