Speaker Wire Differences - repost of "Cable Nonsense" by Dunlavy

[Pete B]

I'm posting this in response to ARnut's post #5997, "Caps for AR9 X-over" where he also asks about internal wiring. This is also in response to Sean's post in the ForA-9 thread where he suggests wire upgrades for the AR-9. I really don't want to get in a back and forth with anyone, polite, constructive comments are welcome.

Uncontrolled subjective tests are unreliable, this is well known and has been proven time and again in most tests involving human perception. The placebo-effect should not be underestimated.

My view is that the major difference in speaker wire at audio frequencies is it's resistance. Capacitance and inductance are factors but typically do not come into play at audio frequencies when a cable is not deliberately fabricated in a way that significantly raises the capacitance or inductance per inch, for example. While it would be nice to think that most audio equipment is competently designed, it turns out that much gear on the market is not. High capacitance wire will sound different with amplifiers that have marginal stability and are sensitive to load capacitance. Properly sized twin lead or zip cord is usually just fine. I know a bit about high speed interconnects, transmission line effects, and microwave design just in case anyone is thinking of challenging this position from a perspective not based in science.

I'm not going to go on at length since John Dunlavy has done a fine job on some of the discussion groups. Here's a bit about Dunlavy for those who are unfamiliar with his background:

http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/dunlavy/

I don't agree with all of Dunlavy's positions in audio and speaker design but I think they're minor points involving more tradeoffs and goals rather than fundamental theory.

Here's another interesting link:

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

Pete B.

----------------------------

Here's the first in a four part series "Cable nonsense" that John Dunlavy posted to the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup:

I'll post parts 2-4 if there is interest.

From 102365.2026@compuserve.com Tue Nov 11 12:47:34 1997

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end

Subject: Cable nonsense -- article #1

From: John Dunlavy <102365.2026@compuserve.com>

Date: 11 Nov 1997 13:47:34 -0500

Having read some of the recent comments on rec.audio.opinion and high end,

concerning "audible" differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I

could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer

possessing credible credentials.

To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect

cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the

audiophile applications intended. However, accurate measurements of several

popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question

the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the

capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable

performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision

C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform

and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to

purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that

provide premium performance.

The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their

performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel

capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance

due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency

(loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus

frequency into different impedance loads, etc.

Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the

addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to

"microphonic noise" in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in

combination with a "D.C. off-set" created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).

While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and

the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that

most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil

and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product

literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive,

high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in

accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and

engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection

people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying

and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?)

--- Caveat Emptor!

For example, claiming that copper wire is "directional", that slow-moving

electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire,

that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a

"final energy component" (improperly labeled as "Joules") is the measure of the

tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in

advertisements to describe "cable performance".

Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a "special configuration" included

with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to "terminate the

cable" in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging,

lower "noise", etc. The real truth is that this "special configuration" contains

nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent

poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense

of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when

connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this

"box" appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more

than a "Zobel network", which is usually a "series resistor-capacitor" network,

connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end

of the cable, it is probably either a "parallel resistor-inductor" network,

connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite

sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it

is needed to "insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency

oscillations", is within the amplifier - not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!

Having said all this, are there really any significant "audible" differences

between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced

listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not

fully grasp the power of the old "Placebo-Effect" - which is very alive and well

among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders

"audible signatures" easy to detect and describe - if the listener knows which

cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind

listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover

close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional

engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's

staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a

positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it

only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest!

Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to

consistently identify "huge, audible differences" between cables. But when these

experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under

carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any

better than "chance". For example, when led to believe that three popular cables

were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a

"high-tech looking" cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and

sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER

CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.

Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly

identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly

controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by

the listener. We have accomplished too many "true blind comparisons" with

listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing

attributes, to know that "real, audible differences" seldom exist - if the

comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system

interactions with cables, etc.

Indeed, during these "comparisons" (without changing cables), some listeners

were able to describe in great detail the "big differences" they thought they

heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never

told the "NAUGHTY TRUTH", lest they become an enemy for life!)

So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of

audiophile loudspeaker cables and interconnects? The answer is simple: Since

significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and

understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such

parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the

capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage,

why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since

transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the

design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical

applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing

cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do,

that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet

to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called "pure

snake oil and buzzard salve" - in short, pure "fraud". If any cable

manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design

parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described

by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a "Nobel Prize".

Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding cable myths

and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the

technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable

performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or

who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable

design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance

that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get

to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.

I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers,

competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand

regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims

frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers,

engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their

reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we

are supposed to serve.

Best Regards, John Dunlavy

[Guest Bret]

>The placebo-effect should not be underestimated.<

Nor should it be over-estimated.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that nobody is out to get me.

I think you and Mr. Dunlavy did a good job of not-saying that which is demonstrably untrue. I hope others will not mis-read your or his comments. It would be far too easy to walk-away from reading it having gleened nothing more than "wire is snake oil" which is not what I read you or him to have specifically said.

In fact, I always marvel at how there are usually one or two sentences in these postings that negate the "over-all message." In his the throw-away line amounts to: When we experience difference in sounds using different wires, we can change other things and make those differences go away.

While I appreciate the scientific nature of such comments (one wire does not really sound different on its own, laying on the floor, connected to nothing) I shake my head wondering why it hasn't occured to the writer that all the variables involved are not reasonably within my control. I'm not likely to buy half-a-dozen preamplifiers to see which of them negates the perceived effect my interconnect between my amplifier and preamplifier is having.

My interest is much more shallow; which of these interconnects "sounds good" between the amplifier and preamplifier I already own.

It doesn't surprise me at all that you can take a person and lie to them about what they are listening to and make them believe that they are hearing something different when they are hearing the exact same thing. I don't even believe this was an important discovery. This is the placebo effect.

For my purposes the question is "Does this sound better/worse than the other thing I was just hearing?" It would be useful to double-blind the listening experience, sure, but just because it isn't double-blind doesn't make the difference not-there.

A friend of mine bought some super-duper speaker wires (not the $6,000 kind of special, but "special" nevertheless). He seemed to like them. In his setup with his speakers I made no secret of the fact that I didn't like them. But the important point here is that they were different and I did not prefer what the placebo effect would have accounted-for. It is also true that I did like some of his fancy interconnects.

To me, all of this talk about wire and its effects is a little silly, though. What is the reason to spend $6,000 on speaker wire? I mean from first principles WHY would you do it even if it made a huge difference? What's the motive? What's the goal?

As we've talked so many times before, ultimately the goal is the accurate reproduction of sound. As we've said so many times before, accuracy is in the ears of the listener. And unless the listener is absolutely aware of the original live sound and has a remarkable (even super-human) ability to remember that live sound, we judge our audio gear by how it pleases us to think it sounds.

Wire seems as reasonable a thing to spend money on as anything.

Bret

[soundminded]

"My interest is much more shallow; which of these interconnects "sounds good" between the amplifier and preamplifier I already own."

""Does this sound better/worse than the other thing I was just hearing?" It would be useful to double-blind the listening experience, sure, but just because it isn't double-blind doesn't make the difference not-there."

The obvious falacy virtually all proponents of after market audiophile cables make is that if one cable sounds better than another, it is better. Comparing cables to each other is the mistake. The valid comparison is to compare each cable individually to a shunt or as close as you can come to a shunt in the real world. Any difference between the performance of the system with the test cable in the circuit and then shunted out is the degree of electrical error the cable introduces. The best cables are the cheapest which show no audible difference from a shunt. With a preamplifier, integrated amp, or receiver having no buffer amplifiers in the tape output circuit, the tape output/tape monitor input makes a perfect and simple way to test interconnect cables. Switching between source and monitor alternately puts the cable in the signal path and shunts it with a very short length of wire. Even the switch contact resistance will be about the same. In my experience, even the least expensive Radio Shack $1 interconnect cables have never shown any audible difference from a shunt in this test. This is hardly surprising since they also show no difference when A/B testing an NTSC video signal from a VCR tuner's video output fed through them versus the rf output when connected to a large high quality television set. The NTSC signal has over three hundred times the bandwidth of a high fidelity audio signal. Therefore I conclude that all cables which sound different from a $1 RS interconnect introduce some form of audible distortion, probably deliberately altering the frequency response by using construction methods which creates severe series inductance or shunt capacitance.

[Guest Bret]

>Comparing cables to each other is the mistake. The valid comparison is to compare each cable individually to a shunt or as close as you can come to a shunt in the real world.<

I would not disagree with this except that the input/output characteristics of things I want to connect don't necessarily have anything in common with a single-component shunt.

I'm not arguing with you. I was trying to say that "superiority" has to be determined in the real, actual circuit. Comparing anything, anything at all, outside the environment it will actually be used in is of little value.

Which tests better / is a better tire ; a snow tire, or a racing radial?

Bret

[soundminded]

If you need frequency response correction to flatten the response of a sound system or in some other way tailor it to a specific requirement, an equalizer is the equipment of choice, not a wire having some bizarre LCR characteristics. Equalizers are predictable, adjustable, and certain in their effect. Wire is none of the above. Furthermore, some wires can be very expensive. A good equalizer does not introduce any audible noise or distortion. That is why they are indespensible from an audio engineer's point of view. I have never seen a professionally designed or installed sound system which did not incorporate at least one equalizer. Many if not most audiophiles on the other hand shun them like the plague. A bad move IMO. Keeps them cheap on the used market.

[tysontom]

>If you need frequency response correction to flatten the

>response of a sound system or in some other way tailor it to a

>specific requirement, an equalizer is the equipment of choice,

>not a wire having some bizarre LCR characteristics.

>Equalizers are predictable, adjustable, and certain in their

>effect. Wire is none of the above. Furthermore, some wires

>can be very expensive. A good equalizer does not introduce

>any audible noise or distortion. That is why they are

>indespensible from an audio engineer's point of view. I have

>never seen a professionally designed or installed sound system

>which did not incorporate at least one equalizer. Many if not

>most audiophiles on the other hand shun them like the plague.

>A bad move IMO. Keeps them cheap on the used market.

I believe that equalizers are great devices for correcting problems with loudspeakers, but not so great for correcting room acoustics. The problem is that most audiophiles attempt to correct speaker FR peaks and dips when, in fact, the problem is frequently caused by room acoustics, standing waves and so forth. Once a correction is made for one frequency in that manner for one position in a listening room, another more-serious problem arises in another part of the room. That's fine if you listen in only one spot, but others in another spot within the same room might hear serious aberrations once the speaker has been equalized. Therefore, I think the only safe way to do it is to measure the "problem" speaker in anechoic space or by gaited measurements to determine its problems, then correct its problem with equalization. Another method is to make multiple measurements around the listening room, and then apply equalization to get an average response. Perhaps this is overkill, Soundminded, and one should adjust the equalizer for what sounds best to them.

--Tom Tyson

[soundminded]

A typical room has about 10 million resonant peaks and dips in the audible spectrum. I read that somewhere. In-room frequency response measurements are generally taken as averages from what I've read however particular locations within a room can vary significantly from the average. I think this is especially true at low frequencies where standing waves can be very annoying. Whatever the strategies are for dealing with them which may include acoustic treatments, speaker placement, equalization, or some new tricky device which comes along to absorb energy or generate some sort of out of phase acoustic wave, using one speaker wire or interconnect over another for this purpose seems to me to be a very ineffective choice, an exercise in futility.

[Pete B]

Bret writes:

>I think you and Mr. Dunlavy did a good job of not-saying that

>which is demonstrably untrue. I hope others will not mis-read

>your or his comments. It would be far too easy to walk-away

>from reading it having gleened nothing more than "wire is

>snake oil" which is not what I read you or him to have

>specifically said.

You misread us trying to be polite and offer some of the science behind wires as transmission lines which comes into play at video and higher frequencies. Dunlavy offers much detail about cable characteristics which is theoretically correct but *MOSTLY* does not apply at audio frequencies. When Dunlavy offers to design line level interconnects he's applying theory that is important at video frequencies and higher, usually well above about 1 MHz and obviously far above the audio band. I've designed a good amount of video equipment just in case anyone is thinking of jumping to conclusions. Video interconnects are usually match terminated at source and termination ends. No mainstream audio equipment follows this requirement, cables are grossly mismatched because it does *NOT* matter at these lower frequencies.

Bret, you've chosen to read us incorrectly, let me make this perfectly clear, most of the time "wire is snake oil".

>

>In fact, I always marvel at how there are usually one or two

>sentences in these postings that negate the "over-all

>message." In his the throw-away line amounts to: When we

>experience difference in sounds using different wires, we can

>change other things and make those differences go away.

I believe this is wishful thinking on your part.

>It doesn't surprise me at all that you can take a person and

>lie to them about what they are listening to and make them

>believe that they are hearing something different when they

>are hearing the exact same thing. I don't even believe this

>was an important discovery. This is the placebo effect.

While it leaves an uneasy feeling that they lied in doing the experiment, it does prove something and it is an important discovery. They're pushed to do it because of the twisted logic used by some subjectivists.

>For my purposes the question is "Does this sound better/worse

>than the other thing I was just hearing?" It would be useful

>to double-blind the listening experience, sure, but just

>because it isn't double-blind doesn't make the difference

>not-there.

It also does not make the difference reliably or factually there, the perception or belief may be true but it is unreliable.

>A friend of mine bought some super-duper speaker wires (not

>the $6,000 kind of special, but "special" nevertheless). He

>seemed to like them. In his setup with his speakers I made no

>secret of the fact that I didn't like them. But the important

>point here is that they were different and I did not prefer

>what the placebo effect would have accounted-for. It is also

>true that I did like some of his fancy interconnects.

Perhaps subconsiously you didn't want to like them, no matter what it is an unreliable observation, it is simply an opinion.

>To me, all of this talk about wire and its effects is a little

>silly, though. What is the reason to spend $6,000 on speaker

>wire? I mean from first principles WHY would you do it even

>if it made a huge difference? What's the motive? What's the

>goal?

It is not silly at all when there is so much BS out there as Dunlavy points out. If it actually *MADE* a huge difference that could not be attained any other way, it would be logical to use them. The goal is generally better sound.

>As we've talked so many times before, ultimately the goal is

>the accurate reproduction of sound. As we've said so many

>times before, accuracy is in the ears of the listener. And

>unless the listener is absolutely aware of the original live

>sound and has a remarkable (even super-human) ability to

>remember that live sound, we judge our audio gear by how it

>pleases us to think it sounds.

This is your rationalization, fine if it works for you, it's not mine, the key phrase being "pleases us to think it sounds". Think being the key word.

>Wire seems as reasonable a thing to spend money on as

>anything.

Many think not, your welcome to your opinion.

I do not find these discussions productive and suggest we just agree to disagree.

Pete B.

[Guest Bret]

>It also does not make the difference reliably or factually there, the perception or belief may be true but it is unreliable.<

Pete, you know I try really hard to read messages for content and not to get all "up in arms" over things that ultimately don't matter.

I'm going to say this once, then you can do whatever you want with it.

If I THINK I hear a dog bark I can usually tell something about the size of the dog without having to call-in a vet to confirm my findings. If you find your hearing so unreliable that without a double-blind study of dog-barks you refuse to believe the dog exists and contend you can tell nothing of the animal's size . . .

Then the problem is not mine for being willing to believe my perceptions.

What I did NOT say, that I understand you are trying to gleen from my posting, is that my PERCEPTION is a LAB STANDARD. I freely, openly, and gleefully admit that my preference is my preference which communicates exactly ZERO about "accuracy."

But to say that the differences do not exist is just . . . silly.

Bret

[kkantor]

I can always assert: "I prefer French wine, and I trust my palette. This is French wine!"

If the bottle says, "Napa, California," I have made an error, in that I have convinced myself of a fallacy. It matters not that it is a private, or harmless fallacy, it is still false. External reality cannot generally be arbitrated only by personal opinion. When we try to share experiences and perpetuate knowledge, at some point truth and fact must be referenced.

One may feel very self-assured that one knows their own preference in cables, and can reliably distinguish them by ear alone. (And it is unlikely that the average person will be motivated to question this kind of assumption if the outcome might be ego-dystonic.) However, to people versed in electronics and human perception, such an assumption would not stand up to scrutiny.

I understand the idea that personal preference is sacrosanct. On the other hand, truth in advertising is not entirely subjective. Propagating false information as fact, is (to me) ethically problematic, however well-intentioned. So, I feel compelled to jump in here to state that audible differences between speaker cables are almost always non-existant.

[Guest Bret]

Pete wrote:

“My view is that the major difference in speaker wire at audio frequencies is it's resistance. Capacitance and inductance are factors but typically do not come into play at audio frequencies when a cable is not deliberately fabricated in a way that significantly raises the capacitance or inductance per inch, for example. While it would be nice to think that most audio equipment is competently designed, it turns out that much gear on the market is not. High capacitance wire will sound different with amplifiers that have marginal stability and are sensitive to load capacitance. Properly sized twin lead or zip cord is usually just fine.”

Dunlavy says:

“The real truth is that this "special configuration" contains

nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent

poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable.”

And

“Having said all this, are there really any significant "audible" differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! “

And

“"real, audible differences" seldom exist - if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system

interactions with cables, etc.”

Notice, please, all of you, the “seldoms” and “ifs” and “typically”s and other modifiers.

Also please notice that I never, ever said that all audiophile wire sounds different than all non-audiophile wire in all applications (which is, by implication, what you are correcting me for saying - problem is, I never said it). Please note that I never said ANY audiophile wire sounds better than 12 gauge.

Nelson Pass gives us several truly worthwhile observations at

http://www.passlabs.com/downloads/articles/spkrcabl.pdf

one of which is

“Frankly, I found it difficult to assess the results except at the extremes of performance. For 10 foot lengths with properly terminated cables and speakers with inductive high frequency characteristics, the differences between the low inductance cable and twin conductor are extremely subtle and subject to question. With a low output inductance amplifier and a Heil tweeter (whose impedance is a nearly perfect 6ohm resistive) the difference was discernible as a slightly but not unpleasant softening of the highest frequencies. Fulton or Monster cables were a clear improvement over 24 or even 18 gauge, though a little less subtle than I would have expected, leading me to believe that the effort associated with heavier cables pays off in bass response and in apparent midrange definition, especially at crossover frequencies. The worst case load, the modified Dayton Wright electrostatics, presented some interesting paradoxes: the extremely low impedance involved showed the greatest differences between all the types of cables. However, the best sound cables were not necessarily electrically the best because several amplifiers preferred the highest resistance cable. In one case, I had to use 24 gauge cable to prevent tripping the amplifier’s protection circuit.”

He precedes that by saying several interesting things about the interaction of cable, amplifier, and speaker. With lab tests. Numbers. Graphs and stuff. You know, non-perceptual analysis.

Now Ken, Pete. . . let me put this as succinctly as I know how:

In SOME circumstances SOME wires will cause a SYSTEM to sound different than other wires in the same SYSTEM.

Got a problem with that? Call Nelson Pass and tell him that the Threshold 400A did not actually go into oscillation, that only with a double-blind test can he say he didn’t imagine it; either that or assert that an amplifier sounds the same whether it is in oscillation or not. Tell *him* that it was his ego that was making one amplifier shut down with some cable and not with other. Or perhaps it is that he simply isn’t “versed in electronics and human perception,” so his scrutiny isn’t valid. Perhaps he imagined the "bass response and midrange definition" associated with the heavier gauge wire.

Call him, please. Pretty-please. Record the call. Send me a tape. I could stand some entertainment.

Guess what kind of amplifier I was listening to expensive cables on, fellas? Anyone care to guess? Guess what kind of load I was listening to. . . we'll make it multiple choice for simplicity: A) an AR speaker known to send some amplifiers running home whimpering with their tails tucked between their cooling fins, a well-behaved Heil tweeter.

By the way, I hate French wine even if it comes from California.

Bret

[rrcrain]

I've avoided this volitile discussion until now, but here's my 2 cents worth based upon my limited observations.

I'm running a pair of AR90's modified for bi amping and using a pair of Heathkit AA-1800 amps for the task. One of these amps is more tha enough to drive a pair of AR9's, but from my experience with them conected to a 90, it would run hot. Even the pair runs hot driving the 90s at high volumn. For whatever reason, these amps run cooler when I use the Kimber 8TX wire rather than inexpensive wire. Sound different? I've no clue. They run cooler and thats what I was hoping for.

Simply, SOME wire might make a difference on SOME systems and effects may be physical or audible.

[Guest Bret]

I don't own an equalizer, but I don't consider myself a real "audiophile" either. I'll get one eventually, but I find myself wondering if I'm better-off spending money on that or "room treatments" to get rid of some of my horrible room reflections.

My room is just horrible. The reflections are awful and uneven (which might help reduce "room modes" but does nothing for an image).

I agree with you completely and have said as much to my listening-buddy. Why spend $1,500 on wires when you can spend $500 on a really good EQ and create or solve whatever problems you want.

Bret

[RoyC]

Hey guys we have bigger fish to fry re: our classic speakers, than debating the relative merits of the Transatlantic Cable in audio applications.

I've been saving this photo for the right moment. This may be it.

It is of a 1975 vintage AR-3a tweeter that was sounding a bit muted and distorted.

Can't even blame the "Buyout" $1.97/50ft RCA brand 18GA speaker wire from Parts Express I was using..(you know, the stuff they recommended when our speakers were invented, that also splits easily to make great FM antennas!)

Roy

This is something to worry about.

[Pete B]

My original post here was not directed at you Bret, and I do not usually get involved in wire discussions on the net, or much at all for that matter. You posted and suggested an interpretation of the material that I offered that was very different from what was intended and that is the reason why I responded to you.

Now you refer to and quote an article by Nelson Pass, I read the article back when it originally came out. That article is over 20 years old and I would hope that something has been learned about designing stable amplifiers and cables that do not cause oscillation, yes there are exceptions as I originally noted. You might note that I wrote: "the major difference in speaker wire at audio frequencies is it's resistance" yet the article you reference compares 18 and 24 ga zip cord to heavy Monster and other types. What kind of controlled test is this if the resistance is not even matched? The test is not controlled and it proves nothing. Pass also points out that some exotic cables cause some high bandwidth amplifiers to oscillate. This is the unusual case that Dunlavy and I have pointed out. No need for me to call Pass, I'd replace the amplifier. Why use an unstable amplifier or buy exotic cables that cause them to oscillate? You've simply pointed out an exception that both Dunlavy and I allowed for. Your example supports "wire is snake oil" since it is the expensive cables that cause the problem.

I should point out that I do use low cost heavy gauge cables, and do take precautions to minimize corrosion, these are real world issues.

I agree with RoyC:

"Hey guys we have bigger fish to fry re: our classic speakers, than debating the relative merits of the Transatlantic Cable in audio applications. "

I've had about enough with this. Take my comments for what they're worth.

Pete B.

>Pete wrote:

>

>“My view is that the major difference in speaker wire at audio

>frequencies is it's resistance. Capacitance and inductance are

>factors but typically do not come into play at audio

>frequencies when a cable is not deliberately fabricated in a

>way that significantly raises the capacitance or inductance

>per inch, for example. While it would be nice to think that

>most audio equipment is competently designed, it turns out

>that much gear on the market is not. High capacitance wire

>will sound different with amplifiers that have marginal

>stability and are sensitive to load capacitance. Properly

>sized twin lead or zip cord is usually just fine.”

>

>Dunlavy says:

>

>“The real truth is that this "special configuration" contains

>nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to

>prevent

>poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate

>(obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much

>inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a

>loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable.”

>

>And

>

>“Having said all this, are there really any significant

>"audible" differences between most cables that can be

>consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer

>is simple: very seldom! “

>

>And

>

>“"real, audible differences" seldom exist - if the comparisons

>are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as

>system

>interactions with cables, etc.”

>

>Notice, please, all of you, the “seldoms” and “ifs” and

>“typically”s and other modifiers.

>

>Also please notice that I never, ever said that all audiophile

>wire sounds different than all non-audiophile wire in all

>applications (which is, by implication, what you are

>correcting me for saying - problem is, I never said it).

>Please note that I never said ANY audiophile wire sounds

>better than 12 gauge.

>

>Nelson Pass gives us several truly worthwhile observations at

>

>http://www.passlabs.com/downloads/articles/spkrcabl.pdf

>

>one of which is

>

>“Frankly, I found it difficult to assess the results except at

>the extremes of performance. For 10 foot lengths with

>properly terminated cables and speakers with inductive high

>frequency characteristics, the differences between the low

>inductance cable and twin conductor are extremely subtle and

>subject to question. With a low output inductance amplifier

>and a Heil tweeter (whose impedance is a nearly perfect 6ohm

>resistive) the difference was discernible as a slightly but

>not unpleasant softening of the highest frequencies. Fulton

>or Monster cables were a clear improvement over 24 or even 18

>gauge, though a little less subtle than I would have expected,

>leading me to believe that the effort associated with heavier

>cables pays off in bass response and in apparent midrange

>definition, especially at crossover frequencies. The worst

>case load, the modified Dayton Wright electrostatics,

>presented some interesting paradoxes: the extremely low

>impedance involved showed the greatest differences between all

>the types of cables. However, the best sound cables were not

>necessarily electrically the best because several amplifiers

>preferred the highest resistance cable. In one case, I had to

>use 24 gauge cable to prevent tripping the amplifier’s

>protection circuit.”

>

>He precedes that by saying several interesting things about

>the interaction of cable, amplifier, and speaker. With lab

>tests. Numbers. Graphs and stuff. You know, non-perceptual

>analysis.

>

>Now Ken, Pete. . . let me put this as succinctly as I know

>how:

>

>In SOME circumstances SOME wires will cause a SYSTEM to sound

>different than other wires in the same SYSTEM.

>

>Got a problem with that? Call Nelson Pass and tell him that

>the Threshold 400A did not actually go into oscillation, that

>only with a double-blind test can he say he didn’t imagine it;

>either that or assert that an amplifier sounds the same

>whether it is in oscillation or not. Tell *him* that it was

>his ego that was making one amplifier shut down with some

>cable and not with other. Or perhaps it is that he simply

>isn’t “versed in electronics and human perception,” so his

>scrutiny isn’t valid. Perhaps he imagined the "bass response

>and midrange definition" associated with the heavier gauge

>wire.

>

>Call him, please. Pretty-please. Record the call. Send me a

>tape. I could stand some entertainment.

>

>Guess what kind of amplifier I was listening to expensive

>cables on, fellas? Anyone care to guess? Guess what kind of

>load I was listening to. . . we'll make it multiple choice for

>simplicity: A) an AR speaker known to send some amplifiers

>running home whimpering with their tails tucked between their

>cooling fins, a well-behaved Heil tweeter.

>

>By the way, I hate French wine even if it comes from

>California.

>

>Bret

[Guest Bret]

Ken wrote:

>I can always assert: "I prefer French wine, and I trust my palette. This is French wine!"

If the bottle says, "Napa, California," I have made an error<

True, Ken, true. You have made an important point.

Is it not also true that some persons are less likely to make that error than others? ;-)

Bret

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/417.jpg