# The "truth" about different speaker cables

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by bullseye, Mar 1, 2009.

Lately there have been some threads about people questioning the "magical" properties of cables. How they change the sound signature of the equipment you are using them with, etc. The answers have mostly been subjective, as they held their own opinions under very dubious tests. In this article mathematical formulas are applied, and other aspects are studied in order to clean the dust that surrounds cables.

There is this Spanish site called Matrixhifi that holds that article of the differences between a super cable and a normal copper cable. It is written in spanish, and not everyone understands it. For that reason I decided to translate it by myself, in order to share it with everyone that wants to know the "truth".

I am sorry if you find any grammar or vocabulary mistake, my mother language is not English and the vocabulary used in the original is quite specific. Nevertheless I am still willing to correct any mistake. The important thing is that you guys can understand it.

The link to the article is this one:

THE "TRUTH" ABOUT DIFFERENT SPEAKER CABLES

Before anyone comments the article, PLEASE READ IT FROM START TO END

I think it is very thoroughly explained. It could be more technical, but it already has enough technical charge for the average Joe.

Note: parasitic inductance means stray inductance too. LF = Low Frequency. If there is any acronym you do not understand you can ask here.

Please, read it carefully before answering in a bad way. I did not write that article, I just translated it.

I also hope things start to be clear for the people who want to now the truth.
You can also PM me for any question.

EDIT: I have read it again and there are some mistakes made by the webmaster and me. Before I say what they are he has been ill for some time so he has not been able to upload it earlier. I have already corrected some mistakes and will send him the "final" version soon.
The things missing are:

On the paragraph of "INFLUENCE OF THE COPPER’S DIAMETER", below "To calculate the voltage that travels through a copper cable based on the power (watts), the following formula can be used:" The missing formula is:

Ampere = Square root(watt : ohm)

At the conclusion, last paragraph should start like: "We have made the cable test connecting ", eliminating an "a" that leads to confusion.

Fig. 18 is missing.

Even so the article is ok to be read

2. Contributor
Quote:

 Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Head-fiers The link to the article is this one: *Original article: ORIGINAL -> Zona Roja -> 29/10/2003: La "verdad" sobre los distintos cables de altavoces Before anyone comments the article, PLEASE READ IT FROM START TO END

Thank you for the hard work (and lots of it) you have put in on the translation !

3. Contributor
So the «truth» about cables can be found behind this link...

I haven't opened it yet, and we'll see if I'll find the patience to read the paper, but the term «truth» has certainly put my motivation down to almost zero beforehand. It reminds me more of a wake-up call from Jehovah's Witnesses than a scientific paper.

That's not a scientific approach at all. You may know that there are a lot of people with an opinion, and the opinions among scientists vary quite a bit. That's not meant as a criticism on the paper, BTW.
.

4. Hey nick_charles,

Thanks a lot for the feedback, however at the end of the article an schematic is missing and there are some mistakes. Have corrected them already and will be uploading a corrected version soon.

Stay tuned, because once the original file is updated there is still a few things missing. Not too many things, but worth reading.

5. /double post

6. This will be interesting. Thanks for the translation.

7. Contributor
wow, that was a LONG translation - ty for having the patience to complete it for us

still, youll never get cable-worshipers to find any relevance in scientific data. however the effort was not wasted, as the article was very well organized with very clear and specific conclusions. thanks for bringing it to our attention

8. Thanks for appreciating my work. It was tiresome with all the specific vocabulary. The important thing is that you guys understand it, as there is enough information to make up your minds about cables.

9. Interesting conclusion

10. Quote:

 Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif t reminds me more of a wake-up call from Jehovah's Witnesses than a scientific paper.

X2

Take truth out of this, because you are only hurting yourself by using it.

11. curious to see what patrick has to say about this

@ the "take truth out"
I wasn't thinking so much jehovah's witnesses (however you spell it), as much as LDS mormons "come with me brother, and learn the story and truth of christ" or whatever the sales pitch is

....basically you can't even approach claiming you're 100% right, because you're just one objective measurement in a sea of debate that dates back to the 1960's

and to nit-pick at you:
your graphs are terribly hard to read, ever considered digitizing them, or at least scanning them better?

>20khz is percieved by humans, on some level, and the exact limit of human hearing isn't a set line at 20khz, so why do you presume to impose this?

furthermore your testing methodology disagrees with a lot of current thinking on how to compare two systems, which rubs me the wrong way (because this article is written just like every other techo-tweakie rant I've ever read)

/rant

12. manus, I almost clicked that, then remembered if I get any audio playing I'll ruin the last hour of project work....

CURSES

can you summarize?

::edit
nevermind
entire system just bought it about a minute after I posted this
bye bye project
....

13. Quote:

 Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif curious to see what patrick has to say about this @ the "take truth out" I wasn't thinking so much jehovah's witnesses (however you spell it), as much as LDS mormons "come with me brother, and learn the story and truth of christ" or whatever the sales pitch is ....basically you can't even approach claiming you're 100% right, because you're just one objective measurement in a sea of debate that dates back to the 1960's and to nit-pick at you: your graphs are terribly hard to read, ever considered digitizing them, or at least scanning them better? >20khz is percieved by humans, on some level, and the exact limit of human hearing isn't a set line at 20khz, so why do you presume to impose this? furthermore your testing methodology disagrees with a lot of current thinking on how to compare two systems, which rubs me the wrong way (because this article is written just like every other techo-tweakie rant I've ever read) /rant

Well seems you really started a rant without reading everything stated on the thread:

I DID NOT WRITE THAT TEXT, I only translated it. I do not have the original, and the site that uploaded it does not know where the original document on paper is, to scan it again. The article is from 2003 -or was uploaded on their site on 2003-

The graphs could be better, however with the explanation below is enough to tell you the meaning of them.

14. Quote:

 Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well seems you really started a rant without reading everything stated on the thread: I DID NOT WRITE THAT TEXT, I only translated it. I do not have the original, and the site that uploaded it does not know where the original document on paper is, to scan it again. The article is from 2003 -or was uploaded on their site on 2003- The graphs could be better, however with the explanation below is enough to tell you the meaning of them. Then tell me about the current ways of testing two systems please, this article is quite old, but physics don't change.

I did read the entire article, I wasn't sure if you reproduced the graphs, or if thats the only quality available (if thats all you have available, np then)

and I'm talking about subjective analysis for two systems, the article is suggesting very brief auditions and sonic memory and all of that hogwash, vs the current idea of comparison by contrast

personally I think both sides are a load, and just go by what I can hear personally, basically just wanted to point out this reads like tweakie-blabber, not scientific data