LOLOL
Ouchie! :-)

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Home Depot sells "low voltage outdoor lighting wire" that is 12 guage. It
looks like heavy duty zip cord or heater cord. It works well and is cheap.



It is also made of vinyl, and burns like an ammunition dump when you
light it. Does NOT pass vertical flame test, will NOT meet fire code
for in-wall installation.
--scott





--
Ric Seyler

In rec.audio.tech Scott Fraser wrote:
I don't think I would put "high end" and "Carver amp" in the same
sentence
at all.

Hey, now, you watch your mouth! What I mean is it wasn't an Alesis or
Samson amp, but something where there was a chance of actually hearing
something. This was an M1.0t, which was in a whole other ballpark than
all those crappy Carver switching PA amps.

And the KEF speakers shouldn't be too bizarre a load.

Almost 20 years old these KEFs still amaze with their resolution of
midrange detail.

I remember checking the MIT cables out on Gabe's old WATT/Puppies.
They
definitely sounded _different_ than conventional stranded cable... but
after a little listening, it was clear that they were not better but
actually worse.
--scott

Don't those have capacitors in one end, & are intended to be aimed in
the direction of signal flow?

Hmm. Proof that if you're malicious or incompetent enough, it's _possible_
to make cables that affect the sound.

Scott Fraser wrote:

And the KEF speakers shouldn't be too bizarre a load.

Almost 20 years old these KEFs still amaze with their resolution of
midrange detail.

Right, but the impedance is fairly flat across the spectrum, so cable
resistance problems aren't going to be so serious. When cables start
influencing sound is when you have very long cabling (as in a lot of
SR applications) or when you have bizarre speaker loads that aren't
linear.

They
definitely sounded _different_ than conventional stranded cable... but
after a little listening, it was clear that they were not better but
actually worse.

Don't those have capacitors in one end, & are intended to be aimed in
the direction of signal flow?

They have some kind of lumped sum stuff on each end of the cable, in
metal boxes. I don't know what was inside them because he had the
cables on evaluation and was reluctant to let me try and pry them open
with my pocket knife. But whatever is in there, I don't think it is
a good thing, on his system anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bill Lorentzen wrote:
Are you guys saying plain stranded copper cable sounds as good as "audio"
cable? I'm not arguing, I am just curious if you have ear-tested experience
on this?



"Stereo Review" magazine published double-blind listening tests which
support the thesis that zip wire "sounds" just as good, or better, than
boutique cabling.

A few years ago, I read an ad by Monster Cable that said that the low
freqency notes traveled on the larger diameter wires and the high
frequency notes on the finer diameter wires. That put paid to whatever
fragments of credence I might have put in their products.

-Raf


--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert

http://www.ralphandsue.com

"Misifus" wrote in message
news:VL_mf.9182$fz5.4850@dukeread04...
Bill Lorentzen wrote:
Are you guys saying plain stranded copper cable sounds as good as "audio"
cable? I'm not arguing, I am just curious if you have ear-tested
experience on this?



"Stereo Review" magazine published double-blind listening tests which
support the thesis that zip wire "sounds" just as good, or better, than
boutique cabling.

A few years ago, I read an ad by Monster Cable that said that the low
freqency notes traveled on the larger diameter wires and the high
frequency notes on the finer diameter wires. That put paid to whatever
fragments of credence I might have put in their products.

-Raf

Actually there is a grain of truth in this because of the skin effect, but
the effect is so small at audio frequencies and with the length of wire we
are talking about, it can be ignored. If you were going 1 mile, then the
skin effect may be noticeable, but a mile of wire has other problems with DC
resistance, capacitance, and inductance as well. Transmission line
considerations need to be invoked at those lengths.

David

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 19:54:08 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:57:04 GMT, "Bill Lorentzen"
wrote:

Are you guys saying plain stranded copper cable sounds as good as "audio"
cable? I'm not arguing, I am just curious if you have ear-tested experience
on this?

Yes, absolutely, no question. In the serious audio newsgroups, there's
even a $5,000 or so pool of money for anyone who can demonsrate an
ability to hear differences among cables. That money's been on the
table for about six years now, and no one has even *tried* to collect
it. You see lots of wild claims about 'cable sound', but no one steps
up to the plate. It's not even a bet, you just prove your point and
collect the prize!


What source gear is on the table ? A denon receiver ? The crap you
own?

You can't turn **** into high resolution gear with good cabling, It
just doesnt work that way .,that's exactly what you're experiencing.

yawn wrote:

You can't turn **** into high resolution gear with good cabling, It
just doesnt work that way .,that's exactly what you're experiencing.

This is completely true. But what's also true is that while you can
make good gear sound bad with really poor cabling, there isn't much
difference between really good cable and pretty good cable as long as
you understand what makes cable good for a particular application. This
is something that's not apparent to some makers of voodoo cable.

yawn wrote in news:s11pp1tf6trd5bp2t0s9l9pr9mbg6g9r3h@
4ax.com:

What source gear is on the table ? A denon receiver ? The crap you
own?

The choice of system components and music sources is entirely up to the
challenger.

You can't turn **** into high resolution gear with good cabling, It
just doesnt work that way .,that's exactly what you're experiencing.

If you believe speaker cables make a difference, then take the challenge.

You are misquoting the ad. The folks at Monster claimed that low
frequencies were affected by the amount of copper in the cable
cross-section, while high frequencies were affected by the surface
area, thus their "thick but fine" cable, high mass combined with high
surface area. I went from zip cord to monster cable at the time and
could definitely hear a difference, especially in the bass.

"videochas www.locoworks.com" wrote in message
oups.com...
You are misquoting the ad. The folks at Monster claimed that low
frequencies were affected by the amount of copper in the cable
cross-section, while high frequencies were affected by the surface
area, thus their "thick but fine" cable, high mass combined with high
surface area. I went from zip cord to monster cable at the time and
could definitely hear a difference, especially in the bass.

Well, you thought you could.

geoff

Misifus wrote:

"Stereo Review" magazine published double-blind listening tests which
support the thesis that zip wire "sounds" just as good, or better, than
boutique cabling.

For the most part this is true. But Stereo Review is about the worst possible
place to get accurate information about audio,

A few years ago, I read an ad by Monster Cable that said that the low
freqency notes traveled on the larger diameter wires and the high
frequency notes on the finer diameter wires. That put paid to whatever
fragments of credence I might have put in their products.

This is vaguely referring to skin effect, which is actually important with
much larger cables or much higher frequencies. But, Monster Cable is also
not exactly a good source for accurate information about audio.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

videochas www.locoworks.com wrote:
You are misquoting the ad. The folks at Monster claimed that low
frequencies were affected by the amount of copper in the cable
cross-section, while high frequencies were affected by the surface
area, thus their "thick but fine" cable, high mass combined with high
surface area. I went from zip cord to monster cable at the time and
could definitely hear a difference, especially in the bass.

Yes, you did. And you would have felt the same difference if you went
from ANY 20 gauge wire to a 12 gauge one. It wasn't the Monster cable
that made the difference, but the thicker wire.

CD

"videochas www.locoworks.com" wrote:

You are misquoting the ad. The folks at Monster claimed that low
frequencies were affected by the amount of copper in the cable
cross-section, while high frequencies were affected by the surface
area,

This is also wrong.

Stranded wire of a given cross-section behaves *exactly* like solid core
of the same gauge from the perspective of 'skin effect'.

There is only a difference if 'litz construction' is used where every
single strand is insulated from its neighbours.


thus their "thick but fine" cable, high mass combined with high
surface area. I went from zip cord to monster cable at the time and
could definitely hear a difference, especially in the bass.

That'll be because the 'monster' cable was a larger gauge of course.
You're not comparing like with like.

Graham

Codifus wrote:

videochas www.locoworks.com wrote:
You are misquoting the ad. The folks at Monster claimed that low
frequencies were affected by the amount of copper in the cable
cross-section, while high frequencies were affected by the surface
area, thus their "thick but fine" cable, high mass combined with high
surface area. I went from zip cord to monster cable at the time and
could definitely hear a difference, especially in the bass.

Yes, you did. And you would have felt the same difference if you went
from ANY 20 gauge wire to a 12 gauge one. It wasn't the Monster cable
that made the difference, but the thicker wire.

Quite so !

And it's by marketing it as 'better' rather than simply being honest that
it's 'bigger' that monster rip you off.

Graham

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Misifus wrote:

"Stereo Review" magazine published double-blind listening tests which
support the thesis that zip wire "sounds" just as good, or better, than
boutique cabling.

For the most part this is true. But Stereo Review is about the worst possible
place to get accurate information about audio,

A few years ago, I read an ad by Monster Cable that said that the low
freqency notes traveled on the larger diameter wires and the high
frequency notes on the finer diameter wires. That put paid to whatever
fragments of credence I might have put in their products.

This is vaguely referring to skin effect, which is actually important with
much larger cables or much higher frequencies. But, Monster Cable is also
not exactly a good source for accurate information about audio.

In any stranded wire, skin effect is only affected if the individual strands are
insulated from each other - as in Litz construction.

Non-individually-insulated ( i.e non-Litz ) stranded wire has the same skin effect
as solid wire of the same gauge.

Graham

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote ...

Yes, absolutely, no question. In the serious audio newsgroups,

I always thought rec.audio.pro and rec.audio.tech WERE
the "serious" newsgroups, and the others were the mystical
newsgroups.

God knows what you'd call rec.audio.opinion.

I call it a nest of vipers. :-[

Graham

videochas wrote ...
You are misquoting the ad. The folks at Monster claimed that low
frequencies were affected by the amount of copper in the cable
cross-section, while high frequencies were affected by the surface
area, thus their "thick but fine" cable, high mass combined with high
surface area. I went from zip cord to monster cable at the time and
could definitely hear a difference, especially in the bass.

But did they mention that the "high frequencies" where skin-
effect are signifacant are several orders of magnitude beyond
audio frequencies? (i.e. GHz) I didn't think so. They remain
sleazy and without credibility in my book.

Richard Crowley wrote:

videochas wrote ...
You are misquoting the ad. The folks at Monster claimed that low
frequencies were affected by the amount of copper in the cable
cross-section, while high frequencies were affected by the surface
area, thus their "thick but fine" cable, high mass combined with high
surface area. I went from zip cord to monster cable at the time and
could definitely hear a difference, especially in the bass.

But did they mention that the "high frequencies" where skin-
effect are signifacant are several orders of magnitude beyond
audio frequencies? (i.e. GHz) I didn't think so. They remain
sleazy and without credibility in my book.

Actually, skin depth is around 0.15 ? mm @ 100 kHz or thereabouts. I know
this on account of a recent smps project.

So, skin depth is possibly a factor @ 20 KHz ( do please Google to get the
exact equation ).

The big story is that ordinary stranded wire is no better than solid as
regards skin effect. Every conductor has to be individually insulated (
litz wire ) for skin effect to be absent.

Graham

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:59:18 -0500, yawn wrote:

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 19:54:08 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:57:04 GMT, "Bill Lorentzen"
wrote:

Are you guys saying plain stranded copper cable sounds as good as "audio"
cable? I'm not arguing, I am just curious if you have ear-tested experience
on this?

Yes, absolutely, no question. In the serious audio newsgroups, there's
even a $5,000 or so pool of money for anyone who can demonsrate an
ability to hear differences among cables. That money's been on the
table for about six years now, and no one has even *tried* to collect
it. You see lots of wild claims about 'cable sound', but no one steps
up to the plate. It's not even a bet, you just prove your point and
collect the prize!


What source gear is on the table ?

Anything you like.

A denon receiver ? The crap you
own?

You consider my Krell/Apogee system to be '****'? Interesting. But
irrelevant, since you can use any system you like.

You can't turn **** into high resolution gear with good cabling, It
just doesnt work that way .,that's exactly what you're experiencing.

There's no such thing as 'good' cabling, although it's certainly
possible to obtain *bad* cabling, if you spend enough money with
companies like MIT..........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"videochas www.locoworks.com" wrote in message
oups.com...
You are misquoting the ad. The folks at Monster claimed that low
frequencies were affected by the amount of copper in the cable
cross-section, while high frequencies were affected by the surface
area, thus their "thick but fine" cable, high mass combined with high
surface area. I went from zip cord to monster cable at the time and
could definitely hear a difference, especially in the bass.

It's regrettably *all* bad science. The whole post.

If just surface area was the determining factor, then a bundle of
finely-stranded wire would measure and sound just like a piece of
thin-walled tubing. In fact the bundle of finely-stranded wire measures and
sounds just about like a piece of solid wire with with the same amount of
copper per foot.

The piece of tubing with the same surface area will measure vastly
different, but since skin effect isn't an issue for practical wires in home
stereos, it doesn't effect the sound.

For years, Monster proudly sold separately-insulated stranded wire as some
kind of a solution for skin effect. They happily took the vast markups to
the bank. Fact is, that cable measured not much different from regular
speaker wire with the same sized conductors and spacing.

Then Monster figured out that the real way to do something about skin effect
was to make foam-core wires that were a lot more like hollow tubes. Even
though skin effect is a non-issue in the real world, they still happily took
the vast markups to the bank.

Any perceptions you may have of an audible difference were no doubt due to
the fact that your experiment was not level-matched, time-synched, and
bias-controlled.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


"videochas www.locoworks.com" wrote:

You are misquoting the ad. The folks at Monster claimed that low
frequencies were affected by the amount of copper in the cable
cross-section, while high frequencies were affected by the surface
area,

This is also wrong.

Stranded wire of a given cross-section behaves *exactly* like solid core
of the same gauge from the perspective of 'skin effect'.

There is only a difference if 'litz construction' is used where every
single strand is insulated from its neighbours.

Hate to be pedantic again Graham, but that's not quite right. As I mentioned
in another post, Monster made a stranded cable where every strand was
insulated (fiber thread over enamel for each strand).

I got a set of the old anti-skin-effect Monster cables from a friend and
found that they measured almost exactly like solid or stranded. In the
process I confirmed again what you posted above about solid and stranded not
making much of an electrical difference.

Later on I read up on the matter in the Scott's Guide

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...o/electron.htm

To cut to the chase, skin effect is based on magnetic fields, which cut
through thin layers of insulating materials with the alacrity of a scared
fawn.

No, in order to address skin effect you need to make some gross changes in
eable geometry.

Electrically hollow conductors are used by people who are serious about skin
effect. The hollow conductors may be stealthy, such as the silver-coated
aluminium and copper-plated steel cables that the cable guys use. Yeah, its
solid metal wire, but there are big differences in the conductivity of the
metals that are used.

Monster now sells an anti-skin effect cable with a foam core, if memory
serves. Silver-plated Aluminum foil wrapped around a foam core should be the
ticket, if you're having bad dreams about skin effect.

Trouble is, many of the approaches to reducing skin effect end up increasing
inductance. Inductance can be the larger problem with speaker cables.

videochas wrote ...
You are misquoting the ad. The folks at Monster claimed that low
frequencies were affected by the amount of copper in the cable
cross-section, while high frequencies were affected by the surface
area, thus their "thick but fine" cable, high mass combined with high
surface area. I went from zip cord to monster cable at the time and
could definitely hear a difference, especially in the bass.

But did they mention that the "high frequencies" where skin-
effect are signifacant are several orders of magnitude beyond
audio frequencies? (i.e. GHz) I didn't think so. They remain
sleazy and without credibility in my book.




Skin effect is significant at 60 Hz... that is why the motor brushes on
the generators at Niagra Falls are honeycombed rather than solid. But, the
skin is very deep. (And in fact, the notion of the 'skin' being an abrupt
transition is false because the current basically drops off steadily and
lograrithmically as you go down the depth of the conductor).

It's true that skin effect isn't a big deal at audio frequencies, but
I could figure some places here and there where it might be. It's certainly
measureable at 20 KHz with an 8 ga conductor even if it's not a big deal.

I did all the math in an article in Positive Feedback back in 1996 some time
that may be worth looking up. Or you can get it from the ITT Radio Engineer's
Handbook where I got it and so the plugging and chugging yourself.
-s-cott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:28:42 -0500, Walt
wrote:

Much good advice so far. Bottom line is that this is a job that you
only want to do once, so spend the extra two dollars and install 12
gauge instead of 16.

For (what I assume are) surround-sound speakers? Heck, 22 gauge would
probably be fine. So what if there's an ohm of wire in the path?

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Skin effect is significant at 60 Hz...

"In Engineering Electromagnetics, Hayt points out that in a power
station a bus bar for alternating current at 60 Hz much more than 1/3rd
of an inch (8 mm) thick is wasteful of copper, and in practice bus bars
for heavy AC current are rarely more than 1/2 inch (12 mm) thick except
for mechanical reasons. A thin film of silver deposited on glass is an
excellent conductor at microwave frequencies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect

At low frequencies, any concern about conductor resistance can be
resolved by simply using a larger conductor. Concerns about
"skin-effect" at high audio frequencies are pure snake oil when used by
botique cable vendors.

I suspect that the requirements of most of us for our sound
reproduction/reinforcement systems are significantly more modest than
those of the nearest power plant.

Home Depot sells "low voltage outdoor lighting wire" that is 12 guage. It
looks like heavy duty zip cord or heater cord. It works well and is
cheap.

It is also made of vinyl, and burns like an ammunition dump when you
light it. Does NOT pass vertical flame test, will NOT meet fire code
for in-wall installation.
--scott

Good point. It is NOT plenum-rated. My error.


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-

Home Depot sells "low voltage outdoor lighting wire" that is 12 guage. It
looks like heavy duty zip cord or heater cord. It works well and is cheap.

It is also made of vinyl, and burns like an ammunition dump when you
light it. Does NOT pass vertical flame test, will NOT meet fire code
for in-wall installation.
--scott

The answer here is just don't light it! Seems simple enough... (juuuust
kidding)

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:


Home Depot sells "low voltage outdoor lighting wire" that is 12 guage. It
looks like heavy duty zip cord or heater cord. It works well and is
cheap.

It is also made of vinyl, and burns like an ammunition dump when you
light it. Does NOT pass vertical flame test, will NOT meet fire code
for in-wall installation.

Good point. It is NOT plenum-rated. My error.

You don't need to spend so much money for plenum rating, but you do
need something that passes vertical flame test. The US residential code
is _very_ lax and allows all kinds of crappy wiring (like Romex) to be
used in-wall without conduit, but even it has a limit.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"bdowns" wrote in message
...
I building my audio/video system and have a question on which gauge wire to
buy. I going to have 2 in-wall speakers about 25 to 30 feet away from
my receiver, which is a Denon 1905. Is 16 gauge wire enough or should I buy
wire that is larger or smaller? Thanks in advance.

**What is the impedance CURVE of your speakers. If you want to retain
quality sound, you need to factor in the length of the cable, vs. impedance
of the load.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:42:07 GMT, in rec.audio.tech , "Trevor Wilson"
in
wrote:


"bdowns" wrote in message
m...
I building my audio/video system and have a question on which gauge wire to
buy. I going to have 2 in-wall speakers about 25 to 30 feet away from
my receiver, which is a Denon 1905. Is 16 gauge wire enough or should I buy
wire that is larger or smaller? Thanks in advance.

**What is the impedance CURVE of your speakers. If you want to retain
quality sound, you need to factor in the length of the cable, vs. impedance
of the load.

I am getting bookshelf speakers to reduce the impendence to 0. Right
now my large floor standing speakers impede my walking through the
living room.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

I have to agree that for long runs bigger is almost always better. But
I have to admit that like Scott I too have noticed a slight difference
between stranded and solid wire. I have no idea why and I long
suspected it's purely psychological. As Pooh says, the main advantage
of stranded is the flexibility. In a permanent installation anything
goes. On a lark I once used copper WATER PIPE for such an installation.
Worked positively great! Yeah, I've heard all that low oxygen BS but I
don't think it matters. Just going up a gauge does way more than than
any stranded-solid difference.

If you need flexible, as someone said jumper cables work very nicely.
Also I once made a bunch of speaker wires out of heavy braid shoved
down tygon tube. (Got a huge roll of braid free!) Those sounded great
and looked cool too. 12 Gauge power tool extension cords work great and
can be scored cheap (look for two wire rather than 3 wire type). For
in-wall I'd go with any kind of standard solid house wire. Lowes or
Home Depot has a nice selection at reasonable cost. If you want on
floor wire, I'd go with the heaviest gauge you can buy at the local pro
audio supply shop. They usually have really nice rubber covered speaker
wire that looks nice, wears well, is nice and flexible and doesn't
cost too much. Often you can find it in the range of 16 - 10 gauge. But
I wouldn't spend the extra cash for flexibility for an in-wall job.

Basically it's all about Ohms. Low ohms means the amplifier can keep a
tighter damping factor on the speakers. So don't scrimp on connectors
either. No sense using 3 inch water pipe for wire and then using some
connector that develops 5 Ohms after a year of service.

Benj

wrote:
Yeah, I've heard all that low oxygen BS but I don't think it matters.

Actually, oxygen-free copper DOES make sense, but not for the
reasons oft cited. The presence of copper within the crystalline
structure causes mechanical problems that result in premature
failure when the cables are flexed.

Basically it's all about Ohms. Low ohms means the amplifier can keep a
tighter damping factor on the speakers.

Which, of course, has been demonstrated elsewhere as being
an essentially bogus argument under most circumstances.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Basically it's all about Ohms.

To a point.

Low ohms means the amplifier can keep a
tighter damping factor on the speakers.

I think your heart is in the right place, but your terminology seems to be
out-of date.

Low series ohm speaker cable means that a good amplifier/speaker cable
combination can provide the speaker with a low impedance source, which is
what the speaker was no doubt designed for.

However there is a point of diminishing returns. The speaker itself contains
a relatively large resistor in the form of the resistance of the voice coil.
So beyond a certain point, adding copper to the speaker cable is yet another
waste of time and money.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:57:04 GMT, "Bill Lorentzen"
wrote:

Are you guys saying plain stranded copper cable sounds as good as "audio"
cable? I'm not arguing, I am just curious if you have ear-tested
experience
on this?

Yes, absolutely, no question. In the serious audio newsgroups, there's
even a $5,000 or so pool of money for anyone who can demonsrate an
ability to hear differences among cables. That money's been on the
table for about six years now, and no one has even *tried* to collect
it. You see lots of wild claims about 'cable sound', but no one steps
up to the plate. It's not even a bet, you just prove your point and
collect the prize!

**FIVE GRAND!!! Where can I get me some of that?

I reckon I can hear the difference between two speaker cables (of my
choosing) with the following equipment:

Cable 1: Goertz MI-1
Cable 2: Naim speaker cable

Cable length to be 20 Metres

These are the speakers I choose to use:

www.rageaudio.com.au/accu.jpg

Can I put you down for a few Squid?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:59:18 -0500, yawn wrote:

You consider my Krell/Apogee system to be '****'? Interesting. But
irrelevant, since you can use any system you like.

**Cool. It'll be like taking candy from a baby. Sign me up. Where can I go
to collect my 5 Grand?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

These are the speakers I choose to use:

www.rageaudio.com.au/accu.jpg




Whoof... which speaker is that? It presents almost a dead short at
~16K.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Basically it's all about Ohms.

To a point.

Low ohms means the amplifier can keep a
tighter damping factor on the speakers.

I think your heart is in the right place, but your terminology seems to be
out-of date.

Low series ohm speaker cable means that a good amplifier/speaker cable
combination can provide the speaker with a low impedance source, which is
what the speaker was no doubt designed for.

However there is a point of diminishing returns. The speaker itself
contains a relatively large resistor in the form of the resistance of the
voice coil. So beyond a certain point, adding copper to the speaker cable
is yet another waste of time and money.

Right. The concept of damping factor means that the impedance of the source
should be considerably lower than the resistance of the speaker. If it has
validity (and it probably does), that explains why people notice cables with
a resistance of maybe 0.5 ohm, even though the actual attenuation into an
8-ohm speaker is very small. But there are still diminishing returns. I
doubt anyone could tell the difference between 0.1 ohm and 0.01 ohm of cable
resistance.

mc wrote:

Right. The concept of damping factor means that the impedance of the source
should be considerably lower than the resistance of the speaker. If it has
validity (and it probably does), that explains why people notice cables with
a resistance of maybe 0.5 ohm, even though the actual attenuation into an
8-ohm speaker is very small. But there are still diminishing returns. I
doubt anyone could tell the difference between 0.1 ohm and 0.01 ohm of cable
resistance.

Unless they had a speaker like the Apogee Scintilla which drops below 1 ohm
at some frequencies.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote:

The presence of ***** copper ******within the crystalline
structure causes mechanical problems

So true !

How about copper free cables for the audiophools ? ;-)


Graham

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:57:04 GMT, "Bill Lorentzen"
wrote:

Are you guys saying plain stranded copper cable sounds as good as "audio"
cable? I'm not arguing, I am just curious if you have ear-tested
experience
on this?

Yes, absolutely, no question. In the serious audio newsgroups, there's
even a $5,000 or so pool of money for anyone who can demonsrate an
ability to hear differences among cables. That money's been on the
table for about six years now, and no one has even *tried* to collect
it. You see lots of wild claims about 'cable sound', but no one steps
up to the plate. It's not even a bet, you just prove your point and
collect the prize!

**FIVE GRAND!!! Where can I get me some of that?

I reckon I can hear the difference between two speaker cables (of my
choosing) with the following equipment:

Cable 1: Goertz MI-1
Cable 2: Naim speaker cable

Cable length to be 20 Metres

These are the speakers I choose to use:

www.rageaudio.com.au/accu.jpg

So that'll be 10dB down @ 15kHz on an SET amp - LOL !

Graham

"Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message
news:sJFof.2515$Hl4.527@clgrps13...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

These are the speakers I choose to use:

www.rageaudio.com.au/accu.jpg




Whoof... which speaker is that? It presents almost a dead short at ~16K.

**An Accoustat. I can't recall the model number. Any of the large Accoustats
will do for my test. I just gotta figure how I will spend the 5 Grand. It's
a lock.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au