Jump to content
  • Sonis
    Sonis

    MartinLogan Motion 40i Review

    motion-40i-angles.jpg

     

     

    MartinLogan Floor Standing Speakers

     

    MartinLogan is an American speaker manufacturer (although its main factory is in Canada) long known for its hybrid electrostatic/cone loudspeakers. Readers will remember that several months ago this reviewer wrote about the company’s bookshelf Motion™ 4i speakers. The Motion series is a departure from MartinLogan’s traditional offerings in that this line of speakers does not utilize electrostatic drivers. Instead, the Motion series is a cone-based speaker system that employs Oskar Heil’s “Air Motion Transformer” (AMT) technology for it’s high-frequency driver unit. The AMT differs from conventional tweeters in that instead of using a piston-like diaphragm the way most magnetic tweeters operate, this technology works similarly to the way an accordion functions. In an accordion, when one squeezes the bellows together the space between the pleats goes away. When one pulls the bellows back apart, those spaces re-appear. If you place your hand close to the accordion’s bellows while someone is playing it, you will feel a rush of air as the accordion is squeezed together. The compressing pleats push air out from between the pleats as that space is eliminated by the compression. Of course, the same thing is occurring inside the bellows as well and that out-rush of air is what powers the instrument and vibrates the various reeds to play the notes. 

     

    AMT-motion-40i.jpgThe AMT works on that principle. The diaphragm in the tweeter consists of a pleated Polyamide sheet arranged so that the pleated area is facing the listener. The electromagnetic “motor” is arranged so that instead of moving a disc-shaped diaphragm in and out like a normal speaker driver, this one squeezes the pleats in a manner that is perpendicular (rather than parallel to) the desired air displacement. When the pleats are squeezed together, on one half of their cycle, they compress the air between each fold, displacing it and when the pleats expand again, on the other half of the cycle, they rarefy the air as it rushes in to refill the voids between each fold. When they do that at an audio rate, sound is produced. Dr. Heil invented this concept in the early 1970’s and applied it a line of speakers built by the firm of ESS in South El Monte, California. While ESS still makes speakers employing this technology (down to around 800 Hz), the patents have expired and many companies now build variations on this theme. Searching on the Parts Express web-site, I see that they carry a number of AMT tweeters ranging in price from about US$20 each to US$120 each. Judging by the number of speaker companies both in the USA and in Europe who utilize AMT tweeters, I’d say that the technology has become quite popular of late.

     

     

    The Motion 40i

     

    MartinLogan makes an entire line of loudspeakers employing the AMT tweeter, and they range in price and size from the Motion 2i, a small bookshelf model starting at $US200 each all the way up to the large floor standing “flagship” 60XTi at US$1750 each. For this review, we are interested in the next to the largest floor stander, the Motion 40i. 

     

    The Motion 40i is a tall, narrow “tower” speaker of the type so popular these days. Measuring 42.5" x 7.6" X 12.8"(107.9cm X 19.2cmX 32.6cm), it consists of two woofers in the bottom part of the cabinet and a midrange and tweeter in the top. There is a decorative strip between the lower part of the cabinet containing the two 6.5”(16.5cm) woofers and the upper part of the cabinet containing the single 5.5”(14cm) midrange unit and the 1.25 X 2.4”(3.2 X 6.1cm) AMT tweeter. A metal decorative strip separates the two fabric covered plastic grills, each of which is separately removable and held in place magnetically. With the top grill removed, the speaker looks like a typical small bookshelf or desktop speaker with the low frequency driver topped with the tweeter. The cabinet on the review sample is finished in very high quality red walnut wood and is available also in a gloss black or a matte white cabinet. On the back are four of the well-regarded MartinLogan proprietary “wing-nut” shaped, tool-less hand tightened 5-way binding posts capable of handling bare wires, spade lugs or banana plugs. Each pair of the four connection are strapped together but are separable via metal straps for bi-amping, (or bi-wiring if one believes in such a thing). At the bottom of the cabinet is a Helmholtz resonator (a round -in this case- bass-reflex port with an internal pipe connected to it). Each cabinet weighs 49 pounds (22.2Kg). There are no controls on the speakers, but the user has the choice of either spikes or flat pads which screw into the bottom of the cabinets at the four corners. For this review, the spikes were employed to pierce the carpet and make contact with the concrete slab floor. The Motion 40i retails for US$1199.99 each.

     

     

    Specifications

     

    Motion-2_Binding-2-posts.jpgThe MartinLogan Motion 40i speakers are rated at 40 to 25KHz ±3dB and are recommended to be used with amplifiers ranging from 20 to 300 Watts/channel and have a sensitivity of 92dB/2.83volts/meter. This three-way system crosses over to the midrange at 500 Hz and to the AMT tweeter at a surprisingly low 2600 Hz. Both the 5.5” midrange and the two 6.5” woofers have an aluminum cone in a non-symmetrical chamber format and a cast polymer basket with a rigid, structured dust cap to reduce cone breakup and any modal resonances. The crossover is a Precision Vojtko™ design sporting custom air core coils and low DCR (DC Resistance) steel laminate inductors. Polyester film capacitors are wired in series and low Dissipation Factor (DF) electrolytic capacitors are employed in parallel to maintain phase integrity. The Motion 40i speakers have a nominal impedance of 4Ω and are compatible with all solid state and most tube (valve) amplifiers as well.

     

     

    The Sound of The Motion 40i

     

    48578150567_0482e1400f_b.jpgIf you go back to July 2, 2019, you will find that this writer favorably reviewed a pair of the MartinLogan Motion 4i, and small, compact bookshelf/desktop speaker. The major point of my review was the AMT tweeter used in this diminutive speaker. The same technology is evident here in the 40i. The AMT used in this speaker is identical in size. It crosses over at a slightly lower frequency but the result is the same – effortless ESL-like upper midrange clarity and high frequency extension. 

     

    When I unboxed the 40i’s for the first time, I was rather disappointed. I was replacing my beloved MartinLogan Aeon-i electrostatic hybrid speakers with these and found them thin and forward in the midrange with a slightly nasal quality. This was confusing because the note on the packing slip told whoever was in charge of dispatching these speakers to me to be sure to see that they were run-in for 100 hours and inspected before they were sent out. It seemed to me that 100 hours of run-in should be more than adequate to insure that, out of the box, these speakers would perform at their optimum. A phone conversation with Devin Zell of MartinLogan assured me that whatever run-in these speakers received at the factory, they undoubtedly needed more.

     

    I played them more or less continuously over the next week (using the 192 kb/second MP3 Internet feed from WCRB Boston). Every time I sat down to listen I noticed an improvement. The first thing I noticed was that the nasal quality rather quickly disappeared. Next, the bass improved by leaps and bounds and the speakers’ overall balance became more neutral. Soon I was marveling at how good these speakers actually sounded! The new album by John Williams conducting the Recording Arts Orchestra of Los Angeles with Anne-Sophie Mutter, violinist,  of  Williams film music: “Across the Stars” has a cut called Rey’s Theme from “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”. This piece has a bass line that is truly spectacular. On good headphones, the string bass is truly realistic and totally natural sounding. With the 40i’s, the bass is deep and relatively well controlled for reflex bass. I have no doubt that these speakers have usable bass response down into the mid-thirties but, bass reflex designs, to me, have always been a bit wooly and these speakers are no exception. While my Aeon-i’s are likewise a bass reflex design, the bass seems to be a bit better controlled than that of the Motion 40i speakers. That’s not to say that the bass on these speakers is not satisfying, it is quite so, and gives the speakers a fulsomeness that is addictive to say the least in spite of not being as neutral as some. 

     

    Going up the spectrum the aluminum coned midrange is clean and well balanced. Vocals come across with just the right amount of weight and articulation. Astrud Gilberto’s vocal on The Girl From Ipanema from the “Getz/Gilberto” album on Verve (Catalog Number 80020749-02) has just the right balance with the guitar of her husband and Stan Getz’ tenor Saxophone has never sounded better. Back to Anne-Sophie Mutter’s violin on the Williams film soundtrack album, it is as sweet as a mother’s kiss with soaring highs and resinous bowing that sounds utterly realistic. The AMT tweeter is still the star of this show. On my own recording with the “San Jose California Symphony Orchestra” under Georg Cleve of Ravel’s Daphnis et Chloe ballet, the triangle floating over the left side of the orchestra has a clarity and an other-worldly etherial quality that I have rarely heard on a speaker. It’s even better than on my Aeon-i electrostatics! Imaging on this speaker, is almost uncanny. Again, it is the AMT that does the honors. Still listening to my own recordings, made with a pair of Sony C37P FET microphones mounted on a stereo T-bar about 8 inches apart at a 45° angle to each other and about 10 feet over the conductor’s head and slightly behind him, the listener can close his eyes and point to every instrument in the ensemble. One can tell that, for instance, the brass is behind the woodwinds (and slightly higher in elevation) and the woodwinds are behind the violas and cellos. This pinpoint image specificity and wide, deep soundstage is, as far as I’m concerned, the only justification needed to recommend true stereo miking on acoustic music recordings! The MartinLogan Motion 40i’s point out this incredible soundstage performance better than any floor standing cone-based speakers that this writer has heard in a long time.

     

    Conclusion

     

    The MartinLogan Motion 40i speakers are an affordable entry into a truly full range high-end speaker system. With it’s combination of usable, fairly well controlled bass down into the mid-30’s coupled with a low-distortion midrange driver, and an exemplary Air Motion Transformer tweeter, it’s hard to find a better pair of floor standing speakers for under US$2500.00. One could, contemplate the ElectroMotion ESLs for about the same price, but I have friends who have these speakers and as good as they are, in my opinion, the Motion 40i’s are a better value. If you are in the market for a new pair of floor-standing, small footprint, full-range speakers, put these on your short-list and try to give them a good, hard listen. If you are worried about the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) take the lovely lady along with you and show her the red walnut finished cabinets. That might just cinch the deal. They’re that pretty and surprisingly inconspicuous!

     

     

     

    Product Information:

     

    MartinLogan Motion 40i ($2399.98 /pair)
    Motion 40i Product Page (link)
    Product Brochure (PDF 6MB)
    User's Manual (PDF 3.4MB)

    Dimension Drawings (ZIP 2.3MB)

     

     

     

    motion-i-Gloss-Black.jpgmotion-i-Matte-White.jpgmotion-i-Red-Walnut.jpg




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Hi George - Thanks for the review. Very concise. 

     

    I have a soft spot for MartinLogan and I'm always interested in its speakers. ReQuests were one of my first real high end speakers and I'll never forget that sound :~)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    Hi George - Thanks for the review. Very concise. 

     

    I have a soft spot for MartinLogan and I'm always interested in its speakers. ReQuests were one of my first real high end speakers and I'll never forget that sound :~)

     

    Same here...passed them on to a family member and he is absolutely thrilled with the Requests. They still sound great and Dirac Live takes care of any room issues.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    > "bi-wiring if one believes in such a thing"

     

    Have you ever tried bi-wiring? It made a significant and easily noticeable difference in the two pairs of speakers I tried it on. The sound also changed when I single-wired with jumpers on the tweeters vs. jumpers on the woofers.

     

    Martin Logan speakers would definitely rate a look if I were shopping. The price is reasonable and the AMT tweeter is an amazing device. Quite a few designs used an AMT at the Toronto audio fest. I'm not a fan of ported speakers either. I would want to block the ports and cross over to my subs.

     

    I am not a fan of previous ML speakers. Crystalline highs but no body. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 12/20/2019 at 8:02 PM, audiobomber said:

    > "bi-wiring if one believes in such a thing"

     

    Have you ever tried bi-wiring? It made a significant and easily noticeable difference in the two pairs of speakers I tried it on. The sound also changed when I single-wired with jumpers on the tweeters vs. jumpers on the woofers.

     

    Martin Logan speakers would definitely rate a look if I were shopping. The price is reasonable and the AMT tweeter is an amazing device. Quite a few designs used an AMT at the Toronto audio fest. I'm not a fan of ported speakers either. I would want to block the ports and cross over to my subs.

     

    I am not a fan of previous ML speakers. Crystalline highs but no body. 

    Bi-wiring doesn’t really do anything positive. As far as cable is concerned, it’s like upping the gauge to the wire, but if you are splitting the woofer and tweeter by removing the shorting straps at the speakers and connecting them back together at the amplifier, all you are really doing is moving the place where the woofer and tweeter are joined from the back of the speaker with just a very short, low-resistance strap to a long, higher resistance cable. Sure it can change the sound, but I assure you it is subtracting something rather than adding anything. If you like that better, well, that’s up to you. But you really should know what’s actually going on. Also, while we’re on the subject, bi-amping a speaker that won’t let you bypass the built-in cross-overs, is also, mostly futile. For proper bi-amp performance you want a small signal crossover BEFORE the amplifiers. Now you’ve got the true advantages afforded by bi-amping! There is an exception to that. Even if you are stuck with the speaker’s built-in crossover, you will still get benefit if, for instance the two amplifiers you are using have vastly different sonic signatures. For instance, if you prefer the bass of a solid-state amp, you might want to put that on the woofer, but if you prefer the sweet open high-end often attributed to tubes, then you might want to use a good-sounding tube amp on the tweeter (perhaps even a low wattage SET).

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

    Dick Vandersteen likes bi-wiring...

    I don’t think that changes the physics, do you? It has to take something away. I mean you have replaced a very short strap with a long piece of wire. That adds resistance, capacitance and  inductance. It has to change something, and since wire is passive, not active, it can only attenuate, not amplify. Therefore, some portion of the tweeter’s passband has to be attenuated. So, if Mr. Vandersteen or anyone else hear’s an improvement, it’s because they like a certain portion of the high frequency spectrum being reduced in volume. Am I not right?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 12/25/2019 at 10:37 PM, Sonis said:

    Bi-wiring doesn’t really do anything positive. As far as cable is concerned, it’s like upping the gauge to the wire, but if you are splitting the woofer and tweeter by removing the shorting straps at the speakers and connecting them back together at the amplifier, all you are really doing is moving the place where the woofer and tweeter are joined from the back of the speaker with just a very short, low-resistance strap to a long, higher resistance cable. Sure it can change the sound, but I assure you it is subtracting something rather than adding anything. If you like that better, well, that’s up to you. But you really should know what’s actually going on. 

    I asked if you had ever tried biwiring, you responded with reasons why you believe it isn't worthwhile. I assume that you have not tried, and are therefore working with limited information. I investigated biwiring my system with dual and single 10' runs of Linn K400 13ga cable. Every configuration sounded different; single run to tweeters with short K400 jumper cable to woofer, same except connected to woofers first, and finally biwired. 

     

    I have 12ga zip wire, Linn K400 single and biwire runs and Cardas Neutral Reference bi-wires. There are significant and easily heard differences between them, all in favour of the more expensive options. The opinion often stated by "objectivists" is just to use 12ga from a hardware store does not hold.

     

    You agree that capacitance, inductance and resistance change with biwire vs single run. These base parameters are enough to change the sound, IMO, but there are other potential factors as well, e.g. phase effects: 

    http://www.empiricalaudio.com/computer-audio/audio-faqs/bi-wiring-speaker-cables

     

    and IM effects: https://www.qacoustics.co.uk/blog/2016/06/08/bi-wiring-speakers-exploration-benefits/

     

    Biwiring is in no way essential, but if I have speakers with dual terminals and biwire cables, I will definitely use them. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 12/25/2019 at 10:37 PM, Sonis said:

    Also, while we’re on the subject, bi-amping a speaker that won’t let you bypass the built-in cross-overs, is also, mostly futile. For proper bi-amp performance you want a small signal crossover BEFORE the amplifiers. Now you’ve got the true advantages afforded by bi-amping! There is an exception to that. Even if you are stuck with the speaker’s built-in crossover, you will still get benefit if, for instance the two amplifiers you are using have vastly different sonic signatures. For instance, if you prefer the bass of a solid-state amp, you might want to put that on the woofer, but if you prefer the sweet open high-end often attributed to tubes, then you might want to use a good-sounding tube amp on the tweeter (perhaps even a low wattage SET).

    I intend to start a new thread on this topic, as I find it fascinating and complex. I will link the new thread here.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 hours ago, audiobomber said:

    I asked if you had ever tried biwiring, you responded with reasons why you believe it isn't worthwhile. I assume that you have not tried, and are therefore working with limited information. I investigated biwiring my system with dual and single 10' runs of Linn K400 13ga cable. Every configuration sounded different; single run to tweeters with short K400 jumper cable to woofer, same except connected to woofers first, and finally biwired. 

     

    I have 12ga zip wire, Linn K400 single and biwire runs and Cardas Neutral Reference bi-wires. There are significant and easily heard differences between them, all in favour of the more expensive options. The opinion often stated by "objectivists" is just to use 12ga from a hardware store does not hold.

     

    You agree that capacitance, inductance and resistance change with biwire vs single run. These base parameters are enough to change the sound, IMO, but there are other potential factors as well, e.g. phase effects: 

    http://www.empiricalaudio.com/computer-audio/audio-faqs/bi-wiring-speaker-cables

     

    and IM effects: https://www.qacoustics.co.uk/blog/2016/06/08/bi-wiring-speakers-exploration-benefits/

     

    Biwiring is in no way essential, but if I have speakers with dual terminals and biwire cables, I will definitely use them. 

    Now, I've tried most everything, including bi-wiring. And yes, it definitely changes the sound of the top end. No doubt. Using an audio spectrum analyzer, I found that in the case of the speaker cable I was using at the time (Symo), the lower treble region was  attenuated about 1.5 dB from around 4KHz to about 6.5KHz compared to single wire. Not a lot, but did it change, on direct comparison, the character of the sound. That's why I say that bi-wiring cannot add anything to the sound, only subtract something from it as it must. Sure, capacitance, inductance and added resistance do, indeed change the sound, but measurement wise, not for the better  (unless it is taming a peak in the speaker's frequency response). But unless you have access many different brands, models, and gauges of wire with which to experiment and some fancy measuring equipment, finding a combination that will improve the sound of one's speakers by attenuating peaks in the FR, for instance,  it's almost impossible to predict the results. Most likely it will makes the speakers sound worse than they did with single wiring. Bi-amping with a low level adjustable crossover before the amplifiers, of course, is a different kettle of fish altogether. 

    Mostly, with cable swaps, and bi-wiring schemes it's a crap shoot, and I have found that many audiophiles, impressed that the sound changes, automatically assume that it's a change for the better, whether it is or not because in their minds, different is always better.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree that cables are subtractive, but they can also be used to flavour the stew, with subtle but important changes in tonality, detail, soundstage and PRaT. 

     

    It is commonly stated that long interconnects with short speaker cables is preferred over the opposite. At a very minimum, biwiring is equivalent to halving the length your speaker wires. The IM and phase improvements vs. single wire are a bonus.

     

    Judging the value of a cable swap is best determined with extended listening time. Initial impressions can be misleading, it takes time to determine a cable's strengths and weaknesses. Quick changes and A-B testing are useful but not definitive.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Quote

    MartinLogan is an American speaker manufacturer (although its main factory is in Canada)

    Not any more...

    On May 13, 2019, Paradigm Electronics in Mississauga Ontario, issued a press release that stated "Scott Bagby and John Bagby announced the purchase of Paradigm Electronics, Anthem Electronics, and MartinLogan Loudspeakers, effective May 10, 2019."

    Scott Bagby, one of the original founders of Paradigm Electronics, will continue as Chairman and will assume the role of CEO. John Bagby, who has always been active in Paradigm daily business, takes on the role of Managing Director.

     

    The electrostatics are now all manufactured in Mississauga, Ontario and the Motion series are built in China.

    (edited to correct bone-headed spelling error)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 12/30/2019 at 6:37 AM, audiobomber said:

    I agree that cables are subtractive, but they can also be used to flavour the stew, with subtle but important changes in tonality, detail, soundstage and PRaT. 

     

    It is commonly stated that long interconnects with short speaker cables is preferred over the opposite. At a very minimum, biwiring is equivalent to halving the length your speaker wires. The IM and phase improvements vs. single wire are a bonus.

     

    Judging the value of a cable swap is best determined with extended listening time. Initial impressions can be misleading, it takes time to determine a cable's strengths and weaknesses. Quick changes and A-B testing are useful but not definitive.

    Long term listening is great for getting used to changes between any new configuration or hardware over the previous configuration or hardware. It also helps the memory of the previous configuration or hardware fade. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

    Long term listening is great for getting used to changes between any new configuration or hardware over the previous configuration or hardware. It also helps the memory of the previous configuration or hardware fade. 

    I listen for flaws. If a cable does something poorly, it will become evident with extended listening.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, audiobomber said:

    I listen for flaws. If a cable does something poorly, it will become evident with extended listening.

    all cables are lossy, so in reality, all cables do something poorly if they change the sound. Cables that change the sound are designed to suppress some portion of of the audio spectrum and they charge a good amount of money for the privilege. My opinion backed by a Masters in EE.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, gmgraves said:

    all cables are lossy, so in reality, all cables do something poorly if they change the sound. Cables that change the sound are designed to suppress some portion of of the audio spectrum and they charge a good amount of money for the privilege. My opinion backed by a Masters in EE.

    My opinion is backed by decades of listening in my room, with my system and my music.

     

    There are a gazillion examples of "Masters in EE" who disagree with audiophiles, and I would point out, with designers, some of whom also hold Masters in EE. I like to hear all opinions, from all sides. In the end I decide for myself what I like best.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, gmgraves said:

    Cables that change the sound are designed to suppress some portion of of the audio spectrum and they charge a good amount of money for the privilege. 

    I use Cardas Neutral Reference bi-wire speaker cables. Tonally, they are a little warmer than neutral, which suits my system and preferences. The other characteristic they have is a deeper soundstage compared to the Linn K400 bi-wires and generic 12ga cables I own.

     

    The Cardas speaker cables, which I purchased second-hand, provide a complementary tonal balance, along with resolution that allows subtle depth details to come through. There may be some cheaper cable that I would like just as well, possibly even better, but I don't know where I would find these among the multitude of choices, because measurements unfortunately do not tell the whole story. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

    I use Cardas Neutral Reference bi-wire speaker cables. Tonally, they are a little warmer than neutral, which suits my system and preferences. The other characteristic they have is a deeper soundstage compared to the Linn K400 bi-wires and generic 12ga cables I own.

     

    The Cardas speaker cables, which I purchased second-hand, provide a complementary tonal balance, along with resolution that allows subtle depth details to come through. There may be some cheaper cable that I would like just as well, possibly even better, but I don't know where I would find these among the multitude of choices, because measurements unfortunately do not tell the whole story. 

    Like I said. It’s just an incontrovertible fact of physics that if two interconnects sound different, it’s because the two cables are attenuating different portions of the audio spectrum and both are wrong. Speaker cables are different in that the impedances involved are low; less than  1 Ohm usually for the amplifier (assuming solid state here), and nominally four or eight Ohms for the speaker.   That means that the longish cable runs add significant resistance to the overall impedance characteristics of the amp/speaker interface. Again, different brands of cables affect the speaker sound differently. I use Sewell Direct “Silverback” speaker wire in six foot (only) lengths. This cable is 12 Ga, 259 strand, OFC cable and in such short runs, changes the overall impedance of the system by less than a quarter of an Ohm. It has minimum effect on the system’s sound. My opinion is that using cables, either interconnects or speaker cables as a fixed “tone control” is wrong-headed. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 12/26/2019 at 2:13 PM, Ralf11 said:

    Dick Vandersteen likes bi-wiring...

    Mr. Vandersteen is a wonderful person to talk to. I had breakfast with him at AXPONA once. He is a great story teller and a generally nice gent.

     

    On the other hand, I am not a fan of his speakers and have had a pair of 2ci's. Not my cup o' joe.

     

    I think he designs the cabinets more than the innards of his speakers because he was a truck driver before his speaker days. Not saying he is not smart enough, his business acumen is stellar, but not sure of his engineering background.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

    Like I said. It’s just an incontrovertible fact of physics that if two interconnects sound different, it’s because the two cables are attenuating different portions of the audio spectrum and both are wrong.

     

    Dear me, George, that's pushing it 😉 ... first, why are "both wrong" - the possibility that one is right, and the other wrong, is not in the picture? And secondly, the fact that one cable is better at, say,  rejecting RF interference than the other is not part of the equation?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    1 hour ago, fas42 said:

     

    Dear me, George, that's pushing it 😉 ... first, why are "both wrong" - the possibility that one is right, and the other wrong, is not in the picture? And secondly, the fact that one cable is better at, say,  rejecting RF interference than the other is not part of the equation?

    They are both wrong only if they both change the sound! One advantage of Integrated amplifiers is no interconnects.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    19 hours ago, gmgraves said:

    Like I said. It’s just an incontrovertible fact of physics that if two interconnects sound different, it’s because the two cables are attenuating different portions of the audio spectrum and both are wrong. Speaker cables are different in that the impedances involved are low; less than  1 Ohm usually for the amplifier (assuming solid state here), and nominally four or eight Ohms for the speaker.   That means that the longish cable runs add significant resistance to the overall impedance characteristics of the amp/speaker interface. Again, different brands of cables affect the speaker sound differently. I use Sewell Direct “Silverback” speaker wire in six foot (only) lengths. This cable is 12 Ga, 259 strand, OFC cable and in such short runs, changes the overall impedance of the system by less than a quarter of an Ohm. It has minimum effect on the system’s sound. My opinion is that using cables, either interconnects or speaker cables as a fixed “tone control” is wrong-headed. 

    I measured the resistance of my right speaker cable out of curiosity: 0.2 ohms, including connectors. Here are the rest of the specs:

    Outside Diameter: .600"
    Dielectric Type: Teflon®, Air
    Inductance uh/ft/loop: .034
    Capacitance pf/ft: 117
    Cable awg: 8.5
    Conductor Type: Golden Ratio, Constant Q, Crossfield, Pure Copper, Litz

     

    I am 100% confident that the Cardas cables let info through that your inexpensive cables lose. IME, it's pointless to argue with someone who believes there's "one true way" to build a audio system, and this is all off-topic, so I'll leave it at that. 

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, audiobomber said:

    I measured the resistance of my right speaker cable out of curiosity: 0.2 ohms, including connectors. Here are the rest of the specs:

    Outside Diameter: .600"
    Dielectric Type: Teflon®, Air
    Inductance uh/ft/loop: .034
    Capacitance pf/ft: 117
    Cable awg: 8.5
    Conductor Type: Golden Ratio, Constant Q, Crossfield, Pure Copper, Litz

     

    I am 100% confident that the Cardas cables let info through that your inexpensive cables lose. IME, it's pointless to argue with someone who believes there's "one true way" to build a audio system, and this is all off-topic, so I'll leave it at that. 

     

     

     

    Uh, DC resistance of a speaker is irrelevant and not the same thing as impedance. Also, speaker impedance is spec’d as “nominal”. Because it changes with frequency.

    I have no doubt that speaker cables can change the sound of a speaker. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that different cables let different amounts of “info” through or that price has anything to do with it. The physical characteristics of the wire determine the performance of the cables, not the price. Of course, the larger the cross-section of the cable (AWG) the lower the cable’s impedance (resistance, capacitance, inductance). This will affect the frequency response curve of the speaker by attenuating the signal less. But again, we are dealing with an AC signal so, no speaker cable is not going to affect the entire audio spectrum linearly. Some frequencies will be attenuated more than others, and this depends upon the cable’s AC characteristics. But in any case, the amount that any speaker cable will affect a speaker’s sound will be minuscule, often less than a dB over any given frequency range. One can believe what one wants, but if one does the maths, they tell the story.

    Believe me, this subject is neither rocket science nor magic. There is sound, relatively simple physics behind this. If you have speaker cable that changes the sound of your speakers dramatically, then you’ve bought cables that were designed to do so (like those hyper-expensive cables from the likes of MIT, with their in-line boxes which have controls on them). Remember, wire is a passive component. It cannot have gain, it can only have losses; it can only attenuate signals, and all wire does this to some extent! In most cases, it doesn’t apply significantly to audio due to the lengths involved, coupled with the very low frequency band width of an audio signal. As length and frequency increase, wire characteristics become a larger and larger component of a system’s overall performance. For instance; a length of RG-59 coax (of the kind usually used between audio components) of 50 ft, will attenuate a 20 KHz signal by just about 1 dB. But that same length of RG-59 will attenuate a 100 MHz signal by more than 10 dB (IIRC)! 
     

    I’m not going to go so far as to say that the audio cable business is snake oil, (i.e. fraudulent), but I will say that it’s engineering provenance is “dubious” at best. A lot of their success is due to the “emperor’s new clothes” syndrome coupled with the fact that human aural perception is extremely suggestible.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...