[SilverEars]

Thanks for the great explanation. As for abx testing abheadohknr cable, I don’t think one person and blind test. Also, I’m not sure how you can abx test an rca cable since the only way to listen to it directly is direct point to point wiring. I suppose if you had two of everything, and they were identical, you could swift help between the final outputs.

I never could do cable tests reliably due to time it takes to switch them out. That's too long of a duration, your memory fades and can imagine stuff. You need at least to do quick switching.

Unless you have photographic audio memory and took account of all you heard. We tend to focus on specifics when do comparisons critically.

 

[pinnahertz]

can I assume that we're missing a little "no" in this sentence? ^_^

fixed it. thanks.

 

[pinnahertz]

Thanks for the great explanation. As for abx testing abheadohknr cable, I don’t think one person and blind test. Also, I’m not sure how you can abx test an rca cable since the only way to listen to it directly is direct point to point wiring. I suppose if you had two of everything, and they were identical, you could swift help between the final outputs.

ABX/DBT defines a method of testing, a protocol. The number of testers is determined by how conclusive across a given population you want to make the test results. The number of trials per tester affects the resolution of the results (more is better).

You absolutely can ABX blind test a cable, any kind. You just have to be careful about how you connect it. No manual "help" is swift enough, not even close. The switch between choices must be instantaneous. Any involvement of a third party who knows what's going on impacts the "blind" aspect, no matter how careful they are.

 

[castleofargh]

would it be a big problem to record the output signal with 2 cables and then just abx the files in foobar(after going mad trying to sync them perfectly in audacity or whatever DAW)? obviously it means adding the recording gears and whatever fidelity they can nurture, and one more run through the playback gears, so we're far from reaching ideal conditions. but at least the ABX aspect is settled . I usually do that to "test the water" when I have no idea how I could properly do the blind test, but I'm just too curious to do nothing.

 

[71 dB]

Is inductance and capacitance directly proportional to wire gauge? Would the materials used int he wire also affect these values? Would the dielectric and possible the insolation?

As I said, these things are theoretical and have very little if any practical effect. Geometry and size determine the values of inductance and capacitance.

Can you provide a cable measurement graph that is non-linear enough to effect the tranducers in audibility? Also, can you explain by theoritical? Are we talking about realistic(significant enough) capacitance and inductance values of cables in regards to theoritically?

Electromagnetism isn't my strongest areas and it's been so long since I studied these things that I better not.

 

[bigshot]

As I state earlier, wrt to the RCA cables, we didn't do any A/B blind testing. Too hard. I could not hear a different on my system. My friend did on his.

Sounds like your friend has a stronger expectation bias.

It's easy to do A/B comparisons of cables. Just use a switch box or switch between inputs on your amp.

It doesn't matter though, because the difference if it even exists doesn't add up to a hill of beans. There are much more important things to address to get better sound quality than wires. I think worrying about cables is a waste of time.

 

[pinnahertz]

would it be a big problem to record the output signal with 2 cables and then just abx the files in foobar(after going mad trying to sync them perfectly in audacity or whatever DAW)? obviously it means adding the recording gears and whatever fidelity they can nurture, and one more run through the playback gears, so we're far from reaching ideal conditions. but at least the ABX aspect is settled . I usually do that to "test the water" when I have no idea how I could properly do the blind test, but I'm just too curious to do nothing.

Seems a reasonable way to satisfy personal curiosity. Just would likely not stand up to scrutiny by others.

 

[bigshot]

I think most of us are working to improve our own sound systems, not publish papers.

 

[Allanmarcus]

Sounds like your friend has a stronger expectation bias.

It's easy to do A/B comparisons of cables. Just use a switch box or switch between inputs on your amp.

It doesn't matter though, because the difference if it even exists doesn't add up to a hill of beans. There are much more important things to address to get better sound quality than wires. I think worrying about cables is a waste of time.

Well, your first statement shows your bias!
. note, that a was humor

As for a switch box, I built a pretty good one (link here), but that cannot really be used to test an RCA cable. I have used it to test DACs. My DAC has one output, and my amp has one input. Even if the amp had two inputs, the test wouldn't be accurate since there would be a cable between the DAC and switch box, the wiring in the switch box, and the switch itself, all in the signal path that would not normally be there if the cable was point to point (DAC to amp).

While there are subjectivists that claim they can hear minute differences (I cannot), for audio I pretty much trust measurements to determine if there is a difference. Once a difference has been determined, then obviously one needs to listen to determine which one is preferable. Not having the right tools to measure can be expensive and require a lot of know how, so dropping back to just listening is often the easier, but less scientific, solution.

Thanks for all the responses. I picked up the Monolith cables on sale ($20 shipped for two), and I cannot hear any difference between them, blue jean cables, or home made ones. The monolith cables, however, are well made and don't fall out like the MonoPrice "premium" cables. Not falling out is important to me

As for the multi wire cable I was thinking of making, well, it was mostly for fun. I didn't expect there to be a scientific reason for it to sound better, but I thought I'd ask. Good to have what I thought to be true confirmed.

If you would like a chuckle, read my review of the Pangea AC-14 cable on Amazon.

 

[bigshot]

Measurable isn’t the same as audible. We can measure things we can’t hear. It helps to know how the numbers and charts relate to what our ears can and can’t hear. There’s a point where better measurements don’t make a lick of difference to sound. Wires are a long way into that territory.

 

[pinnahertz]

As I said, these things are theoretical and have very little if any practical effect.

Well, they do have practical effect, or the "theoretical" would be meaningless. It's a question of degree. I've given some data and parameters...
If we had a 500ft run of 14ga wire running to a speaker with an impedance dip to 2 ohms we have a greater than 6dB response dip due to wire resistance alone. If we look at skin depth at 10kHz and combine it with capacitive loss (resistive loss with progressive C across it) there will further audible attenuation at the top end. Make the wire smaller, the length to audible change gets shorter, etc.

No, it's not theoretical without practical effect, we just usually don't run 500' of 14ga speaker wire. Fortunately common speaker wire runs are short enough and use large enough wire that we don't run into this much.
For interconnects with tiny conductors it's nearly all a capacitive problem. But again, not until the wires get really unusually long.

 

[71 dB]

Well, the do have practical effect, or the "theoretical" would be meaningless. It's a question of degree. I've given some data and parameters...
If we had a 500ft run of 14ga wire running to a speaker with an impedance dip to 2 ohms we have a greater than 6dB response dip due to wire resistance alone. If we look at skin depth at 10kHz and combine it with capacitive loss (resistive loss with progressive C across it) there will further audible attenuation at the top end. Make the wire smaller, the length to audible change gets shorter, etc.

No, it's not theoretical without practical effect, we just usually don't run 500' of 14ga speaker wire. Fortunately common speaker wire runs are short enough and use large enough wire that we don't run into this much.
For interconnects with tiny conductors it's nearly all a capacitive problem. But again, not until the wires get really unusually long.

It's pretty easy to do your speaker wiring in your living room so that the frequency response errors are less than 0.5 dB.

 

[pinnahertz]

It's pretty easy to do your speaker wiring in your living room so that the frequency response errors are less than 0.5 dB.

Sure it is, never said it wasn't. It's useful to know where these things get to be a problem, though, rather than just blowing it off as "theoretical". Once you understand where cable C, L, R and skin effect begin to be a real problem you then see why it isn't in a particular, or even most, situations.

 

[pinnahertz]

Measurable isn’t the same as audible. We can measure things we can’t hear. It helps to know how the numbers and charts relate to what our ears can and can’t hear. There’s a point where better measurements don’t make a lick of difference to sound. Wires are a long way into that territory.

While generally that's true, note there are conditions where that's not true. It's important to know when that happens.

 

[bigshot]

No conditions that would be in a typical home stereo system, which is what we're talking about. I don't think anyone here is wiring their stereo up to speakers at a neighbor's house down the block.

I bought my wire at Radio Shack. It said "speaker wire" on the spindle. So I used it to wire up my speakers. It worked fine.