Speaker wire?

[fini]

Ray, don't be silly. I didn't replace the wires, just the poles! Whaddaya think cable grows on trees?

fini

[gamer]

Boa, Is there a way I can Biwire my 10s without leaving my speakers looking butchered? Has anyone done this and was there a difference?

Ray, I used to be an electrician and still have some buddies in the trade Im sure we could hook something up for your subtle tweek and probably come in right at 4mil. looks like wavey may want a shot at it too....

[oosting]

You know, if you really want an improvement, try ripping out the power supplies in your components and run them with BATTERIES! Get yourself a bunch of lead-acid batteries and run them in series so you have the correct DC voltage and connect them with jumper cables (gold plated) to your components bypassing the AC/DC power supplies. I bet you would hear a huge difference!

Ed

[justin_tx_16]

Wow, what a great idea. I never thought of that.

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

-justin

I am an amateur, but if it is professional help you want contact Amy. Email Amy or Instant Message Amy and if all else fails, pick up that phone and call right now Toll Free: 1-888-554-5665

Just do me a favor and run up my counter... I know that sounds sad but so is my site!

http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/berry/88/

[Prana-Bindu]

Ray: very nice! It sounded like something Gurney Halleck would have composed and hidden from his young master. And, yes, not only would I also prefer the Ferrari, but I'd end up taking five times as long to get to the store, because I'd be slowing down enough for the honeys to jump in....

TBrennan: Does it matter whether the difference is perceived and otherwise measurable or just perceived? Either way, we're still getting our kicks.... Whatever tests and measurement units you may apply to the phenomenon only gives you a bigger vocabulary to use about the perceived difference. Of course, I'll be the first to admit that the more words you can use about a subject the more interesting the subject is, but only because I like to listen to myself speak. To say that the perceived difference is more "real" because you have this whole new set of words to use about it is a rhetorical trick: when you begin a description with words like "what's REALLY going on here is...", you're only pleading with your audience to use the same vocabulary you're about to use, be it the vocabulary of 0-60 measurements or impedance matches.

The most vicious aspect of this obsession with the reproduction of music is the materialism it fuels. It's the perfect capitalistic, consumeristic cycle of want-satisfaction-want that, as we all know, can never end on its own. Even after Ray wires himself up to the river with Godcable, in the horizon he'll see faster waters, teflon turbines and golden ratios. As Mr. Garrison himself stated, better to enjoy the journey than to race to the end.

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

May the bridges we burn light our way....

[Randy Bey]

I must have been asleep for a while to miss out on this exchange.

Let me throw my hat in the ring right now and state that (IMHO) wires make a difference.

Over a year ago I switched from zip cord to cat5 network cabling for speaker wire. At the same time I made several other changes, and, quite simply, the rest of my rig was not all that wonderful, so... I didn't hear a difference. At least I felt that I had addressed a potential area of improvement, so I left the cat5 in place.

I continued to use the red and white "provided" interconnect cables for the components in my stereo, with the exception of the CD player, which was a recent purchase. I bought a pair of Audioquest cables (a $10 purchase that I steamed over) to connect it with. At the time the only benefit to cables, in my mind, was that the "grip" on the RCA was good, and there was no oxidation.

As an aside I was using all NAD electronics at the time, which has a respectable if not "hifi" name, with my Klipschorns.

Eventually a friend came over with a couple of new cables, one from Wireworld and one from Kimber. We substituted the Audioquest with the Kimber.

Gawd, did the Kimber sound bad! My system was very forward, meaning high end orientated, and the Kimber put it through the roof. It was a difference apparent in the first minute of listening.

Then the Wireworlds got put in. Oh, so much better. The "forwardness" went away, and something that I can only call "spectral balance" came in. There was definition in the lower frequencies that was not there before. I ended up buying a factory second pair of Wireworlds for $49 on the Internet.

Later I had a couple hundred dollars burning a whole in my pocket. Upon anothers advice I purchased (with a 30 day money back trial) a pair of Goertz speaker cables, a flat design with one conductor sandwiched on top of another.

Lordy did they sound bad! They had such a bright sound that I took them out after a single weekend and sent them back.

Fast forward a year or so. I have replaced all my NAD stuff with "high end" equipment, purchased used over a period of several months.

All of this equipment, of course, made much larger changes than the cables did. The tube amps, in particular, did a glorious thing with the horn loaded speakers.

Now I have a CD transport, and an external DAC, and a digital cable between them. This cable is purely 1's and 0's, right? How can it possibly make a difference?

Well I'm here to tell you, brothers and sisters, that it does, and it did. I can hear the difference between the DH Labs Silver Sonic cable (which is laid back but with an excellent soundstage) and the Apogee WideEye cable (which is bright without the soundstage detail one would expect from such) and even from the DIY (Do-It-Yourself) digital cable I built out of coaxial cable and various other bits and pieces, including supplies from a stained-glass window store.

So what wire do I have now? I still have the cat5 for speaker cable (which is DIY, of course), DIY cables from DAC to preamp, DIY digital from DAC to transport, and the Wireworlds I bought after the trial way back when are now between the preamp and the amps. I will probably be building replacement cables for the Wireworlds when I get the time and money. Twisted pair, foamed teflon coaxial designs, likely.

Oh, and I also went into the power cord (yes, power cord) replacement mode. Although I did another mass change so the difference is hard to identify. I added a DIY AC power conditioner and popped for five Belden 14 gauge shielded detachable AC cords, $11 a pop, for all my equipment, which all now has detachable power cords, unlike the NAD stuff.

I can't say that I heard anything in the way of improvement with the power cords/power conditioner. If it was there, it was too minor to notice. But, at least I know that there is no major gain to be had that way now. That kind of peace of mind for about a hundred bucks is worthwhile in and of itself.

So I agree with the posters that if you have a high enough definition system, and good enough source to appreciate the differences, you can make changes to the way your system sounds. While they are not "night and day" changes, they are changes nonetheless.

I never, except for the brief fiasco with the Goertz, went "high end" cable. And even now, most, and soon perhaps all, of my cables will be home brew. But in my opinion the effort is worthwhile.

[discorules]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy Bey:

I must have been asleep for a while to miss out on this exchange.

Let me throw my hat in the ring right now and state that (IMHO) wires make a difference.

Over a year ago I switched from zip cord to cat5 network cabling for speaker wire. At the same time I made several other changes, and, quite simply, the rest of my rig was not all that wonderful, so... I didn't hear a difference. At least I felt that I had addressed a potential area of improvement, so I left the cat5 in place.

I continued to use the red and white "provided" interconnect cables for the components in my stereo, with the exception of the CD player, which was a recent purchase. I bought a pair of Audioquest cables (a $10 purchase that I steamed over) to connect it with. At the time the only benefit to cables, in my mind, was that the "grip" on the RCA was good, and there was no oxidation.

As an aside I was using all NAD electronics at the time, which has a respectable if not "hifi" name, with my Klipschorns.

Eventually a friend came over with a couple of new cables, one from Wireworld and one from Kimber. We substituted the Audioquest with the Kimber.

Gawd, did the Kimber sound bad! My system was very forward, meaning high end orientated, and the Kimber put it through the roof. It was a difference apparent in the first minute of listening.

Then the Wireworlds got put in. Oh, so much better. The "forwardness" went away, and something that I can only call "spectral balance" came in. There was definition in the lower frequencies that was not there before. I ended up buying a factory second pair of Wireworlds for $49 on the Internet.

Later I had a couple hundred dollars burning a whole in my pocket. Upon anothers advice I purchased (with a 30 day money back trial) a pair of Goertz speaker cables, a flat design with one conductor sandwiched on top of another.

Lordy did they sound bad! They had such a bright sound that I took them out after a single weekend and sent them back.

Fast forward a year or so. I have replaced all my NAD stuff with "high end" equipment, purchased used over a period of several months.

All of this equipment, of course, made much larger changes than the cables did. The tube amps, in particular, did a glorious thing with the horn loaded speakers.

Now I have a CD transport, and an external DAC, and a digital cable between them. This cable is purely 1's and 0's, right? How can it possibly make a difference?

Well I'm here to tell you, brothers and sisters, that it does, and it did. I can hear the difference between the DH Labs Silver Sonic cable (which is laid back but with an excellent soundstage) and the Apogee WideEye cable (which is bright without the soundstage detail one would expect from such) and even from the DIY (Do-It-Yourself) digital cable I built out of coaxial cable and various other bits and pieces, including supplies from a stained-glass window store.

So what wire do I have now? I still have the cat5 for speaker cable (which is DIY, of course), DIY cables from DAC to preamp, DIY digital from DAC to transport, and the Wireworlds I bought after the trial way back when are now between the preamp and the amps. I will probably be building replacement cables for the Wireworlds when I get the time and money. Twisted pair, foamed teflon coaxial designs, likely.

Oh, and I also went into the power cord (yes, power cord) replacement mode. Although I did another mass change so the difference is hard to identify. I added a DIY AC power conditioner and popped for five Belden 14 gauge shielded detachable AC cords, $11 a pop, for all my equipment, which all now has detachable power cords, unlike the NAD stuff.

I can't say that I heard anything in the way of improvement with the power cords/power conditioner. If it was there, it was too minor to notice. But, at least I know that there is no major gain to be had that way now. That kind of peace of mind for about a hundred bucks is worthwhile in and of itself.

So I agree with the posters that if you have a high enough definition system, and good enough source to appreciate the differences, you can make changes to the way your system sounds. While they are not "night and day" changes, they are changes nonetheless.

I never, except for the brief fiasco with the Goertz, went "high end" cable. And even now, most, and soon perhaps all, of my cables will be home brew. But in my opinion the effort is worthwhile.

---

So you even claim to hear a difference in cables when digital data is carried on the cable?! Hmmm! One of the benefits of digital audio is it's immunity from those sorts of things.

My rack isolator is also available to you

Seriously. In addition to SB3's, I also have Maggies 1.6qr. I think most would agree I have fairly high resolution speakers. I also did cable comparisons at the audio salons. I could not reliably tell a difference using their high buck esoteric systems. My ears are in excellent condition and can hear subtle differences in cd players for example. But the perceived cable differences could just as easily be a shift in head position to one's mind being more acutely aware of certain details after each listening session regardless of cables.

Without double blind test (I know some fear this bit of objectivity), this cable stuff is 99% bunk to me. I didn't say 100% because some cable problems may exist due long lengths and improper wire guage, coiling the cables, etc.

[dubai2000]

I cannot claim that I have to add any significant statement to previous posts, but I agree with Randy Bey's observation that cables do make a difference - and yes, even between a CD-transport and a DAC. If these differences are only due to wishful thinking I don't know but to my ears they exist. Power cords? A few years ago I tried several brands (and price ranges) and again sound differences were noticed. Still I didn't buy any, why? Well, being on a budget (like most people I suppose) I have to consider any 'improvemnts' in sound in relation to the amount of money spent. Somewhere else on this board I have described my experiences with an isolating transformer which costs $80. Had the same thing cost let's say $800, my reaction would have been different (and my bank manager knows how much I have spent on audio gear over the years!). After all we tend to forget one impotant point: the reproduction of music is a rather subjective matter. The sound I like might not be appreciated by my neighbour and even two identical chains of equipment will not sound the same in two different rooms! So I presume 'realism' in sound reproduction depends a lot on a listener's taste, listening ability (the development of which is a learning process anyway!), his wallet etc. If that means for some people spending huge amounts on cables then this is fine for them. Personally speaking I believe that having discoverded my Klipsch/McIntosh combo earlier this year has taken me a lot closer to aural heaven, so cables are no topic for me. Perhaps there will even come the day (after a few more purchases!) when my main music system will be complete (but then there will still be the study left for some more madness)

Thanks for patiently reading these non-scientific remarks.

Wolfram

[boa12]

gamer, i just guessed we need to take this the next 1/2 step to biwiring. do a search on that & you'll find much discussion

seems like a good idea to try it 1st w/ some lower priced wire then, if u likey enough, u could get some of them nice looking premade biwires. like those monster mcx-2 w/ bananas. pretty low priced but hey they have some that go up to $1k too.

[Prana-Bindu]

As I understand the matter, a huge amount of the digital jitter present in a digital playback system is picked up in the cable. I've read that it has something to do with the fact that the clock data is not separated from the sample data; this is why that I2S (read I-squared-S) cable is supposed to be so great for digital playback -- it carries the two sets of data separately. Of course, this would only be a concern when using separate digital to analog conversion/upsampling/interpolation/etc. Beyond that, my understanding hits the brick wall, as it were....

It's not just 1's and 0's, my friend; it's also information about when to play each 1 and 0.

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

May the bridges we burn light our way....

[discorules]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prana-Bindu:

As I understand the matter, a huge amount of the digital jitter present in a digital playback system is picked up in the cable. I've read that it has something to do with the fact that the clock data is not separated from the sample data; this is why that I2S (read I-squared-S) cable is supposed to be so great for digital playback -- it carries the two sets of data separately. Of course, this would only be a concern when using separate digital to analog conversion/upsampling/interpolation/etc. Beyond that, my understanding hits the brick wall, as it were....

It's not just 1's and 0's, my friend; it's also information about when to play each 1 and 0.

---

I am fascinated by this. Do you know where this info on jitter and cables can be found?

[Prana-Bindu]

I believe Jon Risch's website (or is it audioasylum?) discusses the issue. I found a great exegesis of the stuff at http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html The relation to cables, however, was a little fuzzy to me, so I looked into it: it is alleged that different materials upon which the digital signal is transmitted are faster than others at transmitting such a clocked signal. It's as if different "digital conductors" (my words, so take it easy on me) have different "digital impedances" (again, my fantasy word). At the top of my search results was the website of a company that manufactures digital jitter meters (Yokogawa), so I assume they can run a timed digital signal through oatmeal and tell ya how much digital jitter can be introduced by Quakeroats.... My research was limited, so I'm not too comfortable with the "digital impendance" analogy. I wonder if its like optical refraction (the bendy pencil in the water)....

Wouldn't the cable material have to have some kind of buffer (memory out of which it would ultimately run out) to be able to send a signal slower than the original signal? The only way I could see jitter to be possible in the conductor is if the conductor itself was not uniform and constant in the rate at which it conducted the digital data. In other words, the digital jitter amount attributed to a material would be the measurement of the margin of error (in time) within which the material would conduct. If the measurement was constant (not a range, but a specific magnitude), it would either be slower or faster than the incoming signal -- slower and you have the buffer-filling issue; faster and you have the material at issue only being able to conduct each sample (or whatever digital unit) faster, but AS it is given to it by the source (at the rate of the source).

If all this is true, wouldn't the only place where you can correct such timing error be at the DAC? Wouldn't the clocking device in the DAC be the only means by which to recover timing errors? Making all those jitter reducing toys worthless...?

I've been curious about this digital nonsence since my cd player became the weakest part of my system (quite old and somewhat buggy). My ultimate goal is to do on my PC what Perpetual Technologies does with their P-1A (upsample to 24/96(192 soon) and interpolate -- the speaker and room correction are totally in the far horizon of this filthy hobby). The learning curve is steep, and I'm still in the foothills....

As you can see, I'm totally fascinated as well, but the information gap is oftentimes depressing and easy to abandon. Any engineers out there that can clarify things for us?

If the value of the timing data of a signal is a function of the rate at which it is originally clocked and the error imposed upon it by the materials through which the timing data passes, how could I2S cable separate the sample data from the clock data? Some kind of metadigitization of the clock data? Great word, huh?

I hope I've managed to drag at least a few of you down with me into this quagmire of ignorance and consumer neurosis.

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

May the bridges we burn light our way....

[Prana-Bindu]

Forgot to post the sites that mentioned the cable/jitter connection:

http://www.echoloft.com/articles/jitter/jitter.htm (relies on manufacturer)

http://www.digido.com/jitterletters.html (attributes the phonomenon to the point where cables would terminate and the DAC inputs begin?)

http://www.nanophon.com/audio/jitter92.pdf (a paper on jitter by some dude named Julian Dunn -- acquired from http://www.geocities.com/venhaus1/Audiolinks.html )

Most peculiar, Mamma....

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

May the bridges we burn light our way....

[Randy Bey]

Discorules:

quote:

---

this cable stuff is 99% bunk to me.

---

I thought it was 100% bunk myself. I laughed at the Monster Cable people and thought them fools when it first came out.

Now I laugh at the Monster Cable people and think them fools because the Monster Cable topology is crap.

There are some things I can accept, and some things I cannot. For example, some people insist that they can hear if a connector has been soldered v. crimped. I think that's ridiculous. Others think they can tell the difference between amorphous v. single crystal conductors; like they can tell when the electrons have to jump a crystalline gap or not. Presumably the electron has a bad "vibration" or some such. What bunk.

However, my ears are the final arbiter. I am a bear of limited means, and I would not be spending the money if it didn't have a bang for the buck.

What do I accept as variables that need to be controlled? Skin effect, which is exacerbated in multi-strand cables (ala Monster), and dialectric effect, which is generated by poor insulating materials.

Of course, low resistence is an issue. It should be low enough not to cause a change in the apparent impedance of the speaker circuitry.

So, my speaker cables have a limited number of conductors, and each is insulated frome the other with a teflon insulator.

Even with my beliefs in cable topology, I have to laugh at those that spend $10,000 on a cable, no matter what it is made of, or how it is made. That kind of money can do wonders in a hundred more effective ways, and should only be considered by those (if there are that many out there) that have stereos in excess of $500,000 worth.

[sunnysal]

I too "believe" in cables...I can describe (I won't bore you all with it here but Randy gave some good feedback alon gwith others of the types of effects on sound he heard) changes when swapping speaker cables, interconnects and even those between my cd player and dac...so easy to hear that I cannot imagine anyone saying no...I have had people (my wife for example who is completely uninterested/unsophisticated/unspoiled) with when when swapping who all describe the differences...so in my order of importance: speaker cables big differences heard...non-digital interconnects...then regular interconnects...I must admit to not hearing any differences yet related to power cables or even power filters, though I have yet had the chance to try a balanced power regenerator...all part of the fun...regards, tony

[discorules]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prana-Bindu:

Forgot to post the sites that mentioned the cable/jitter connection:

http://www.echoloft.com/articles/jitter/jitter.htm

(relies on manufacturer)

http://www.digido.com/jitterletters.html

(attributes the phonomenon to the point where cables would terminate and the DAC inputs begin?)

http://www.nanophon.com/audio/jitter92.pdf

(a paper on jitter by some dude named Julian Dunn -- acquired from

http://www.geocities.com/venhaus1/Audiolinks.html

)

Most peculiar, Mamma....

---

Thanks for the articles Prana.

I've read most of them and I am getting the idea that the master clock that controls the sample and hold will determine the impact of jitter in recovering the audio signal. I was not convinced in the articles t

[Audio Flynn]

What does it hurt to spend a little money on cables?

I added Audioquest(AQ) Type 6 to my system and then biwired with Radio Shack for the low end.

I will probably buy the biwire AQ Slate cable from Audio Advisor over the net for around $ 100.00 in the next month.

I have a Better Cables digital cable between my CD changer and MSB DAC. It sounded more detailed than the Kimber optical cable.

I want to buy an interconnect cable between the amp and DAC for $ 100- 120 just to try it.

I have never spent more than $90 for a speaker wire pair and $ 55 for an interconnect pair; spending more than $200 or 300 would really be difficult to feel a cable is a value at this point in my system evolution.

In my old high performance car days, fuel, fuel filter, ignition components and cables made a difference; cannot see it being that much different with audio...