Speaker Cable Faceoff 2: Introduction & Measurements

[Unregistered]

Interesting.

Reading the article on dielectric absorption revealed some major/significant flaws in the article. Where to begin? I will play devils advocate.

First off, we have to examine the "sources" used to substantiate the "foundation" of the article. If the sources are inaccurate, the conclusions are inaccurate. One cannot combine facts with assumptions, or theories, and arrive with a conclusion that is necessarily True. Facts are facts, and you present them well. However, assumptions and non-factual information must be carefully examined. For instance:

1) .5db isn't heard? Is it factual? It depends on the quality of the parts, equipment used. Attack and decay times are influenced by the components themselves, and revolve around the Bandwidth, DA, and DF of parts in the components used in the test as well as the cables tested. The quality of componenets make a huge difference in the outcome. One can easily hear a 0,1db change with good parts and design.

And even if sophisticated studies are done, and accuracy is "assumed" and "true", the conclusions would only be true for that test, under those conditions.

Any practical subjective testing would have to be scrutinized to eliminate any variables and assumptions that would cause inaccurate results. (By the way, I would like to see any subjective study that, in its conclusion, calls its findings "FACT". If you can, good.)

2) Assuming that frequencies above 20khz aren't important. Changing the -1db FR response above 100khz can cause a dramatic sonic change when listening. How is this possible if the signal present doesn't go above 20khz? It changes the attack and decay times. Remember we are dealing with signal changes to -60db, -80db and more down in the audio band.

3) OH, but the component doesn't need higher rise and fall times, it can handle the signal up to 20khz. THis is another assumption. Do we really know the rise and fall times are adequate? Maybe mathematically, but not necessarily from a listening standpoint.
However, this is where DA may make a huge sonic difference.

DA is more than what you explain. DA is also the ability of the dielectric material to actually hold electrons that should be leaving as the signal changes, and visa-versa. The higher the DA factor, the worse this problem. This phenomina is basically independent of whether the insulator is surround by air or not. The signal is actually changed some db down because the electrons don't perfectly leave with the signal. An example of a clear test is to change the mylar capacitors to polystyrene caps. A huge, undeniable sonic difference takes place.

In conclusion, one must understand all the factors involved, perfectly, lest the conclusions become totally worthless. Even one mistake can lead to an erroneous conclusion. And worse than that, false information is taught as truth.

Cheers.

Anonymous

 

[gene]

First off, we have to examine the "sources" used to substantiate the "foundation" of the article. If the sources are inaccurate, the conclusions are inaccurate.

Valid logic assuming the sources are inaccurate.

5db isn't heard? Is it factual?

Where is it stated in the article in question that .5dB isn't heard?

excerpt from the article:

To put this in terms of signal power loss would be: 20*log (3.27/3.31) = .051dB! Studies in acoustics have proven the human ear is not capable of discerning level differences of less than about 0.5dB which is 10 times greater than the loss we see from Skin Effect!

Thus the actual loss in question was only .051dB about 10 times less than human audibility. Human hearing is very insensitive to amplitude variation at high frequencies (20kHz). Most people cannot hear this high up in frequency let alone discern slight amplitude changes. Turning ones head a few centimeters would have a far more profound affect on sound. You may wish to review the a book on acoustics from Alton Everest titled "Master Handbook of Acoustics" forth edition. In it they discuss the Robinson and Dadson curves that map human hearing sensitivity as a function of frequency and SPL. Basically what it illustrates is detecting differences in amplitude varies with frequency and intensity. At 1kHz for very low levels a 3dB change is the least detectable by the ear, but at high levels the ear can discern level differences as low as .25dB. For very low and high tones require amplitude changes of up to 9dB to be detectable depending on intensity and actual frequency. I highly recommend reading chapter 3 of this text to get a basic grasp on human audibility. It is very well documented and enlightening.

Changing the -1db FR response above 100khz can cause a dramatic sonic change when listening.

So I suppose brickwall filters for digital playback systems are out then right? After all they are about 100dB down after 24kHz. Also note that you ear acts like a brickwall filter above 20kHz so again according to your logic we cannot have accurate musical reproduction up to 20kHz as a result. 20Khz has to be heard virtually directly on axis preferrable by a young person with perfect hearing. The only diffraction a 20Khz wave will usually "see" is anything that is within 0.0565 foot from it like a phase plug or tweeter protection bar of some sort.

DA is more than what you explain. DA is also the ability of the dielectric material to actually hold electrons that should be leaving as the signal changes, and visa-versa.

Yes and how does this relate to a speaker cable? Are you implying that the capacitance within the cable should be treated as a lumped capacitance such as that of a real capacitor? Sorry but thats not the case. Cable RLC are distributed properties not lumped. In the cable example I have shown that most of the effective dielectric for the cable is air since the wire is partly in freespace. Thus in reality the dielectric is better than the actual insulator used which in this case was PVC.

For real capacitors, the DA and DF are inter-related as I clearly stated within the article. IF you have poor DA then DF will also suffer, and vice versa.

In conclusion, one must understand all the factors involved, perfectly, lest the conclusions become totally worthless. Even one mistake can lead to an erroneous conclusion. And worse than that, false information is taught as truth.

Agreed and that is why we have other industry experts in Signal Propagation and Magnetics peer review our articles for accuracy. Granted that everybody makes mistakes (especially many exotic cable vendors), but the principles within the article in question are based on proven facts and analysis. I do welcome unopinionated technical feedback and solicate yours.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Reading the article on dielectric absorption revealed some major/significant flaws in the article. Where to begin? I will play devils advocate.

As you said it yourself, we need proof, not assertions.



1) .5db isn't heard? Is it factual? It depends on the quality of the parts, equipment used. Attack and decay times are influenced by the components themselves, and revolve around the Bandwidth, DA, and DF of parts in the components used in the test as well as the cables tested. The quality of componenets make a huge difference in the outcome. One can easily hear a 0,1db change with good parts and design.

Not sure what part you are questioning or is an example and your response or statemts of facts or what. Don't want to assume anything.

And even if sophisticated studies are done, and accuracy is "assumed" and "true", the conclusions would only be true for that test, under those conditions.

And when repeated over and over, one can draw conclusions?



2) Assuming that frequencies above 20khz aren't important. Changing the -1db FR response above 100khz can cause a dramatic sonic change when listening. How is this possible if the signal present doesn't go above 20khz? It changes the attack and decay times. Remember we are dealing with signal changes to -60db, -80db and more down in the audio band.

Same here, unless you are making claims in which case I don't see evidence for anything. But, I don't want to assume, just clarification requested.


3) OH, but the component doesn't need higher rise and fall times, it can handle the signal up to 20khz. THis is another assumption. Do we really know the rise and fall times are adequate? Maybe mathematically, but not necessarily from a listening standpoint.
However, this is where DA may make a huge sonic difference.

Am I reading that you are stating that DA may make a huge sonic difference? Isn't that speculation on your part? Certainly didn't offer factual evidence, right? But, I may have misunderstood your paragraph, separating out the questions and respones, or whatever you are driving at.

DA is more than what you explain. DA is also the ability of the dielectric material to actually hold electrons that should be leaving as the signal changes, and visa-versa. The higher the DA factor, the worse this problem. This phenomina is basically independent of whether the insulator is surround by air or not. The signal is actually changed some db down because the electrons don't perfectly leave with the signal. An example of a clear test is to change the mylar capacitors to polystyrene caps. A huge, undeniable sonic difference takes place.

I think you are now making claims? "A huge, undeniable sonic difference takes place." Prove it. Otherwise it is sheer speculation on your part.
Or, am I not reading your paragraph correctly?

In conclusion, one must understand all the factors involved, perfectly, lest the conclusions become totally worthless. Even one mistake can lead to an erroneous conclusion. And worse than that, false information is taught as truth.

I think you have fallen into your own trap then. Prove your sonic claims, thanks.

 

[Unregistered]

Gene and Mt

First, thanks for the opportunity to respond. I shall address Gene's comments first, then Mt's.

"Where is it stated in the article in question that .5dB isn't heard?"

You sir: ".051dB about 10 times less than human audibility.".... "Studies in acoustics have proven the human ear is not capable of discerning level differences of less than about 0.5dB" (Proven?????? or merely indications from the study. Is this study factual and Labeled as such or merely "experts" conclusions?)

No mention, however, is made of harmonic structural changes of the instruments/voices changes, amplitude and/or phase because of the FR changes.

You sir: "So I suppose brickwall filters for digital playback systems are out then right? After all they are about 100dB down after 24kHz. Also note that you ear acts like a brickwall filter above 20kHz so again according to your logic we cannot have accurate musical reproduction up to 20kHz as a result. Furthermore its a challenge for a loudspeaker to accurately reproduce above 20kHz without major diffraction from the cabinet or surroundings within the room."

Again, we are talking harmonic structural changes etc. I.E. Harmonic distortion in amplifiiers are typically lowered as much as possible (-80db or more down) to preserve accurate harmonic integrity. Are you saying changes in the harmonic spectrumfrom by other causes is ok? Can you prove it?

You sir: "Yes and how does this relate to a speaker cable? Are you implying that the capacitance within the cable should be treated as a lumped capacitance such as that of a real capacitor? Sorry but thats not the case. Cable RLC are distributed properties not lumped. In the cable example I have shown that most of the effective dielectric for the cable is air since the wire is partly in freespace."

Of course not, capacitance is distributed, but let's go on.

But it is the insulation that is touching the wire (99.9999999%) not the air. The charge isn't released from the insulation in an instantaneous fashion.
So can you honestly state, as fact, that the insulation and DA doesn't make any difference, or are we talking of another assumption?

You sir: "I think you are now making claims? "A huge, undeniable sonic difference takes place." Prove it. Otherwise it is sheer speculation on your part.
Or, am I not reading your paragraph correctly?"

The point is you made the statement that the changes, however small, don't make a sonic difference. I am merely dissagreeing with you. It is up to you to prove there isn't a sonic change since there are actual measureable differences, that you measured. Simply stating the values are too small isn't a factual statement, only an assumption/speculation.

You sir: "Agreed and that is why we have other industry experts in Signal Propagation and Magnetics peer review our articles for accuracy. Grant it everybody makes mistakes (especially many exotic cable vendors), but the principles within the article in question are based on proven facts and analysis. I do welcome unopinionated technical feedback and solicate yours."

Thank you, and I appreciate your openness and honesty. I certainly do respect your point of view. I am merely pointing to some possible flaws in the article that I think need to be addressed.
In closing, I am not advocating, or selling expensive cables. But every article needs to be fool proof and inspected very closely.

Now Mt.

You sir: "Not sure what part you are questioning or is an example and your response or statemts of facts or what. Don't want to assume anything."

Thank you. I agree.

You sir: "And when repeated over and over, one can draw conclusions?"

An assumption. You cannot draw any conclusions except in the exact environment in which the tests took place. A theory is all you can claim.

You sir: "Same here, unless you are making claims in which case I don't see evidence for anything. But, I don't want to assume, just clarification requested."

I am merely dissagreeing with the article because I see no proof in the article, just an assumption on the authors part. Since one can actually measure, for instance, the change in rise times, slew rate etc. of a component with increasing FR response, it is the author who bares the burden of proof that this change does NOT make any sonic difference. Otherwise it is merely speculation and at best an educated guess.

You sir: "Am I reading that you are stating that DA may make a huge sonic difference? Isn't that speculation on your part? Certainly didn't offer factual evidence, right? But, I may have misunderstood your paragraph, separating out the questions and respones, or whatever you are driving at."

Again, a measurable change can be measured, the numbers are there, so the burden of proof of NO sonic change is upon you, not me. Speculation or guessing in the article isn't factual.

You sir: "I think you are now making claims? "A huge, undeniable sonic difference takes place." Prove it. Otherwise it is sheer speculation on your part.
Or, am I not reading your paragraph correctly?"

Again, I am mere stating a dissagreement. A charge is easily measureable on any form of insulation (except air). Since it is measureable, and a change from perfection, it is your responsibility to prove this charge does NOT affect the sonics, not mine.

You sir: "I think you have fallen into your own trap then. Prove your sonic claims, thanks."

Unfortunately, you haven't "proven" your side yet. Speculation, educated guesses, indications don't count as proof.

Unfortunately, since the article was printed first, and intended as factual, the claims and assumptions in the article must be proven by your side.
If, on the other hand, the article is merely an assumption and theory, than I am allowed to write my own conclusions based on my experience, am I not?


Anonymous

 

[Leprkon]

Enough of the somantics and square root of minus one stuff

SO WHERE'S THE NEXT PIECE OF THE ARTICAL ??? WE"VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR MONTHS NOW !!!

Everybody just stop bugging Gene so he can get the writing done. Then you can all go back to arguing again....

 

[WmAx]

I am merely dissagreeing with the article because I see no proof in the article, just an assumption on the authors part. Since one can actually measure, for instance, the change in rise times, slew rate etc. of a component with increasing FR response, it is the author who bares the burden of proof that this change does NOT make any sonic difference. Otherwise it is merely speculation and at best an educated guess.

Since when does measurability=audibility automaticly? You must correlate measured values with degree of audibility using scientifically valid perceptual testing on test groups in order to prove/demonstrate audibility thresholds. If you go around assuming that ANYTHING measurable is audible by default -- you may as well be chasing your tail.

-Chris

 

[Unregistered]

Interesting

You sir: "Since when does measurability=audibility automaticly? You must correlate measured values with degree of audibility using scientifically valid perceptual testing on test groups in order to prove/demonstrate audibility thresholds. If you go around assuming that ANYTHING measurable is audible by default -- you may as well be chasing your tail."

You make my point. When does measurability Not = audibility(?) is another way to put it. The burden of proof is put on you to find when it is not audible. After all I didn't write the article and use speculation/educated guessing. The conclusion given must be based on proof, in All areas, and not allowing assumptions/speculation to enter in.

Using scientifically valid perceptual testing is Not proof, as you claim in parenthesis ("perceptual testing on test groups in order to prove/demonstrate audibility thresholds."). I know of no subjective testing that concludes their results are "proof" as you state. If not, correct me.

Their conclusions always seem to state: "our findings indicate", "we feel", "our conclusion is" etc. that is used. That is not proof by a long shot.

Thanks for letting me participate, and now back to your regularly scheduled program.

anonymous

 

[gene]

Unregistered;

Unfortunately I don't have the time to sit and debate you point for point on this article, especially since you didn't bring any technical discussions to the table, only speculations and red herrings. I don't want to turn this into a political debate so this will likely be my last post on this topic.

You're asking me to dispove something doesn't exist. I instead show you that the mechanism that others claim to be of issue isn't. If this was a real problem then how would the cable vendor know how to solve it? They can't prove it, they can't measure it, but they know its there from their alleged "listening tests". So by trial and error they miraculously fall upon the solution. Its pretty funny actually when you think about it, but sad for the unwary consumer to fall pray to such poor engineering practices of the supposed cable designers. With the case of Skin Effect, most of the cables that supposidly resolve the alleged Skin Effect problem suffer from it worse than ordinary Zip Cord!

The .051dB difference is the result of Skin Effect, not DA. AGAIN .051dB IS NOT AUDIBLE AS PROVEN BY THE HUMAN MODEL OF HEARING AND YEARS OF RESEARCH. You may wish to read a few papers authored by Dr. Floyd Toole on this. Also, please reread my article more carefully. I did not show any detrimental effects of DA that would impact frequency response, linearity, distortion, etc. So I am not sure what the problem you have with the article is.

So can you honestly state, as fact, that the insulation and DA doesn't make any difference, or are we talking of another assumption?

YES. That was the point of the article. At audio frequencies, the dielectric serves two major purposes:
1) Insulating the conductors
2) Determining the overall value of Capacitance based on dielectric material and conductor spacing. DA is NOT a factor for cable performance in this case. Soaking the cables in kosher chicken fat wont help either

Regarding DA/DF in Speaker Cables:
I will tell you that every industry expert I have spoken to on this topic: IE. Bob Pease from National Semiconductor, Steve Lampton from Belden, Henry Ott and Dr. Howard Johnson both well noted industry experts in this field all had a good laugh about this topic and how it relates, or more correctly doesn't relate to speaker cables.

You throw around terms like "harmonic structure" of audio, but do you really understand what you are implying here? Do you realize most musical content above 8kHz is harmonic in nature? If your system has perfect linearity up to 20kHz you're harmonics are preserved! You certainly don't think the cable is the limiting factor here do you?

Do you know why bandwidth limiting is done in hardware? Many purposes actually:
1) Improve Signal to Noise Ratio
2) Improve System Stability
3) Preserve power and dynamics

You don't want a system that is flat up to 500kHz! This is especially true for digital systems and why FIR filters are utilized above the audio band.


Suggested Reading:
Brickwall Filters in Digital Audio

The sad reality is cables are rarely the limiting factor in a system, but many consumers seem so fixated on them that they overlook the obvious: The loudspeaker/room interaction mechanism, speaker placement and calibration.

SO WHERE'S THE NEXT PIECE OF THE ARTICAL ??? WE"VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR MONTHS NOW !!!

Unfortunately cables are the lowest priority for me right now. Sorry but they are just not that interesting. I am focusing more time on Hardware reviews, Beta testing new gear and writing technical articles on things that can really make a dramatic impact on system performance: Acoustics.

I will however get to the rest of this article when I finish catching up to my reviews. Just think all the time spent on this forum I could have been finishing the article Ok back to work.

Unregistered, why don't you register? Why the Anonymous posting?

 

[gene]

OK I lied heres another post

You make my point. When does measurability Not = audibility(?) is another way to put it. The burden of proof is put on you to find when it is not audible. After all I didn't write the article and use speculation/educated guessing. The conclusion given must be based on proof, in All areas, and not allowing assumptions/speculation to enter in.

Unregistered;

Realize test instruments such as the ones we utilize to measure cables (Wayne Kerr 6420) are 1000's of times more accurate than the human ear. Also these machines when properly calibrated are far more consistent and precise than the human ear. They don't inject bias or emotion, instead they repeatedly make consistent measurements and its up to us to determine the implications of such measurements. This is why one becomes an Engineer much like a Doctor goes to medical school so he/she can interpret results of xrays, blood tests, etc.


Perhaps if we put up an article on human audibility defining thresholds for amplitude, frequency response and phase audibility and then show the measurements to prove that they are below the threshold of human audibility would help?

In the meantime we do have a couple of articles with some of this data at:

Physics of Human Hearing
Skin Effect Relevancy in Speaker Cables
Goto page 3 if you will.

 

[mtrycrafts]

First, thanks for the opportunity to respond. I shall address Gene's comments first, then Mt's.

"Where is it stated in the article in question that .5dB isn't heard?"

You sir: ".051dB about 10 times less than human audibility.".... "Studies in acoustics have proven the human ear is not capable of discerning level differences of less than about 0.5dB" (Proven?????? or merely indications from the study. Is this study factual and Labeled as such or merely "experts" conclusions?)

No mention, however, is made of harmonic structural changes of the instruments/voices changes, amplitude and/or phase because of the FR changes.

You sir: "So I suppose brickwall filters for digital playback systems are out then right? After all they are about 100dB down after 24kHz. Also note that you ear acts like a brickwall filter above 20kHz so again according to your logic we cannot have accurate musical reproduction up to 20kHz as a result. Furthermore its a challenge for a loudspeaker to accurately reproduce above 20kHz without major diffraction from the cabinet or surroundings within the room."

Again, we are talking harmonic structural changes etc. I.E. Harmonic distortion in amplifiiers are typically lowered as much as possible (-80db or more down) to preserve accurate harmonic integrity. Are you saying changes in the harmonic spectrumfrom by other causes is ok? Can you prove it?

You sir: "Yes and how does this relate to a speaker cable? Are you implying that the capacitance within the cable should be treated as a lumped capacitance such as that of a real capacitor? Sorry but thats not the case. Cable RLC are distributed properties not lumped. In the cable example I have shown that most of the effective dielectric for the cable is air since the wire is partly in freespace."

Of course not, capacitance is distributed, but let's go on.

But it is the insulation that is touching the wire (99.9999999%) not the air. The charge isn't released from the insulation in an instantaneous fashion.
So can you honestly state, as fact, that the insulation and DA doesn't make any difference, or are we talking of another assumption?

You sir: "I think you are now making claims? "A huge, undeniable sonic difference takes place." Prove it. Otherwise it is sheer speculation on your part.
Or, am I not reading your paragraph correctly?"

The point is you made the statement that the changes, however small, don't make a sonic difference. I am merely dissagreeing with you. It is up to you to prove there isn't a sonic change since there are actual measureable differences, that you measured. Simply stating the values are too small isn't a factual statement, only an assumption/speculation.

You sir: "Agreed and that is why we have other industry experts in Signal Propagation and Magnetics peer review our articles for accuracy. Grant it everybody makes mistakes (especially many exotic cable vendors), but the principles within the article in question are based on proven facts and analysis. I do welcome unopinionated technical feedback and solicate yours."

Thank you, and I appreciate your openness and honesty. I certainly do respect your point of view. I am merely pointing to some possible flaws in the article that I think need to be addressed.
In closing, I am not advocating, or selling expensive cables. But every article needs to be fool proof and inspected very closely.

Now Mt.

You sir: "Not sure what part you are questioning or is an example and your response or statemts of facts or what. Don't want to assume anything."

Thank you. I agree.

You sir: "And when repeated over and over, one can draw conclusions?"

An assumption. You cannot draw any conclusions except in the exact environment in which the tests took place. A theory is all you can claim.

You sir: "Same here, unless you are making claims in which case I don't see evidence for anything. But, I don't want to assume, just clarification requested."

I am merely dissagreeing with the article because I see no proof in the article, just an assumption on the authors part. Since one can actually measure, for instance, the change in rise times, slew rate etc. of a component with increasing FR response, it is the author who bares the burden of proof that this change does NOT make any sonic difference. Otherwise it is merely speculation and at best an educated guess.

You sir: "Am I reading that you are stating that DA may make a huge sonic difference? Isn't that speculation on your part? Certainly didn't offer factual evidence, right? But, I may have misunderstood your paragraph, separating out the questions and respones, or whatever you are driving at."

Again, a measurable change can be measured, the numbers are there, so the burden of proof of NO sonic change is upon you, not me. Speculation or guessing in the article isn't factual.

You sir: "I think you are now making claims? "A huge, undeniable sonic difference takes place." Prove it. Otherwise it is sheer speculation on your part.
Or, am I not reading your paragraph correctly?"

Again, I am mere stating a dissagreement. A charge is easily measureable on any form of insulation (except air). Since it is measureable, and a change from perfection, it is your responsibility to prove this charge does NOT affect the sonics, not mine.

You sir: "I think you have fallen into your own trap then. Prove your sonic claims, thanks."

Unfortunately, you haven't "proven" your side yet. Speculation, educated guesses, indications don't count as proof.

Unfortunately, since the article was printed first, and intended as factual, the claims and assumptions in the article must be proven by your side.
If, on the other hand, the article is merely an assumption and theory, than I am allowed to write my own conclusions based on my experience, am I not?


Anonymous

So, if I am reading you correctly, you have a specific definition of proof, such a mathematical proof? Outside of math, is much proven?

Sure you are allowed to write your own conclusions based on your experience. What would that indicate? How reliable would that be? After all, not all experiences are of equal value, or weight, as an opinion are different value even though everyone has one. Some are worth more than others.

I suppose basing conclusions on published journal data is still doesn't prove anything?

"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.

"On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise", Zwislocki, J and Jordan H., Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.

"Auditory Intensity Discrimination at High Frequencies in the Presence of Noise", Viemeister, Neal F., Science, vol 220, 16 Sep 83, pg 1206-1208.


What does a proof must contain that would satisfy you, not that we need your satisfaction, right?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Unregistered;

Unfortunately I don't have the time to sit and debate you point for point on this article, especially since you didn't bring any technical discussions to the table, only speculations and red herrings. I don't want to turn this into a political debate so this will likely be my last post on this topic.

You're asking me to dispove something doesn't exist. I instead show you that the mechanism that others claim to be of issue isn't. If this was a real problem then how would the cable vendor know how to solve it? They can't prove it, they can't measure it, but they know its there from their alleged "listening tests". So by trial and error they miraculously fall upon the solution. Its pretty funny actually when you think about it, but sad for the unwary consumer to fall pray to such poor engineering practices of the supposed cable designers. With the case of Skin Effect, most of the cables that supposidly resolve the alleged Skin Effect problem suffer from it worse than ordinary Zip Cord!

The .051dB difference is the result of Skin Effect, not DA. AGAIN .051dB IS NOT AUDIBLE AS PROVEN BY THE HUMAN MODEL OF HEARING AND YEARS OF RESEARCH. You may wish to read a few papers authored by Dr. Floyd Toole on this. Also, please reread my article more carefully. I did not show any detrimental effects of DA that would impact frequency response, linearity, distortion, etc. So I am not sure what the problem you have with the article is.



YES. That was the point of the article. At audio frequencies, the dielectric serves two major purposes:
1) Insulating the conductors
2) Determining the overall value of Capacitance based on dielectric material and conductor spacing. DA is NOT a factor for cable performance in this case. Soaking the cables in kosher chicken fat wont help either

Regarding DA/DF in Speaker Cables:
I will tell you that every industry expert I have spoken to on this topic: IE. Bob Pease from National Semiconductor, Steve Lampton from Belden, Henry Ott and Dr. Howard Johnson both well noted industry experts in this field all had a good laugh about this topic and how it relates, or more correctly doesn't relate to speaker cables.

You throw around terms like "harmonic structure" of audio, but do you really understand what you are implying here? Do you realize most musical content above 8kHz is harmonic in nature? If your system has perfect linearity up to 20kHz you're harmonics are preserved! You certainly don't think the cable is the limiting factor here do you?

Do you know why bandwidth limiting is done in hardware? Many purposes actually:
1) Improve Signal to Noise Ratio
2) Improve System Stability
3) Preserve power and dynamics

You don't want a system that is flat up to 500kHz! This is especially true for digital systems and why FIR filters are utilized above the audio band.


Suggested Reading:
Brickwall Filters in Digital Audio

The sad reality is cables are rarely the limiting factor in a system, but many consumers seem so fixated on them that they overlook the obvious: The loudspeaker/room interaction mechanism, speaker placement and calibration.




Unfortunately cables are the lowest priority for me right now. Sorry but they are just not that interesting. I am focusing more time on Hardware reviews, Beta testing new gear and writing technical articles on things that can really make a dramatic impact on system performance: Acoustics.

I will however get to the rest of this article when I finish catching up to my reviews. Just think all the time spent on this forum I could have been finishing the article Ok back to work.

Unregistered, why don't you register? Why the Anonymous posting?

GENE:

Are you aware of this article by Bob Pease on DA?

http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/ArticleID/6096/6096.html

Check the dB loss that he comes up with.

You should also add these to your library on JND thresholds

"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.

"On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise", Zwislocki, J and Jordan H., Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.

JND at 16kHz is 3dB average and 1dB minimum. Oh well.

While these don't discuss 20kHz, J. Stewart of Meridian indicates that the threshold of detection at 20kHz is 100dB spl. Oh well, again

 

[Unregistered]

Proof

I am not the one who wrote the article. You are the one who has to demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that what you say is true. I am under no obligation to prove anything. You are the one who has to prove, what you say is true.

You sir: "Unfortunately I don't have the time to sit and debate you point for point on this article, especially since you didn't bring any technical discussions to the table, only speculations and red herrings. I don't want to turn this into a political debate so this will likely be my last post on this topic.

You're asking me to dispove something doesn't exist. I instead show you that the mechanism that others claim to be of issue isn't."

Statements are made and no proof is offered. " You're asking me to dispove something doesn't exist." So you simply say it doesn't exist and it doesn't? You then state "I instead show you that the mechanism that others claim to be of issue isn't." So because you say so, it is true? Where is the proof?

You sir: "I did not show any detrimental effects of DA that would impact frequency response, linearity, distortion, etc."

That isn't the article. The article is the one about DA and it being a myth.

You sir: " DA is NOT a factor for cable performance in this case."

Do you actually know that? What proof do you offer? I see some reasoning, but nothing as proof.

You sir: "Regarding DA/DF in Speaker Cables:
I will tell you that every industry expert I have spoken to on this topic: IE. Bob Pease from National Semiconductor, Steve Lampton from Belden, Henry Ott and Dr. Howard Johnson both well noted industry experts in this field all had a good laugh about this topic and how it relates, or more correctly doesn't relate to speaker cables."

Fine, but are they experts in the audio field? I don't see one who is. What actual testing have they actually done in the audio field?

You sir: "You throw around terms like "harmonic structure" of audio, but do you really understand what you are implying here? Do you realize most musical content above 8kHz is harmonic in nature? If your system has perfect linearity up to 20kHz you're harmonics are preserved! You certainly don't think the cable is the limiting factor here do you?"

Since when does an audio system have perfect linearity up to 20khz? Another assumption? Of course the kind of wire, silver vs copper, size, etc. are going to change the sonics in a reactive speaker system.

You sir: "Do you know why bandwidth limiting is done in hardware? Many purposes actually:
1) Improve Signal to Noise Ratio
2) Improve System Stability
3) Preserve power and dynamics"

Pretty poor system. I don't have any problems with SN ratio, stability, dynamics. Only a poorly designed component would need to address these issues by limiting the BW, except possibly in phono stages.

You sir: "You don't want a system that is flat up to 500kHz! This is especially true for digital systems and why FIR filters are utilized above the audio band."

We aren't addressing digital. There is certainly no problem with an FR of 100khz is there? I hope you don't believe so.

You sir: "Wayne Kerr 6420"

But is it measuring the same things, or complexity of things the ear hears? Can you prove it?

You sir: "The sad reality is cables are rarely the limiting factor in a system, but many consumers seem so fixated on them that they overlook the obvious:"

I am not sure how you can state that as a fact when your article doesn't off proof, just lots of opinions, suggestions, indications from sources etc.

Anonymous.

 

[Unregistered]

Interesting

"Brickwall Filters in Digital Audio"

Very poor article. First, simple sine waves are used, not complex waveforms.

Secondly, he didn't prove that the data he retrieved was related to what we hear. No mention what so ever. Couple this with the sinewaves and I believe the article didn't prove anything.

anonymous.

 

[Unregistered]

Interesting

You sir: "So, if I am reading you correctly, you have a specific definition of proof, such a mathematical proof? Outside of math, is much proven?"

The problem with your assessment, as with the article, is you are assuming that studies provides facts, and the other is that you cannot seem to prove the math corralates to actual perception. In essence you seem to be blindly believing without proof just as you condemn others for "hearing" differnces in speaker wires.

You sir: "Sure you are allowed to write your own conclusions based on your experience. What would that indicate? How reliable would that be? After all, not all experiences are of equal value, or weight, as an opinion are different value even though everyone has one. Some are worth more than others."

So you are stating that the article isn't factual, but opinion, but more so than others?

"I suppose basing conclusions on published journal data is still doesn't prove anything?"

Well, show me the best data you actually have, with statements from the studies that they are "fact", and not theory or educated guesses. Scientific journals often arrive at a conclusion only to be reversed later on when more data arrives. This happens all the time in the medical field.

You sir: "Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.
"On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise", Zwislocki, J and Jordan H., Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.
"Auditory Intensity Discrimination at High Frequencies in the Presence of Noise", Viemeister, Neal F., Science, vol 220, 16 Sep 83, pg 1206-1208.


Unfortunately, these articles are 404 when trying to retrieve them. Quote the best comments each has to say, the closest to factual statements.
However, one site that references one article also lists: myths copper vs silver. LOL.


You sir: What does a proof must contain that would satisfy you, not that we need your satisfaction, right?

Getting rid of the assumptions made in the article and studies that state they are "proof" when in fact they are not.

You know, if Gene's article is to be believed, as others read his article, the article must be able to pass stringent tests Mt. They are going to ask the same questions as I have. The most glaring error are the theories (studies) and assumptions made and then passed off as "fact" or "proof". I would tone it down to "this is our position" or "this is our conclusion".

I see no problems there.

Good luck guys.

anonymous

 

[mtrycrafts]

You sir: "So, if I am reading you correctly, you have a specific definition of proof, such a mathematical proof? Outside of math, is much proven?"

The problem with your assessment, as with the article, is you are assuming that studies provides facts, and the other is that you cannot seem to prove the math corralates to actual perception. In essence you seem to be blindly believing without proof just as you condemn others for "hearing" differnces in speaker wires.

You sir: "Sure you are allowed to write your own conclusions based on your experience. What would that indicate? How reliable would that be? After all, not all experiences are of equal value, or weight, as an opinion are different value even though everyone has one. Some are worth more than others."

So you are stating that the article isn't factual, but opinion, but more so than others?

"I suppose basing conclusions on published journal data is still doesn't prove anything?"

Well, show me the best data you actually have, with statements from the studies that they are "fact", and not theory or educated guesses. Scientific journals often arrive at a conclusion only to be reversed later on when more data arrives. This happens all the time in the medical field.

You sir: "Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.
"On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise", Zwislocki, J and Jordan H., Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.
"Auditory Intensity Discrimination at High Frequencies in the Presence of Noise", Viemeister, Neal F., Science, vol 220, 16 Sep 83, pg 1206-1208.


Unfortunately, these articles are 404 when trying to retrieve them. Quote the best comments each has to say, the closest to factual statements.
However, one site that references one article also lists: myths copper vs silver. LOL.


You sir: What does a proof must contain that would satisfy you, not that we need your satisfaction, right?

Getting rid of the assumptions made in the article and studies that state they are "proof" when in fact they are not.

You know, if Gene's article is to be believed, as others read his article, the article must be able to pass stringent tests Mt. They are going to ask the same questions as I have. The most glaring error are the theories (studies) and assumptions made and then passed off as "fact" or "proof". I would tone it down to "this is our position" or "this is our conclusion".

I see no problems there.

Good luck guys.

anonymous

Maybe you should try purchasing those references. Not all journal articles are on line. JASA may let you buy them on lione, not sure.
Cannot wouche for your mystical searches and what others post or link. I serioulsy doubt 'Science' and JASA is linked to mythology.
But, I suppose there is no proof in them either, just evidence from their research?

By the way, I don't condem others for hearing cable differences, I just take them to task to prove it, demonstrate it under bias controlled conditions. Anything else is just mythology, you know.

 

[Unregistered]

Factual?

You sir: "Maybe you should try purchasing those references. Not all journal articles are on line. JASA may let you buy them on lione, not sure.
Cannot wouche for your mystical searches and what others post or link. I serioulsy doubt 'Science' and JASA is linked to mythology.
But, I suppose there is no proof in them either, just evidence from their research?"

By the way, I don't condem others for hearing cable differences, I just take them to task to prove it, demonstrate it under bias controlled conditions. Anything else is just mythology, you know."

Have you ever thought there might be flaws in the studies? The authors understand, otherwise they would come out and simply state their findings are "facts". But they don't.
Trying to extend and change the meaning of "theory" to "fact" shows bias.

One can do a search on the internet, as I have done. Copy the title and check out the links. The links provided come up 404 etc, not found. In otherwards they have been taken off. Anything mystical about that?

Good day.
Anonymous

 

[Unregistered]

Have you ever thought there might be flaws in the studies? The authors understand, otherwise they would come out and simply state their findings are "facts". But they don't.
Trying to extend and change the meaning of "theory" to "fact" shows bias.

One can do a search on the internet, as I have done. Copy the title and check out the links. The links provided come up 404 etc, not found. In otherwards they have been taken off. Anything mystical about that?
Good day.
Anonymous

Anon,
Your philosophical arguments about circumstances tested, experimental conditions questioned or realm of universal possibilities beyond what science presently knows is an old argument for 'what can science ever really prove'? It is an endless loop typically propagated by those who do not believe any science is factual (the statistical 5% error theorum) and is the mainstay argument of philosophers seeking a dead end discussion. I have had many students go down this road before and there is no solution to the argument.
Is blue really blue? How can we prove it is blue?
There is just no solution.
But in our society, certain normalities and commonalities are accepted, and with enough individuals working towards proving or disproving common ideas, they become fact. This is the very basis for journal paper submissions and reviews and rewrites. The "rewriting" or overturning of journal results that you referred to earlier is NOT the norm. It is rare and even more so in the medical field no thanks to a little thing called "liability". Medical research is published only with the utmost scrutiny although you seem to have dismissed any of the double checks in place for this process. The highlights of the rare overturns are often big in the media and are typically made to sound like it is commonly occurring. Do you have any idea of how much medically research is published annually and how much is overturned or changed?
Obviously not.
Instead of talking like you are a scientist, perhaps you need to expand your experience with the scientific process before attempting to play a weak role as devil's advocate.

These definitions may help you to understand hypothesis, theory and scientific law. Whether you decide to accept them along with the rest of society is up to you. I have a feeling i know the return answer already.

Cheers,

A real, accredited scientist.

 

[Unregistered]

Interesting

That the definitions have been altered since I was in high school and college taking physics and mathematics, assuming the page your linked to is actually valid.

When I was in college, the definition of fact was, truth, absolutely proven beyond any doubt.

Theory was the expanation of a single or group of phenomena but Not proven, and maybe not capable of being proven, hence NOT fact. A theory could be demonstrated many times, but never proven.

This definition is what the average person use to consider the definition as this was what was being taught.

There use to be a gulf between theory and fact. Now I see the gulf has been closed, assuming the definition you propose is actually true these days.

But I wonder if you are really a scientist, since you didn't know what definition use to be taught in books and college. It is little missed points like this that expose a scammer or deceiver.

You sir: "It is an endless loop typically propagated by those who do not believe any science is factual (the statistical 5% error)...."

Not any science, just bad science such as subjective testing with assumption after assumption actually mentioned as part of the tests.
Notice in Gene's comments, links etc, that most of the articles never mention equipment used, nor even any procedual issues.
By the way, the scope one used in testing with 100hz and 20khz sine waves will only show data some 20 to about 35db down from the fundamental, so any information below this threshhold won't be shown. How about that for a glaring error. It can easily be demonstrated by anyone with a scope and a few other pieces of equipment.

You sir: "But in our society, certain normalities and commonalities are accepted, and with enough individuals working towards proving or disproving common ideas, they become fact. This is the very basis for journal paper submissions and reviews and rewrites."

Certain normalities and commonalities being accepted does not constitute proof in any way, shape, or form, unless each of those commonalities, normalities have already been proven as fact. You can't prove truth/fact by using assumptions and educated guesses. Even a high school student would know that.

You sir: "Instead of talking like you are a scientist, perhaps you need to expand your experience with the scientific process before attempting to play a weak role as devil's advocate."

I have taken many courses in High school and College physics and Mathematics in my day, and your post leaves alot to be desired. I really doubt you are indeed a scientist. Did you change your moniker by any chance? (Doesn't it sound like Mt posting?)

Anonymous

 

[mtrycrafts]

You sir: "Maybe you should try purchasing those references. Not all journal articles are on line. JASA may let you buy them on lione, not sure.
Cannot wouche for your mystical searches and what others post or link. I serioulsy doubt 'Science' and JASA is linked to mythology.
But, I suppose there is no proof in them either, just evidence from their research?"

By the way, I don't condem others for hearing cable differences, I just take them to task to prove it, demonstrate it under bias controlled conditions. Anything else is just mythology, you know."

Have you ever thought there might be flaws in the studies? The authors understand, otherwise they would come out and simply state their findings are "facts". But they don't.
Trying to extend and change the meaning of "theory" to "fact" shows bias.

One can do a search on the internet, as I have done. Copy the title and check out the links. The links provided come up 404 etc, not found. In otherwards they have been taken off. Anything mystical about that?

Good day.
Anonymous

Oh, no, the 404 reference is not mystical. You forgot your own post already?

"However, one site that references one article also lists: myths copper vs silver. LOL.
"

And, the 404 doesn't mean that those Journal articles were posted on line but now are gone, or do they? JASA has never been poste on line as far as I know. I had to pay for my further education, not expensive.

But, a little leg work on your part will locate them in either a good engineering library, interlibrary loan request, or, the JASA and Sience themselves? What a concept.

Flaws in the studies? Until someone poins them out with equally valid papers, why should I? Wen that happens, I can certainly consider the new evidence and reevaluate. Possibility is there in every published paper to be flawed but another published peer paper must point to the flaws, no? Otherwise and until then it is sheer speculation.
You are welcome to point to the flaws in those JASA papers. Your published papers would carry more weight.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have taken many courses in High school and College physics and Mathematics in my day, and your post leaves alot to be desired. I really doubt you are indeed a scientist. Did you change your moniker by any chance? (Doesn't it sound like Mt posting?)

Anonymous

Ah, then you are not a real scientist. Perhaps you stayed in a Holiday Inn last night?

You may be right, you will never know, it seems, that the posted link is just another mystical page on the net. Doesn't seem like you are interested in outside research of your own? Maybe I made up my citations. Seems impressive, right?

Maybe he even changed his moniker, Or, maybe I changed mine? Or, you could be just imaginary, a blip in ciberspace, a worm, a virus?