[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess since you absolutely refuse to provide a link, we'll just have to take your word for it.

Yes, sadly some people here are "masters" of hearsay, completely unaware of the relevance of verifiable sources/references for credibility.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry can't remember. I stumbled across that article by accident and never bookmarked it. I just posted it in the cables thread at that time. Since then i wasn't able to find the article again. All i know(remember-several months ago), it's NOT an article from a cable manufacteror! You can clearly see, that the writing is not of my hand. The only thing that does things to frequency responce is the dampingfactor. probably wy matching cables is important and the "right" cable let you simply hear more?!

I have absolutely no idea what that last sentence means.

In any event, here is the article: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_1/flatln.html

Google is an amazing thing.

(BigShot posted the link above. I didn't realize that what he had posted was the same article that you were referring to.)

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interestingly, the article by Stereophile does mention cotton among dielectrics, but it doesn't indicate it is actually the best dielectric after air. Well, I must indicate that I've only read such claim about cottong a few times on different places online, not really 100% sure. In any case I was surprised when learning that, since for quite some time I had been under the impression that the best solid dielectric was teflon. Some claims in that article definitely call for further supporting evidence though. For example, that last sentence: "every dielectric has its own distinctive sound." PS. Gee I realize that's a new thread, should probably post this in that other thread.

Well, cotton is fluffy and contains air. Maybe cotton doesn't leak the sound back into the core, as any other dielectric does. This prevenst sound smearing, means less detail.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have absolutely no idea what that last sentence means. In any event, here is the article: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_1/flatln.html Google is an amazing thing. (BigShot posted the link above. I didn't realize that what he had posted was the same article that you were referring to.)

yeah, it is.This could be it.

last sentence means that the only factor that IS known and measurable and recognized for changing frequnecies in cables is the damping factor. And damping factor has to to do with cables!

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're making that up. The only reason to replace those is if you are patching in an equalizer or some other signal processor. A cable would be MUCH more susceptible to shorting and having bad contact than a solid bridge. The people I know who have amps with those bridges are very careful not to lose them when they remove them. See ya Steve

I said it were bridges on the bi-wire chassis of speakers! NOT amps. YOu're making that up!

I can provide several links of people reporting positively of removing the strip on the speaker for cable ones! Bi-wiring only works when bi-amped.

 

[tourmaline]

I am somewhere in the middle:

yes, some cable manufacterors write BS about how their cables work, but i also hear consistantly differences between cables. In the end, you should buy cables you feel comfortable with!

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry, provided as is. This IS what the article said, nothing more, nothing less. They see those two points responsable for different performance in cables. Compared to people that say there is NO difference between cables, 600 and 833% IS significant to nothing.

Let me try this again. Group delay on speaker wire is the difference between different freq ranges travelling the same length of speaker wire.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=2526

For a ten foot run of speaker wire there can be over 50x (5000%) difference from 1.3ns to 72.6ns, that means that the worst of these cables will show a huge audible lag for high frequencies (72.6 ns) , and that would be absolutely correct.

That is of course once the group delay reaches 1ms , below 1ms this group delay is just not audible. 72.6 ns may sound like a lot but it just aint audible.

Blauert, J. and Laws, P "Group Delay Distortions in Electroacoustical Systems"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Volume 63, Number 5, pp. 1478-1483 (May 1978)

ns are 10 ^ -9, ms are 10 ^ -3

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let me try this again. Group delay on speaker wire is the difference between different freq ranges travelling the same length of speaker wire. http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=2526 For a ten foot run of speaker wire there can be over 50x (5000%) difference from 1.3ns to 72.6ns, that means that the worst of these cables will show a huge audible lag for high frequencies (72.6 ns) , and that would be absolutely correct. That is of course once the group delay reaches 1ms , below 1ms this group delay is just not audible. 72.6 ns may sound like a lot but it just aint audible. Blauert, J. and Laws, P "Group Delay Distortions in Electroacoustical Systems" Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Volume 63, Number 5, pp. 1478-1483 (May 1978) ns are 10 ^ -9, ms are 10 ^ -3

I read somewhere these things aren't audible as is but general as having a bigger stage or better top and bottom. So, the sum of all the things going on in a cable does translate into another sound. People also reporting on headfi stating that other cables give extended highs and bottom and better soundstage.

So clearly not everybody has the same vision. My quoted article shows another vision than your link. They state(think) capacitance and inductance. Also my ears tell differently.

Oh, all cars bring you from point a to b, but the experience will be quite different.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif From a guy who used to head one of McIntosh's research labs. http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

GREAT LINK! Very good explanations.

However, notice how the cable supporters completely ignore it.

That is because they have no actual facts to try to refute it.

Also, since this is speaking about speakers, and the higher the initial resistance, the less the cable effects anything.

And since even grado's have 4 times the normal speaker impedance, and a RCA link is 9 times more resistance, AND the cable runs are MUCH shorter than with speakers.

Cable's make little difference.


EDIT: tourmaline, your analogies are flawed and the only thing they further is how foolish you look.

 

[Bigguy]

When I was at the International Headfest meet this year in my hometown I saw a 3 to 4 inch mini to mini cable that one of our sponsors was selling (or attempting) for $175. I about fell over when I saw the price. What were they smoking or what did they think we were smoking? Even if they could make a noticeable difference in SQ it would certainly not be worth that amount of money. That money spent on better source or headphone would be of more benefit. I think this whole cable/wire difference thing is like "the emperor's new clothes". It is a sales pitch, "bigger, more exotic is better"!

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

...the only factor that IS known and measurable and recognized for changing frequnecies in cables is the damping factor. And damping factor has to to do with cables!

Gosh, this subject has been so over discussed, I'm tempted to close this thread. This thread is so full of mis-information and it is so homogenized with the good information that it borders on dangerous.

So many things stated as FACT, when they are nothing more than OPINIONS, and many of them incorrect anyway. The statement quoted above is both meaningless, and false, for example.