Cable wars 2020 - a FB experience

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, kirkmc said:

 

So hold one a minute. For years, the cable wars have divided families, led to multi-generational feuds, and broken marriages. And now you say that it's not the cables that are different, but the way amplifiers react to different cables? I find this quite stunning.

Nah! ... (at last, perhaps a small window to have an “objective” discussion about cables 😂😂😂)

 

Consider the the speaker cables and speakers form part of the amplifier circuit. Consider and unusual, positive current feedback amplifier, the First Watt F7 ... I use these as examples because the schematics are both more or less well known, and simple so understandable.

 

So yes: reactance of the speakers/cable forms part of the amplifier feedback circuit!

 

Now sound from USB Cables is a purely subjective discussion with scant speculation and ample hand waving. DC power cable discussions have even more robust hand waving. I’m waiting for some beef that any of this makes a difference but speaker cables: you can Spice it up! 😊

[DuckToller]

1 hour ago, Speedskater said:

There have been engineering notes about digital interconnect cables causing differences do to poor design of component digital output & input stages.

@Speedskater

Thanks for the information, could you help out with some links to the notes mentioned above??

Could be helpful for readers interested in that topic.

Thanks in advance, DT

[Teresa]

7 hours ago, kirkmc said:

Let me expand on the point I made above. I always assumed that speaker cable were passive; that any cable would work with any pairing of amplifier and speakers. Now I'm learning that is not the case. So, let's say user A has an amplifier with speaker cables - which may be cheap, or may be expensive - that don't work with their amplifier, that cause some loss in sound quality, distortion, etc. When they get another set of cables, maybe more expensive, that don't interfere with their amplifier, they will natural sound better, even if the cables themselves don't make the sound any different. In other words, all they're doing is not deteriorating the sound of an amplifier. From what I'm reading here, this is possible, and it is therefore possible that someone will hear certain cables as sounding better even though they are simply sounding the way a cable should. Is that correct?...

 

I always assumed that gauge was the only audible difference in speaker cables. For example thin 24-gauge speaker cables are deficient in the bass frequencies, and the thicker 12-gauge speaker cables handle deep bass very well regardless of who manufactures it.

 

I am aware of the amp-speaker interface and didn't know speaker cables were part of this. I have difficult to drive Infinity Reference Standard 7 Kappa's which are a 4 ohm speaker that dips as low as 2 ohms which doesn't work well with many amplifiers. I never considered that passive speaker cables could play a hand in the amp-speaker interface, interesting.

[Speedskater]

19 hours ago, DuckToller said:

@Speedskater

Thanks for the information, could you help out with some links to the notes mentioned above??

Could be helpful for readers interested in that topic.

Thanks in advance, DT

They were from 2 decades old posts.

The digital cable may have been in the old rec.high-end.newsgroup, by industrial audio consultant Dick Pierce.

The speaker cable was a small part of an engineering paper by Cyril Bateman (RIP).

[Speedskater]

The digital cable post was in the old rec.audio.high-end.newsgroup, by industrial audio consultant Dick Pierce on May 10, 2002. Mr. Pierce was very involved in developing the WAV standard way back then:

 

In article <[email protected]>,

Webmarketing <[email protected]> wrote:
>No, I've made these tests with at least 1/2 dozen DAC's.  Digital cables
>aren't audible.  They transmit data not analog waveforms.

Well, the problem is that you're both right and both wrong. Let
me give you a real-world example to illustrate the point.

Several years ago I was responsible for the software
implementation on a turn-key multi-track digital audio editing
workstation. We were introducing a new digital I/O module and
one of the requirements we set for ourselves was that it just
absolutely HAD to work with everyb coneivable piece of equipment
out there, even if that other equipment got its implementation
of the protocol wrong. If it couldn't talk, it should tell the
user exactly why it couldn't.

To that end, I begged, borrowed, stole, rented or leased every
piece of digital hardware I could get my hands on. This included
a wide mix of pro, semi-pro, consumer and high-end equipment.

In the process of testing, I connected a Tascam DA-30 DAT
recorder to a "highly regarded and favorably reviewed) high-end
DAC from a prestigious connecticut-based high-end company. with
certain cables, the residual noise floor on the output of the
DAC was simply AWFUL. Why?

The reason was simple: you had two utterly incompetent
implementations. The DA-30's SP/DIF output had miserable current
drive capability: load it up with enough capable capacitiance,
and the output went into slew-rate limiting and failed to meet
the rise-time requirement. The DAC, for all of it's thousands of
pretentious dollars, had the most MISERABLE design for clocking
around. The result was that, given the right cable with enough
capacitance, the resulting output had oodles of jitter in it.

Now, here's the ironic thing: the DAC used was considered by
many to be very "transparent" and was one of the few that, it
was said, COULD reveal differences in digital cables.

Well, that's NOT what was really happening. In reaility, it
idiot who designed the reclocking circuitry in the DAC simply
got it wrong in a seriously stupid fashion: the designer simply
made a DAC clock recovery circuit that was SO sensitive to small
changes in put conditions, that its performance was all over the
map.

Yet, members of the high-end press praised this piece of crap
for its "transparency. "It's obvious," it was said, "that
anything that DOES show such large differences in cables MUST be
transparent and high-resolution," when, in fact, precisely the
opposite was the case.

Far less price- and name-pretentious DACs, those with FAR better
clocking circuits did NOT exhibit this ridiculous sensitivity to
the cable: they were immune to the cariation that the more
expensive DAC simply could not handle properly.

So, if the problem exists, it's not because some of us are using
DACs that are immune to these errors, it's because some of you
AREN'T :-(.

The solution: boycott manufacturers that propogate these sorts
of pretentious but incompetent designs. And the high-end audio
business certainly has more than it's share.

--
|            Dick Pierce            |
|   Professional Audio Development  |
|   1-781/826-4953  Voice and FAX   |
|       [email protected]       |

 

 

 

 

[Speedskater]

the Cyril Bateman(RIP) : Amplifier-Speaker cable interaction.pdf paper:

http://www.waynekirkwood.com/images/pdf/Cyril_Bateman/Bateman_Speaker_Amp_Interaction.pdf