michaelk@tekmdp.UUCP (Michael Kersenbrock) (09/23/83)
Yes, I have suspected that double-blind ABX testing is a foolhardy way of testing speaker cables. Everyone knows that the way to test such cables is to hold one up to your forehead and chant 'till the answer comes to you. :-) The above comment actually makes as much or more sense than those letters to the editor that were printed. Mike Kersenbrock Tektronix Microcomputer Development Products Aloha, Oregon P.S.- Has anyone done a study as to the effect of grille cloth color has on coloration of speaker performance? Does a red grille make the speaker sound "warm"? My speaker cloth is Black to assure no coloration. Would white have worked as well? P.P.S.- Is a Linn Sondek "designer stereo"?
dce@tekecs.UUCP (David Elliott) (09/24/83)
No one mentioned the fact that at least three of the replies to the speaker wire article were from audio dealers, and the most vehement article was from the president of Monster Cable. These guys have a right to flame, since it's their livelyhood. Regarding speaker cloth color - I prefer a nice orange, since it helps make the sound "warmer". David
emrath@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/26/83)
#R:tekcad:-5000:uiuccsb:5700011:000:348
uiuccsb!emrath Sep 26 03:36:00 1983
For the quickest improvement to the sound from your system,
just turn the gain up a notch or three.
{assuming you haven't reached unbearable distortion or
the threshold of pain :-}
I got quite a few grins from the above mentioned S.R. letters,
especially the one about using coax for speaker cables and
the picture of the Q-tip for the panelists.david@tekid.UUCP (David Hayes) (09/26/83)
By the time you are concerned about your speaker wire, you must have invested elsewhere in your system and listening room. What the hell, Monster Cable does LOOK bad ass, and you can use it to jump start the car too!! tektronix!tekid!david
shauns@tekcad.UUCP (09/29/83)
Hey, folks, this net has gotten a bit quiet lately, so I'd like to toss
something into the area of computer discourse and dialogue.
This pertains to the Letters column in October's Stereo review, which deals
largely with the irate and vehement rebuttals to that Magazine's sobering
tests of audiophile speaker wire. The upshot of the testing was that 16 gauge
jukebox cord could NOT be distinguished from Monster Cable when carefully
controlled double-blind testing was used, but, curiously, DID sound
better when the panel knew what interconnect they were listening to.
Stereo Review concluded that the only benefit of such cable was to the
manufacturer in the form of large profit margins.
I will let you read the interesting and sometimes hilarious replies for
yourself; one reader went so far as to say that "naked wires" did terrible
things to the sound and that the only way to properly connect amp to speaker is
through coaxial cable. I do hope he doesn't mean RG58-U.
However, there was one reply that interested me. This respondant, in the
midst of damning Stereo Review for impeding audio progress, claimed that
intantaneously switched ABX comparison schemes actually mask fine differences
in performance, and that this is why none was discerned.
He also claimed that aural memory is actually quite long, long enough to allow
the speaker cables to be manually exchanged, and that if this is done,
differences will be evident.
He gave no proof, however. Does anybody in netland care to discuss
why he might think this the case?
--
Shaun Simpkins
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!shauns
CSnet: shauns@tek
ARPAnet:shauns.tek@rand-relaydmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (09/29/83)
If people are really worried about the impedance of their speaker wires, why don't they use one mono amp located directly behind each speaker coupled with very heavy wire? Or would other losses in the coax feeding the amp cause new problems? If you're fussy, you could use a 75 ohm buffer between the preamp out and the cable, and a 75 ohm resistor to terminate the coax at the amp. Anyone see any problems with this? Dave Martindale
craig@hp-pcd.UUCP (10/01/83)
#R:tekcad:-5000:hp-kirk:5300009:000:649 hp-kirk!craig Sep 26 08:01:00 1983 In response to Stereo Review's speaker cable test: Reading the results, it would seem that the AVERAGE listener can't hear the difference between 16g cable and monstor cable (or 24g in some cases) when listening to MUSIC. However, one person in the test was able to (>87% "hits") hear the difference between mc and 16g. So if you consider your self to be average - use 16g. This test indicates to me that some people can hear better than others and MAY benefit from monstor cable. Use YOUR ears - not someone elses, tests like these are guidelines. Craig "averages don't apply to individuals" Durland hp-pcd!hp-cvd!craig ps I use 14g cable.
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (10/07/83)
However, one person in the test was able to (>87% "hits") hear the difference between mc and 16g. Has ANYONE tried going to their local electrical distributor and buying the heaviest 2-wire cable that they can obtain for a price less than or equal to that of Monster Cable (or whatever) and then comparing them? Isn't this an obvious thing to try? Dave Martindale
pmr@drufl.UUCP (Rastocny) (10/11/83)
At a meeting of the AT&T ISL Audio Club yesterday, eight members listened to five different types of wires through the same system with the same source material. The reference system was an NAD 3140 with the the following two modifications: a. output transistors are wired directly to one set of speaker terminals (speaker selector switch bypassed). b. power supply wiring to the output devices is beefed up by three orders of magnitude. Loudspeakers were AR-5s (modified internal wiring and crossover capacitors, grill and front lip cut off). Turntable was a Denon DP-30L with a Boston Acoustics moving coil cartridge (both stock). Wires evaluated were: 1. #16 zip cord 2. #10 Saxton 2-wire separates 3. Kimber cable 4. Home-made 4-wire pseudo Litz from #12 copper, 19 strands of #25, PVC insulator 5. Home-made 4-wire pseudo Litz from #12 tinned copper, 65 strands of #30, PVC & cloth insulator. Reference recordings were "Pressure Cooker", Thelma Houston on Sheffield Lab, and "Billy Jean", Michael Jackson. Cables were connected via banana jacks to the loudspeaker terminals and reduction pins to the amplifier terminals so wires could be changed in about 10-20 seconds. Unanimous (and I stress the word unanimous) observed differences were that the zip cord and the Saxton "2-wire" stuff sounded lifeless and muddy with respect to the other three. Sound stage was almost non- existent and imaging was poor. Inner detail on the high hat was totally missing. The Kimber cable sounded very (overly) bright. Sound stage was better but not good. Instrument inner detail was better but still slurred or veiled. The copper conductor 4-wire (#4 from the above list) had an incredibly wide and deep sound stage and very good definition but the bass was still a bit muddy and the top end a bit soft. This wire was so much better that people had to recheck the tone control and volume settings to make sure that nothing else in the evaluation had changed. Nothing did. The tinned copper 4-wire (#5 from the above list) sounded even better than its pure copper counterpart. This observation was totally unexpected but still confirmed by everyone present. The sound stage was better defined, deeper, and wider. Veiling, especially on the top end, was noticeably less and the bass was tighter. This was the best wire there period. One member said that he had taken home these wires and not noticed such dramatic differences on his home system (Yamaha receiver and Jensen loudspeakers). Phil Rastocny drufl!pmr
dave@rocksvax.UUCP (Dave Sewhuk) (10/13/83)
I have to wonder about all this hoopla about speaker wire. How this
test was made? Was it conducted in a "double-blind" environment where
none of the participants knew what combinations of wires were used?
Peoples expectations could color the outcome of the test! Some of the
combinations of wires seemed to me to be electrically equivalent. The
only differences would have been the zip cord to the "big" wire.
The trusty Electronics Engineers' Handbook says that #3-#5 are essentially the
same wire. I am ignoring the Litz effect due to that fact that the
skin effect in the wires at those frequencies is negligable, hence
it was a waste to do in the first place. Tin is a much worse conductor than
copper so its contribution to increasing the copper cross area is also
negligible, unless of course it really is thick on the wire.
Copper cross area:
#9: .01028"
#10: .008155"
#12: .00513"
#25*19: .004788"
#30*65: .0051025" therefore
wire 3 = .008155" wire 4= .00992" wire 5= .01023"
For the range of observed differences, I find it hard to believe that
your test results are valid, sorry. Those wires are essentially 9-10 gauge
wires. Also how long was each wire, I don't recall you mentioning that
parameter.
If you are going to give us results of subjective materials, let us know
the method the scoring was done. If the vote was done by consensus then
the results are probably the same as the most outspoken person or the
one who answered first.
Unless the results were voted on in secret and the participants did not
know what wire was used at each phase of the test you might as well have
not reported the results.
Can feel the heat rising now, Dave
-----
Arpa: Sewhuk.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
uucp: {allegra, rochester, amd70, sunybcs}!rocksvax!davedca@iedl02.UUCP (10/14/83)
Oh G-zus, (refering to the submission to the net on speaker wires) of COURSE you will find that the less esoteric speaker wires sound worse than the Blivitz Cranston Omega slash 7 framitz wires with Kalkan and whiteners. Cut me some slack, get any group of Golden heads together to do an "unbiased" (huh) evaluation and you are guaranteed totally predictable and totally biased results. In fact, more likely than not the opinions of the group will reflect those of the most outspoken and respected member of the group (big suprise right?). There is NO WAY you would ever get me to accept results of tests that aren't at least single blind, preferably double blind. (Golden Ears give me a pain in the a**) David Albrecht
leichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter) (10/14/83)
Just a quick agreement with Dave. Without some controls on how the test was done, the results mean little. Any interesting thing to notice, by the way, is that the reported differences, mainly in imaging and a little in transient response, seem most closely corre- lated with phase distortions, and possibly with differences in transient response. It is difficult to see how there could be any significant variation in the wires discussed - well, theoretically the Litz wire could do better, but I doubt you are going to get any effect out to a couple of 100 Khertz; I can't see much anywhere in a range that the speakers will respond to, not to mention human ears. There remains a possibility: Were the wires all the same length, and, in particular, if they were long were they wound into coils? Putting a nice inductor in between your amp and your speaker would certainly screw up the phase and high-frequency characteristics. -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale
mat@hou5d.UUCP (10/14/83)
Regarding the tin vs no tin speaker wires -- is it possible that corrosion or lack thereof on the surface of the wires is contributing to a nonlinear current/voltage relationship which could result in harmonic distortion at low signal levels? Listining at moderate levels with reasonably sensitive speakers often requires 0.1 watt or less. 0.1 watt through 8 ohms means about .28 volts. Junction effects at these levels seem quite plausable, especially when there are at least 4 connections in each circuit. Does anyone know of any studies? Is anyone in a position to measure such things? The sort of test I have in mind is this: Get a dual-channel scope of reasonable quality. Put a sine wave of, say, 4 kHz into the input of a high quality amp like the Hafler at a level that will result in a .4 volt rms output. With the scope, compare the signals entering the amp, the signals leaving the amp, and the signals across a load. The load should be a pure resistor of 8 ohms. What you are looking for is any kind of nonlinearity around the zero-crossing. The output signal should have a peak of .56 volts and the nonlinearities, if any, would probably be worst around the zero-crossing. Anyone set up to do this? Anyone care to loan me a decent scope? Mark Terribile Duke of deNet
mat@hou5d.UUCP (10/15/83)
A comment on the note that ``putting a nice inductor into the line will certainly screw up your phase/frequency response.'' If you have a load that is not a perfect resistor (my speakers sure aren't) even a RESISTANCE will screw up response a little bit. See also my question about surface/junction effects elsewhere. Mark Terribile Duke of deNet
bees@drux3.UUCP (Ray Davis) (10/15/83)
Come on. Do you people get off by berating everything someone else
has to say!?! The audio group (of which I have nothing to do with)
here simply decided to make a simple test. They did, and someone
thought all you audio nuts might be interested in what they THOUGHT.
I doubt very much they intended their test to be the ultimate test.
Do you really think they care what YOU think about the test? They
got what they wanted out of it.
If anyone on this net has something constructive to say, then say it.
Quit flaming and farting and squirming in your seat about every damn
thing you read. This is a net comprised of PEOPLE, not perfection.
If you can't say something good, and say it in a positive manner
(and I know this is not positive, but possibly more understandable
to whom it is intended), then SHUT UP!
I appreciated the audio club's opinions, and the time and effort
it took them to conduct and report their test.
Ray Davis AT&T Information Systems Labs @ Denver (303)538-3991
{ihnp4|hogpc}!druxy!beessmb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (10/16/83)
From: bees@drux3.UUCP Subject: Re: Speaker wire: reader reactions - (nf) Message-ID: <834@drux3.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Oct-83 21:12:08 EDT If anyone on this net has something constructive to say, then say it. Quit flaming and farting and squirming in your seat about every damn thing you read. This is a net comprised of PEOPLE, not perfection. If you can't say something good, and say it in a positive manner (and I know this is not positive, but possibly more understandable to whom it is intended), then SHUT UP! Ah, nothing like consistent, high-level, discussion. You've made your point; please try to understand the opposing point. Some people claim that certain kinds of wire have a certain effect on sound. Others claim that not only does it not have that effect, but that it cannot. So what happens? You post a note describing a test that gave a certain result. Others -- including myself -- were skeptical, and inquired about sources of bias (my inquiry was a polite inquiry via mail). Do we get back any substantive replies? No, of course not -- we're blamed for "flaming" and "farting". A simple "I don't know about the test conditions, but I trust these people" would be far more informative, far more polite, and far more conducive to rational discussion.
bees@drux3.UUCP (10/16/83)
> From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) > Newsgroups: net.audio > Subject: Re: Speaker wire: reader reactions - (nf) > Message-ID: <657@ulysses.UUCP> > References: <1970@hp-pcd.UUCP>, <937@watcgl.UUCP> <689@drufl.UUCP> <947@rocksvax.UUCP>, <834@drux3.UUCP> > > Ah, nothing like consistent, high-level, discussion. You've made your > point; please try to understand the opposing point. Some people claim > that certain kinds of wire have a certain effect on sound. Others claim > that not only does it not have that effect, but that it cannot. So what > happens? You post a note describing a test that gave a certain result. > Others -- including myself -- were skeptical, and inquired about sources > of bias (my inquiry was a polite inquiry via mail). Do we get back any > substantive replies? No, of course not -- we're blamed for "flaming" > and "farting". A simple "I don't know about the test conditions, but I > trust these people" would be far more informative, far more polite, and > far more conducive to rational discussion. If you had checked the references line in my article, you would have found that my followup was in reference to <947@rocksvax.UUCP>. That article was another non-polite followup to someone's well intended article. If you would read my followup, you would also see that I am not the person who posted the audio test. I would not have received any of your mail. Personally, I could care less about the test and the wire, my followup was brought about by yet another pseudo-expert berating what someone else said. I expect people to disagree, but not tell another person to keep his tests (or whatever) off the net because it wasn't a double-blind, third degree, whiz bang, test. Next time READ an article and check the REFERENCES before you followup. Ray Davis AT&T Information Systems Labs @ Denver (303)538-3991 {ihnp4|hogpc}!druxy!bees