Printable View
Hi,
I have been using very thick Monster cable for my Altec "VOT's" for many years and they seem to work fine. My amp is about 100 watts per channel.
What would be the difference if I used normal house wiring (like the wiring inside a house wall) of the same gauge?
The house wiring would have slightly less strands (but still the same overall AWG) - does this matter?
Does anyone know if large one-piece solid wire is better?
Jack
This kind of question will elicit all sorts of opinions. Heavy emphasis on "opinions". Perhaps a better place to approach this would be the Cable Asylum:
Cable Asylum
Good Luck!
I'd suggest having a look at Dr. R.A. Greiner's `Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interfacing' (AES paper presented at the 63rd Convention of the Auedio Engineering Society, May 1979).
This paper can be found in Volume 2 of `Loudspeakers: An Anthology' from the Audio Engineering Society.
To be succinct, you ought to be concerned with cable length vs. DC resistance. In most domestic instances, 14-16AWG zip cord works well.
Now I'll offer an opinion:
I've personally have _yet_ to see any specialty cable company that will submit any product to a double-blind test since I've been involved with the audio industry. They always demur, which is typical of so-called `Golden-Ears' who claim to have superhuman hearing that mere mortals cannot possibly possess.
Double-blind testing is the only statistically-valid means of discerning an audible difference between a specialty `boutique' cable and, say, 16 AWG zip cord (my favourite).
IMHO, specialty cable manufacturers exist only on strange belief systems, total lack of quantitative or qualitative analysis on the part of consumers, deceptive advertising and value systems akin to used car or insurance salesmen.
BobR
It wouldn't be really suited to your 100w amps, but I've been using single strands of Cat6 network wire for speaker wire and interconnects. I would happily submit to a blind test, despite it's inherent faults, as the difference is not subtle. It's definitely more suited to low power applications such as my SET amp and relatively short runs, in my case around 5' per side for the speakers. The added bonus is it's often a good bit cheaper than even zip cord.
Dave
Ok, heres my 2 cents on this subject! Any cable, with good connectors;i.e. switchcraft, neutrik, or whatever, and the proper wire gauge works well.
In fact, I have tried some rather expensive interconnects and heard a difference, yet, never one that was actually better, just different! I have found some expensive cables to sound edgy. Then when I put the regular interconnect back everything is as it is supposed to be!
Believe it or not, Radio Shack Pro Gold,s work well, and are nothing special, but are made decently. I also make my own cables using West Penn 2 conductor, 24awg, and switchcraft connectors, and this works for me!
Also, always remember that the people who buy ridiculously priced wire and cable submit to the belief that if it COSTS more it MUST be better, after all not everyone has these!
So ego and feelings of exclusivity are also at work here!
Monster Cable is nothing but Litz wire. Litz wire has NEVER been proven, as far as I have ever known, to be superior to properly manufactured high-quality strnaded/twisted pair wire of the same guage. It's all verrrrry subjective - just beware people who try to sell you "special sound wire."
They call it "Litz" wire because it was designed by a German. The actual word is "Litzendraht" which means "woven wire."
Generally defined, it is a wire constructed of individual film insulated wires bunched or braided together in a uniform pattern of twists and length of lay.
The multistrand configuration minimizes the power losses otherwise encountered in a solid conductor due to the "skin effect", or the tendency of radio frequency current to be concentrated at the surface of the conductor.
In order to counteract this effect, it is necessary to increase the amount of surface area without appreciably increasing the size of the conductor. It is also essential to position each individual strand in the Litz construction in a uniform pattern moving from the center to the outside and back in a given length.
Even properly constructed Litz wires will exhibit some skin effect due to the limitations of stranding. Wires intended for higher frequency ranges require more strands of a finer gauge size than Litz wires of equal cross sectional area but composed of fewer and larger strands.
Polyurethane is the film most often used for insulating individual strands because of its low electrical losses and its solderability. Other insulations can also be used. Litz wires are generally further insulated with a single or double wrap or serving, of a textile-typically nylon-but are also available unserved.
The biggest problem with Litz wire for audiophile use is that it doesn't really help in the 20Hz - 20kHz band. What DOES help is the larger gauge...
I don't like solid stranded wire for audio use, as it is easier to break, especially at the terminals, but lots of people do.
I'd just keep what I have, if i were you...
<font color="#FFFFFF" size="1">[ June 27, 2004 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Todd W. White ]</font>
The monstercable wire I have is twisted in a pattern that resembles Litz construction, but it is most certainly just bare copper strands. Maybe they have high-end line that uses actual litz construction, I don't know.
Dave
I've read that most of the litz wire makers no in the USA no longer actually braid it like it was designed to be...
I believed that interconnects and speaker cables can affect to the music reproductions if you have a high quality audio system to recognize. Anyway, it depended to the materials employed (High purity silver and copper). Cause those are the best electro conductibility. But I wonder that why some Hi End cables producers would like to use 24K gold or platinum to build their Hi End cable. Many peoples would know pure gold and platinum are also having lower conductibility to the audio signals. So, I believed that the reason is can selling higher price. A best example of ridiculous is MaMa Lab?s model XXXGA 1.0 (a pair of 3 meters speaker cables) price as a BMW. Then its economy version 0.8 has been selling about $10,000. Would you think that if use these cables will better than to pay for a set of real Hi End hardware? http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
Anyway, monster cable is not the best, but I surely that it is not the worst.
Thanks everyone for their responses.
"Skin effect" is when the electrons travel on the surface of a wire.
This ocurrs at high frequencies.
I am an Electrical Engr but don't readily have my textbook out to calculate what the skin effect would be at 20KHz.
As I remember, this happens at 100's of Megahertz and above (giga etc.).
Can someone confirm this.
If skin effect is not an issue, then overall current carrying capability would be the only item of concern (and maybe connectors too).
P=I squared times R (or I = the square root of power over resistance)
A 100wt amp would, into an 8 ohm speaker (plus whatever minor resistance a good size wire would add over the route of the electrons) result in about 3.5 amps. A 12 awg wire can take 20 amps or so.
Jack
Jack : When I removed my Altec stuff from it's original install in the theater, it was wired with 12AWG solid wire. Bear in mind that the booth where the poweramps lived were over 100 feet away. I can only assume that this was installed by Altec.
"When I removed my Altec stuff from it's original install in the theater, it was wired with 12AWG solid wire. Bear in mind that the booth where the poweramps lived were over 100 feet away. I can only assume that this was installed by Altec."
Clearly the engineers at Altec understood Ohm's Law and the voltage divider, both of which form the basis of electricity and electronics.
If more people understood electricity and magnetism, then they'd also realise the concept of diminishing returns on over- (and under-)sized speaker cable.
And perhaps some of these specialty cable companies would finally go out of business as well as a result of educated consumers who understand proper quantitative and qualitative analysis.
One could only hope...
BobR
Jack,
Skin effect has little effect in the audio bandwidth, on the order of 0.2dB @ 20kHz in the worst-case scenarios with 25 ft. 16AWG stranded zip cord.
Most of the `problems' with standard cable (and line-level interconnects) that these specialty cable manufacturers claim to resolve are only significant at megahertz or gigahertz anyways.
BobR
Bob,
There are many faults and many papers detailing them. One does not notice everything there is to notice about sound in the space of a few minutes or even hours, and direct comparison has it's faults. Something might seem to sound much different when listened to on its own than when compared to something else.
The bottom line is that I don't need a test, I hear the difference and I trust my ears *long* before what anyone else says. And I don't listen to what gets tested, I listen to what I want.
I find that generally people who claim there are no differences between different wire have not spent much time investigating this. Those that have might still prefer straight 12ga wire, but I doubt they would claim there is no difference.
Dave
Also, I don't claim to have an explanation, but there is a rather clear difference to me between Cat5 wire and Cat6 wire. The principal difference is that Cat5 is rated to 100mhz while Cat6 is rated to 250mhz. This shouldn't on paper make any difference in the audio band but I'm here to tell you that the difference is plainly audible.
Dave
Selmerdave,
"I would happily submit to a blind test, despite it's inherent faults, as the difference is not subtle."
What are the inherent faults of a blind test?
Sighted tests introduce *far* more variables and are more error-prone, mostly because of listener prejudice.
When conducting double-blind vs. sighted tests on amplifiers, `grand differences' in the sighted evals *ALWAYS* became statistically insignificant in the double-blind tests.
Here's a relevant RAP (Bob Pease of Nat Semi) Electronic Design article that some of you may find humorous:
What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?
BobR
Although you?ve never known the cables are rated for which frequency range. You should also hear more differences. I think you cannot ask for anyone which one or gauge is the best. Then you shouldn?t to ask for someone that which principle to build an audio cable is forever right. Cause any cables are also have lifecycle that many peoples would also agreed (new , break-in , used long period). The results are also audible!
as Dave explained. ?The difference is plainly audible.?
There is true that I certainly.
Some cables are rated for the specify frequency used. So you employ 14ga, 16ga or 18ga would provide differences result but you can have a choice to your favorite.
My several examples,
1. I have tested a same series wire ( Cadas and V.D.H.)with difference gauge for my speaker?s Xover to horn. Obviously, the details of vocal, LF & HF extend are more difference.
2. I have replaced a 7000W factory grade OFC power cord to instead the original one. The results are got more deep bass re-appear, then increase the S/N ratio that means the background of the sound stage is more silently.
3. I have compared with a lot of 75 ohms digital cables for CDP to DAC. Also got grand differences.
And more experienced about the cables performance. However, I will only pay around $ 1000 for any audio wires.
Again, I must reiterate, ITS a matter of choice, as well as personal opinions, and tastes! I CAN hear differences with different wires, but, I havent found an esoteric cable, or interconnect that I LIKE! I use west penn, and switchcraft and neutrik connectors, and I get great results!
If some of you guys have found something that works for you, thats great, and you do what works for you!
I have an expensive pair of Wireworld Eclipse Gold interconnects, and I hate them!!!!!!!!! But I wouldve alwaysd wondered had I not spent the money! I have other cables as well, all sitting, and collecting dust!
These are JUST my opinions, and as I said before, and in earlier posts, if you hear something you like, go ahead and use it!
Selmerdave:
(on double-blind tests): "There are many faults and many papers detailing them."
I've only seen one, in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society; it was thoroughly debunked.
The double-blind test is accepted as a statistically valid test in evaluating photographic film, food flavourings, other products where perceived differences may be aesthetic.
The purpose of the double-blind test to reduce all variables down to the DUT and to remove any reviewer prejudice. That's what makes it a far more accurate evaluation.
It is rather strange that there is such an aversion to it in the high-end audio equipment realm. That fact is telling...
"The bottom line is that I don't need a test, I hear the difference and I trust my ears *long* before what anyone else says. And I don't listen to what gets tested, I listen to what I want."
The fact that you listened to your Cat6 ethernet cable and found it to be superior to Cat5 constitutes a test - albeit a sighted one.
"I find that generally people who claim there are no differences between different wire have not spent much time investigating this. "
I've done plenty of evaluation of wire/cable/transmission lines at the RF level; this entails making the tedious L-C-R analogues and calculating reactances, losses, etc. When brought down to the audio bandwidth, the only significant consideration is DC resistance.
On a practical level, I've done plenty of work with the blind, for music and spoken book recording. These folk have incredibly acute hearing and are especially sensitive to additional harmonics (distortion), frequency response difference, pitch variations and most significantly, noise. I have noted that they can perceive differences between analogue and digital recording (they prefer the latter for lack of wow-flutter, distortion and especially noise), the inclusion/exclusion of line-level transformers and dynamics processing (compression/limiting).
They've never been able to discern between amplifiers (except when the noise floor is appreciably different) or cable, whether line-level or speaker level.
BobR
HiFiPlayer:
"Cause any cables are also have lifecycle that many peoples would also agreed (new , break-in , used long period). The results are also audible!"
Wire does not incur *any* molecular change (apart from oxidation) over time... The dielectric (insulation) may degrade but will not affect the performance of the wire at audio frequencies.
"Some cables are rated for the specify frequency used."
Yes, some cable is intended for RF, others for microwave. These have specific geometry and materials to affect capacitive or inductive reactance, which may be significant at RF (and may be easily demonstrated with an L-C-R model).
At audio frequency into a 4-16 ohm load, resistance is the only significant factor.
"I have replaced a 7000W factory grade OFC power cord to instead the original one. The results are got more deep bass re-appear, then increase the S/N ratio that means the background of the sound stage is more silently. "
Power cord changes the sound??? Unless your original power cord was 36AWG and incurred significant power loss, changing your power cable will have absolutely no effect.
You do not understand how a power supply works. Pick up a copy of Horowitz' Art of Electronics. It is a very useful, non-math-intensive review of basic electronics.
In fact, a lot of people on this forum could benefit from that book.
"I have compared with a lot of 75 ohms digital cables for CDP to DAC. Also got grand differences."
There is a digital section in the aforementioned book which gives a pretty good primer on Digital Signal Processing and Error Correction.
Unless one or more of the cables you compared was faulty, I believe that your prejudice influenced your perception, highlighting your need for blind testing.
"However, I will only pay around $ 1000 for any audio wires."
That will purchase two 1000' spools of Belden 8451, which is a recording studio standard and perfectly adequate line-level cable.
That would probably purchase over a mile of speaker cable that, under double-blind testing, would sound identical to the exotic.
If you folks could only see all the twisted-pair 24AWG wire, punch down blocks, tinned spade lugs, Cinch terminal blocks, tinsel leaded brass Mil/WeCo/Bantam patch plugs and jackfields, etc. that are in the facilities where your favourite music is recorded, perhaps you'd consider this preoccupation with wire a *bit* neurotic.
Folks, please use some logic and deductive reasoning!
Transducers make the biggest difference. Source material (i.e. - DVD-A, CD, LPs, FM, analogue tape) also makes a big difference. It is these areas where big, grand improvements are realised.
Competant modern amplifiers and cables for all intents and purposes sound identical. Save your money in this area. $1000 will purchase a *lot* of CDs.
BobR
here is my 2.2 cents worth.
in my first house, when converting the breezeway to a family room [early 70s] I ran in the wall 2 runs of 14ga romex from on side [marantz 240B] of the room to the other [2 15" & 811 horn ea]seeburg discotech speakers. just put binding posts on a blank plate for a nice finish. being cheap I soldered and taped 16 ga zip for each ends flexible connection to equ & spkrs. IMHO all the high tech gold plated 5h!t only serves to flatten your wallet. 14ga is good for 1800 watts at 60HZ
Bob,
I didn't say I preferred Cat6 (although I do). I said I can plainly hear a difference. This is the point. I'm not saying everyone should like what I do, I know many people would not. But I am saying that there are cables out there be they expensive boutique or not that make a rather significant difference in sound. I notice that you didn't mention that you have *listened* to a variety of cables and in fact can not hear a difference be it better or worse.
You mentioned the blind people not being able to tell the difference from one amp to the next, now I can believe this if we're talking JVC receiver to Technics receiver, but I cannot if we're talking JVC receiver to 300B SET. Like wise I can believe that they can't tell the difference between 16ga cable from Home Depot and 16ga cable from Radio Shack, but not if it's 16ga cable from Home Depot to (for example) Cat 6. I'm not concerned about preference, I'm concerned with the fact that there is an audible difference.
Dave
FWIW, one of my A7-500's is hooked up via a MonsterCable and the other with a similar length of Radio Shack 16 ga white speaker wire. I cannot hear any difference at all.
Also, note that many of the "golden ears" in _The Absolute Sound_ have concluded that Home Depot 14 ga extension cord makes an excellent cable. Makes one wonder...
Put me down on the side maintaining that "all competent amps and cables sound the same". To me, at least, they do.
taudo
Ill say it again, " I grows me own cables and interconnects " usin west penn two conductor, plus ground, shielded 24awg, and neutrik and switchcraft connectors!
I dont think, IMHO, interconnects and cables are worth $500 or more! There are some cables that I think I can hear a difference, but I didnt like it! But this is just me!
My system, and its a big one, is all connected using my above mentioned home made cables, and it works. all I know is my system sounds as it should! I agree with Bob 10,000% that the transducers, ( speakers )are the real determining factor of how any system sounds!
Next new thread should be on Power Conditioners! I would like to know who uses them, and how much any of you guys have spent on these, cause this is something else I tried, and found I was better off without!
Ill say it again, " I grows me own cables and interconnects " usin west penn two conductor, plus ground, shielded 24awg, and neutrik and switchcraft connectors!
I dont think, IMHO, interconnects and cables are worth $500 or more! There are some cables that I think I can hear a difference, but I didnt like it! But this is just me!
My system, and its a big one, is all connected using my above mentioned home made cables, and it works. all I know is my system sounds as it should! I agree with Bob 10,000% that the transducers, ( speakers )are the real determining factor of how any system sounds!
Next new thread should be on Power Conditioners! I would like to know who uses them, and how much any of you guys have spent on these, cause this is something else I tried, and found I was better off without!
Hi, BobR
?Wire does not incur *any* molecular change (apart from oxidation) over time... The dielectric (insulation) may degrade but will not affect the performance of the wire at audio frequencies.?
Yes, the one of reasons is oxidation. And then conductor acidification and insulation becomes to Harding etc. Have you tried to clean and polish the conductors then HF with obviously goes ringing. Much cable has sounds more sharp when new. But will becomes to smooth that especially happens on MID to HF. It also related with oxidation ,acidification and heat. http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
?Yes, some cable is intended for RF, others for microwave. These have specific geometry and materials to affect capacitive or inductive reactance, which may be significant at RF (and may be easily demonstrated with an L-C-R model).?
?There is a digital section in the aforementioned book which gives a pretty good primer on Digital Signal Processing and Error Correction.?
Yes, The reasons are relating with capacitive or inductive reactance. I.e. copper or silver?s purity that affect to the speeds of conduct electricity and also spoilage. A 75 Ohms cable is for wideband signals transfers. Especially aimed to the very high frequency. So, the digital cables would affects to the signal errors. Have you know that some 75 ohms cable maybe 85 ohms actually but some might 72 or 78 ohms by measured. http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
?Power cord changes the sound??? Unless your original power cord was 36AWG and incurred significant power loss, changing your power cable will have absolutely no effect.?
I don?t agree. There is relating with the conductor?s capacitive or inductive reactance too. Then it also affected to ground connecting. I.e. compare with aluminum, copper and silver wire for ground using. I believe that no one would like to employ aluminum wire for his tube amp?s ground use. http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
?That will purchase two 1000' spools of Belden 8451, which is a recording studio standard and perfectly adequate line-level cable.?
OF course I know, but some cables really has out standing sound with other through compared. Many models of MIT, XLO, Cadas, Audio quest and VDH etc are not cheap that you should know. :S
By the way, I have a pair of an old model of monster cable ( interlink 500) that still a good one. Obviously, provide more detail than many Japanese products. http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
I agree some vintage W.E.?s (colth) are good wire for audio. Cheap but good! http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
My suggestion: to add a quality UHF to your speaker system can help you to discover the minute difference much more. You must try if you didn?t. http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
Selmerdave,
"I didn't say I preferred Cat6 (although I do). I said I can plainly hear a difference. This is the point. I'm not saying everyone should like what I do, I know many people would not. But I am saying that there are cables out there be they expensive boutique or not that make a rather significant difference in sound"
Re: Cat6 vs. Cat5. Sorry, I did misunderstand you in that you didn't indicate a preference but can allegedly a difference.
That's what blind testing is designed to do: it is intended to provide an accurate measure of perception of difference between two DUTs.
"I notice that you didn't mention that you have *listened* to a variety of cables and in fact can not hear a difference be it better or worse."
Personally, I never have since I do understand transmission line theory already and know that at audio frequencies into low 4 - 16 ohm loads, only DC resistance will impart a perceptible difference between cables. This is plain physics.
However, I have used double-blind tests on subjects (in this case, blind musicians) to illustrate the frivolous nature of fretting over amplifiers and special cable to studio owners and their technical staff.
After showing that double-blind tests on amps and cables yielded statistically insignificant results BUT double-blind tests on recorders, mixing desks (noise floor, NOT eq), microphones and monitor loudspeakers yielded statisically significant results, the studio owners and technical staff knew where to spend their money.
"You mentioned the blind people not being able to tell the difference from one amp to the next, now I can believe this if we're talking JVC receiver to Technics receiver, but I cannot if we're talking JVC receiver to 300B SET."
You're right; I never did include a 300B SET in the tests. There were practical considerations: first, a 300B SET would not produce the output power necessary in a 1200 ft^2 control room. Secondly, 300B tubes degrade over time; the sound changes as well (noise floor increases, harmonic distortion rises, etc.). Not acceptable in a recording studio and hence not considered.
In short, a loudspeaker will faithfully follow a waveform produced by either a $100 receiver or a $1000+ 300B SET amplifier. Both will produce identical output waveforms within their rated power.
The $100 receiver, outfitted with a National, TI, Signetics, etc. integrated `Amp-On-A-Chip' will have negligible crossover distortion (imperceptible on my oscilliscope) and provide the same (if not superior) FFT as the 300B.
So if the electrical simple and complex waveform output of both amps is identical, then the loudspeaker should yield the same sound, right?
This is the audio amplifier industry's dirty little secret: all competent amps sound identical. I know since I worked as an engineer for a pro audio amp company years ago. Any discussion of blind testing was always verboten outside of the engineering department.
What will differentiate an amplifier are output power, power supply reserves (affecting behaviour at the onset of clipping), noise floor and features. Balanced inputs? Bridging transformer octal sockets? Cinch barrier strips? Passive vs. forced-air cooling? Solid-state or tubes? Low-impedance load capability? These are the relevant questions in purchasing an amplifier.
"I'm not concerned about preference, I'm concerned with the fact that there is an audible difference."
A properly level-matched blind test, removing the prejudice of sighted evaluation, still remains the best and only statistically-valid method to test for differences.
While there is magic in music (actually talent and hard work really), there is only science in audio reproduction.
Stuff that falls outside the realm of current technology is either quantified through research or debunked through sound testing methodology. Claims of audible differences between cables and amps fall into the latter category.
This is how stuff gets better, BTW...
BobR
HiFiPlayer:
"Yes, the one of reasons is oxidation. And then conductor acidification and insulation becomes to Harding etc. Have you tried to clean and polish the conductors then HF with obviously goes ringing."
Unless the interface between connectors (whether spade lug to binding post, wire to spade lug, etc.) is oxidised, surface oxidation on the _wire_ itself or dielectric breakdown will have NO effect at audio frequencies.
In RF cables, perhaps it may increase capacitance, but at audio frequencies into very low-impedance loads, not at all.
"Yes, The reasons are relating with capacitive or inductive reactance. I.e. copper or silver?s purity that affect to the speeds of conduct electricity and also spoilage."
Whether the signal moves at 2.99E5 km/sec or 3.01E5 km/sec may affect 100+ Mhz logic circuits but has little effect in relatively low-bandwidth coaxial digital cable...
Also, the digital signal may incur unbelievable amounts of error and still be fully recoverable. This is how your high-density hard disk drives function.
And what is meant by `spoilage'? Oxidation?
"Have you know that some 75 ohms cable maybe 85 ohms actually but some might 72 or 78 ohms by measured."
The cable itself does not have impedance, though it is optimised and rated for a certain load impedance...
Also, the 75 ohms (load) is a _nominal_ figure, not an absolute.
BobR
HiFiPlayer:
(on power supplies): "I don?t agree. There is relating with the conductor?s capacitive or inductive reactance too. Then it also affected to ground connecting. I.e. compare with aluminum, copper and silver wire for ground using. I believe that no one would like to employ aluminum wire for his tube amp?s ground use"
Regulations vary from country-to-country but it is highly unlikely that aluminium wire is used anywhere for mains-power or grounding.
Speaking of mains power, the frequency here in the US is 60 Hz and varies from 50-60 Hz elsewhere. Think voltage divider and Ohm's Law and you'll realise that *any* capacitive or inductive reactance in a power cord is entirely too small to be significant at mains power line frequency.
"OF course I know, but some cables really has out standing sound with other through compared. Many models of MIT, XLO, Cadas, Audio quest and VDH etc are not cheap that you should know."
Since a recording studio may have several km of line-level cable, there's no way that most will even consider so-called `high-end' cable, particularly when it yields no audible difference under statisically-valid testing.
Recording studios have much better places to spend their money though some will kowtow to trends and have specialty cables where *clients* will see them (i.e. - microphone cables). This is entirely psychological, to increase perceived value.
"My suggestion: to add a quality UHF to your speaker system can help you to discover the minute difference much more. You must try if you didn?t."
When I conducted the tests I outlined to Selmerdave two posts above, I used Meyer HD-1 monitors which are extremely accurate, used extensively in mastering and flat out to 20 kHz. I would _never_ use Altecs that start to roll off at 12 kHz in that sort of double-blind testing, though my UREIs which are heavily equalised to 16kHz may be a possibility.
BobR
BobR,
Forgive me for being a bit off topic, but I've got to ask. You said:
>I would _never_ use Altecs that start to roll off at 12 kHz in that sort of double-blind testing.
Is this lack of HF response true? If so, which drivers?
Its been quite a long time since I looked at 802 etc frequency response curves, but I seem to remember that they were billed to be pretty flat up to 20 or 22 kHz. Not true? (I suspect my ears roll off pretty badly above 12 kHz in any event - the legacy of too much gunfire and explosions - so it's largely of academic interest to me ;-) )
Thanks!!
taudo
I believed that BobR has meant 288s.
Hi, BobR
?And what is meant by `spoilage'? Oxidation??
It meant the signal lost, mirror effecting and jitters.
Anyway , you have justifiable explanations that I have agreed. But I just want to emphasize the materials of metal can affected to the speed. Of course no country would use aluminum wire as power cord. http://www.hostboard.com/forums/ As my mentioned before that related with a 7000W OFC factory grade power cord. I used it to instead the original one. It is for Krell KSA200S, I can certainly that its original power cord was made by Belden. Cause I know the mark that on the wire. I also have a whole roll of Belden (blue and white snail logo) that has same mark on the wire face. My wife also can hear the difference when I just replaced that cable while she was cooking breakfast. She told me speakers have more deepen bass than before. I believed power cord could affect to the sounds since that time.
Thanks again, BobR
HifiPlayer
Dave I understand what your saying, its just that when it comes to cables and other associated audio esoterica, I feel there is much Bull$hit out there!
Granted things like capacitance, and resistance will affect a cables signal transmission, and this can be heard, but when it comes to items like Illuminati cables with an energized Dc powered shield, I am skeptical!
I know that good cables can be made by anybody, with proper gauge, good quality shielded wire; Belden, West penn, etc. But some of the stuff being sold is just mazing. And there are people who buy and use these things and swear they cant be without them!
I also have freinds that bought Magic cables, and every time I showed them their systems actually sounded better with ordinary 2 conductor plus ground wire, and switchcraft connectors!
In my book a cable or interconnect should do absolutely nothing, except transfer the signal from point A to point B with the least loss possible, and with absolutely no tone altering characteristics whatsoever!
These are MY opinions, and everybody is entitled to theirs. Next subject, those Shun Mook stones you place ontop of speakers that magically make the sound better! And should anyone actually have bought these, I have yet another magic fix-it! Coney Island beach sand in the bottom of Altec basshorns dramatically improves clarity, imaging, definition, impact,dynamics, and soundstaging! But remember, it MUST be Coney Island sand from the Coney Island beach between W 12th st. and W 19th st! Any interested parties can email me and place their order, and for ONLY $19.95 Ill send you a 25lb bag of purified, totally organic Coney Island sand from the Coney Island beaches between 12 st and 19 st! Of course, for best results one should order a 25lb bag of MATCHED sand particles. This costs $39.95 for a 25lb bag because we have small batch harvesting of sand from certain areas with which we keep this sand seperate from the MASS HARVESTED sand, and as anyone would know, using matched particles that came from the exact same patch of beach will, and does give the ULTIMATE results!
http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
Oh, and anybody that does order a 25lb bag of Coney Island beach sand will also recieve, absolutely free of charge, a Nathans Hot Dog, and a bag of Cotton Candy! So, dont wait, order now, operators are standing by, and cash in on the deal of a lifetime!
http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
Scotty,
Perhaps you are referring to someone else's comments but please note that the wire I am referring to costs less than lamp cord.
Bob,
?Personally, I never have since I do understand transmission line theory already and know that at audio frequencies into low 4 - 16 ohm loads, only DC resistance will impart a perceptible difference between cables. This is plain physics.?
This is a bit of over-confidence in the principles of theory and to the extent which they explain the world around us. Anyway, if nothing else it?s worth rechecking the theory because there is very definitely a difference and I can hear it and I bet you can hear it too. For all the blind musicians that can?t tell the difference there are many people who can.
Now, on the topic of studios, first I have been in many studios and I have never seen anything remotely close to a 1200 ft^2 control room (30? x 40??). Secondly, even from 3 or 4 meters back from the monitors a 300B SET could get you well into the 90?s (db) from a set of 604?s but I agree that it is not ideal for the kinds of things that studios must be able to do and almost all studios use low-efficiency monitors these days anyway. Third, a Western Electric 300B is admittedly very expensive but can last 20 years in daily operation, so the degradation over time is of little statistical significance. Many high-end studios use tube amplification (admittedly rarely SET), just for one example Sear Sound uses it exclusively, and seems to get by with all the ?difficulties? just fine. Fourth, studios have to make many compromises that listeners do not. Flexibility of setup, running long cables and the cost of the sheer footage are very big issues.
With regard to amps, again I recommend that you check it out for real because the difference is very real. Not necessarily with every amp but there is certainly a very wide range. Again, reality is more complicated than theory would suggest.
?A properly level-matched blind test, removing the prejudice of sighted evaluation, still remains the best and only statistically-valid method to test for differences.?
This may be your opinion but it is not fact, and in this case the difference is significant.
Dave
Taudo,
"Its been quite a long time since I looked at 802 etc frequency response curves, but I seem to remember that they were billed to be pretty flat up to 20 or 22 kHz. Not true?"
Yup, definitely not true, even for 1"-exit compression drivers (i.e. - 802, 902). Response that high is beyond the design for any 1.75" voice coil aluminum diaphragm-equipped compression driver.
Check out the plane-wave tube response of a 902 (or JBL 2425 for that matter); this is the true response of the driver, or the total energy vs. frequency. Note that the response curve falls at approx. 6dB/octave above 5-8 kHz.
Then compare the on-axis and off-axis polar response of a radial horn (i.e. - 511) to that of a constant-directivity horn (i.e. - MR994A).
The radial horn will look `flat' on-axis, perhaps out to 16 kHz, but look what happens to dispersion vs. frequency when you move 30 deg. off-axis.
The constant-directivity horn should track the plane-wave tube response curve very closely within its specified dispersion; typically, CD horns are equalised at +6dB/octave to compensate for the natural -6dB/octave of the compression driver.
A somewhat-applicable analogy here is flashlight vs. floodlight, except that the amount of focus of the flashlight is wavelength-dependent.
Finally, don't let the old Altec spec sheets fool you! Note that there is no `+/- dB' spec. nor any description of the testing conditions in the frequency response section of these specifications?
I have a 605A tear sheet that states a frequency response of `30-22000 Hz'. That doesn't indicate that the amplitude may be more than -20 dB down at those frequency extremes!
Remember that the days of Altec quoting 22000 Hz response for their compression drivers were before strong consumerism/consumer protection, Ralph Nader, and the Federal Trade Commission.
BobR
Selmerdave,
"This is a bit of over-confidence in the principles of theory and to the extent which they explain the world around us."
Not really. We're not dealing with quantum physics or phenomena at extremely high-frequency or short wavelengths. Granted, the audio bandwidth is wide (10 octaves) but both electrical behaviour and (to some degree) acoustical behaviour has been well-quantified at such low, close to DC frequencies.
Again, the double-blind test, which removes prejudice influenced by sighted evaluation, bears this fact out.
You would not believe how strong the visual stimuli affects auditory perception, for when the visual stimuli is removed (or in the case of my DBT involving blind folk, the knowledge of which amps/cables are being evaluated), the results which were previously strongly biased become 50/50.
Remove the visual stimuli, remove all other significant variables (especially ensuring listening levels are matched within 0.1 dB) and then let's see how many can discern a difference between amps and cables.
" first I have been in many studios and I have never seen anything remotely close to a 1200 ft^2 control room (30? x 40??)."
Sorry, that should have read 1200 ft^3. Volume, not area.
"Secondly, even from 3 or 4 meters back from the monitors a 300B SET could get you well into the 90?s (db) from a set of 604?s but I agree that it is not ideal for the kinds of things that studios must be able to do and almost all studios use low-efficiency monitors these days anyway."
With live mics on real instruments, the peak-to-average ratios encountered in a typical tracking studio may exceed 25 dB. It's not average listening levels that studios are concerned with; it's ensuring that the recording engineer has a proper perception of dynamics in addition to protecting expensive monitoring equipment from clipping -- that's the reason we use amps that far larger than the EIA RS-426 power rating of the monitor loudspeaker.
These new low-efficiency monitors are flat to bandwidth extremes, both at the low and high ends; this is a necessity since consumers now have wide-bandwidth digital media (CDs, SACDs, DVD-As). Not too many cassettes and LPs at the local record store...
These monitors have proper power response, ensuring that producers and artists sitting off-axis have a good idea of what's being evaluated. And these low-efficiency monitors have extremely high power-handling capacity and high undistorted acoustic output for the humongous amps driving them.
They have as much if not more dynamic capability than older high-efficiency monitors and constitute a brute-force means of ensuring both wide-bandwidth and dynamics.
24-bit depth digital recording offers upwards of 25 dB more dynamic range than older analogue magnetic recorders (even with Dolby SR); likewise, DSP and software effects further reduce noise induced by older analogue gear. Large power amps are here to stay.
"Many high-end studios use tube amplification"
Not so much any more... tubes are a maintenance headache when the gear is abused, as it is in any commercial facility.
More studios are realising that tubes belong where `tube sound' (actually, the sound tubes make at the onset or incursion of clipping) is wanted: compressors, limiters, mic preamps, musical instrument amplifiers.
I would never insist, for example, that an organ player use a solid-state amp over a Leslie, but I would question whether the producer demanded that I use a tube mic preamplifier over a solid-state preamp WHEN THE PREAMP CLIPPING IS NOT USED FOR EFFECT.
See the difference?
What's funny is that below clipping, solid-state essentially sounds identical to tube equipment. For instance, I've built the equivalent of Pultec EQPs using ordinary NE5532 op amps for gain makeup (using extensive internal impedance matching of course) and have determined that it is the filters and input/output transformers that contribute most to the Pultec's characteristic sound, not necessarily the tube amplification.
Anyhow, the pervasive use of tubes in every other bit of gear is strictly a *marketing* tool for the studio, as 2" 24-track Studer A80/A800 analogue tape machines are as well. Hopefully these will go the way of the dinosaurs soon as well. As an aside, could you imagine how physically large an A80 would be if it where implemented in tubes?
"Fourth, studios have to make many compromises that listeners do not. Flexibility of setup, running long cables and the cost of the sheer footage are very big issues. "
That I will agree with. However, those compromises are often ones that contribute or degrade little from the sound.
For example, long cables are not so bad when they are floating, symmetric balanced driving a low-impedance differential load. Shorter is still better of course, but the benefits of the implementation of techniques to reduce noise (including common-mode noise) FAR OUTWEIGH any advantages of using specialty cable in this instance.
And speaking of studios, the technical staffing of studios has declined severely over the last twenty years, which does interestingly coincide with the increasing popularity of vintage, specialty tube equipment, special cables and other nonsense.
I've encountered more and more basic problems with grounding, common-mode noise, sheer ignorance of basic DC and AC electronics, acoustics, etc. in the past decade in commercial recording facilities. But there's a whole lot more Tube and Vintage equipment and MIT cable in there!
As an aside, have a look at a recent Mix Magazine compared to one in 1981. Or witness the demise of RE/P (Recording Engineer/Producer) vs. the rise of Recording, and other publications that are simply advertising space for the retro-tube equipment manufacturers.
Sort of mirrors the home audio industry, with the demise of High Fidelity and Audio, and the rise of Stereophile and The Absolute Sound.
Apparently people prefer religion and mythology over science and research.
Go figure.
BobR