Slashdot Mirror

Inductance and capacitance impact total impedance, and it is possible to find bad combinations where that turns into an easily measurable problem with the cable. See high cap wire section of "Speaker Wire: A History" for how that comes out on a scope. It's very easy to find cases where the wire doesn't matter too. One of the funny things about objective audio testing is that people usually find what they set out to, because it's so easy to set up tests to give the results you want. That doesn't disprove there are no edge cases where those things do matter. Audible amplifier feedback and oscillation is a real thing.

Serious corrosion does happen in old audio cables, with them turning a lovely puke green eventually. I have some systems going back to the 80's here, and that copper is totally grody, fer sure! Preventing that is mainly about the jacket and termination though. Just using high quality copper doesn't make it go away.

That coat hanger wire vs. Monster Cable test used Martin Logan SL3 speakers, which was such a weird choice I have to throw the whole thing out as a waste of time. Those are electrostatic panels with a traditional woofer. Electrostatics have very different electrical properties than regular speakers. You can't really extrapolate from that exotic test to the rest of the market, where people are mainly using traditional cone and dome speakers. Car anology: you can observe that changing gas for a Tesla electric vehicle doesn't impact its performance, but that doesn't prove gas quality is irrelevant to regular engines.

Erm - right. By the time signal is going through an audio cable, it's past the digital-to-analog converter and so is - wait for it - analog. So anything that made a difference in "the world of analog" should still make a difference.

But gold makes no difference. Get your cable fat enough, and get it nice and cheap and made of copper. The stuff for wiring up electric ovens is probably heavier gauge than needed, but cheap enough you can afford to over-engineer.

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

http://gizmodo.com/?_escaped_fragment_=305549/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better#!305549/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better

Is this it? if so, I say case closed:

http://www.roger-russell.com/sonopg/soha40a.jpg

IMHO one of the best articles explaining the audiophile consumer phenomenon of flushing money down the toilet is the following:

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#gordongow

Basically, Gordon Gow (of McIntosh audio, nothing to do with the computer company) built a system to demo at trade shows whereby 50 feet of his "mistery" speaker cable could be A/B compared against the "high-end" cables from companies like Monster. Nobody could tell the difference.

Gordon's cable was two pairs of heavy-gauge Radio Shack lamp cord twisted together, at something like $0.18/foot. Basically, he proved that if the speaker cable is heavy enough to handle the power & impedance, and non-corrosive so it doesn't turn nasty colors after sitting in a humid basement for 6 months, then it is really all that is necessary for any audio setup. ...and this is in the analog domain. Denon sells a farking "audiophile" ethernet cable for $2500. The product reviews are hilarious BTW.

I think some of this stuff started in good faith, but got to the crazy "Audiophoole" level of today through good, old-fashioned greed.

When you're talking strictly analog signals, there's at least a decent notion that you can do something to somehow improve the quality of the signal, since there's always some loss. So, start with the coat hanger speaker wire, and work up from there... you just MIGHT make something that really, honestly, sounds better. The problem becomes that, next week, you competitor produces a better-still one, complete with full explanation as to why it's better, and they're selling it for more than yours. So you must escalate, and so on.

That, sadly enough, has lead to this fictional world of $10,000 per 10ft speaker cables, with all kinds of science-fiction written up about their special properties (eg, "Any significantly advanced scientific explanation is indistinguishable from a scam"... some of these guys ought to be writing "Star Trek" screen plays... they'd never come up with something as silly as "red matter"). There's so much obvious BS, any lingering truth is hidden.

You know they're intentionally hiding it, to keep their house of cards intact, for the simple reason that none of these guys do double-blind A/B testing. There are, finally, actual Engineering resources showing up to put the Amazing Randi on some of these guys: see http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm and http://www.edn.com/blog/980000298/post/830048683.html.

On a more practical point, there's the original recording. Yes, some recordings are made using guitars that cost several thousands, pianos that cost more than your car, mics that run into the thousands, etc. Others, less so. Either way, the wires being used... not so expensive. You might pay $50-$100 for a mic cable, but that's not to get some magical property in the wire other than "copper", but to get a cable that's going to last through the typical abuse of studio or stage. It's hard to believe anyone telling me you need to spend 100x more on wire to play back music than you needed to create it. Plus, you don't find musicians arguing about the "color imparted" by the mic cable, as if discussing a fine wine. Any sound engineer overhead discussing the subtle harmonics or enhanced tonal clarity from the wires between his console and his monitor is either a poser, or he's been in to the brown acid again.

The problem is when people buy shit like a $500 ethernet cable because it's somehow better. It's a disconnect from reality and common sense. They're entitled to spend their 3 months of salary on overpriced shit with magical powers, but the parent is just as entitled to call them what they are, which is idiots.

Time again to post a link to Roger Russell's excellent site debunking "audiophile" speaker wire once and for all. The "cable elevators" about 2/3 down the page (just below the $8,900 / pair speaker cables) are a personal favorite of mine. ;-)

You, sir, are a certified fuckwit, and apparently proud of it. Such results are already written up, for example by Russell, who is one of the canonical audiophilia debunkers. See the links upthread. For once in your life, please attempt to use your brain before spouting bollocks.

So, you're arguing that there is an audible difference between overpriced and really overpriced cables, and to do that, you're referencing a guy who says there isn't a difference? Are you insane? In fact, Russell says pretty much the exact same thing I've said: "It can be solid, stranded, copper, oxygen free copper, silver, etc.--or even "magic" wire--as long as the resistance is kept to be less than 5% of the speaker impedance. There is no listening difference as long as the wire is of adequate size." - http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

It depends on the length of your wires, and the impedance of your speakers. My own speakers have a minimum impedence of 3.2 ohms, and the cable run is 15 feet. So 16 AWG is pushing it.

All you need is an appropriate length of oxygen free copper cable/wire with sufficient shielding and appropriate gauge. All but the lowest of low end OEM cables meet these needs. Beyond this, there is zero difference in cables other than packaging and branding. Any perceived difference is in the listeners head.

Close but a few facts are left out. Lets touch base on speaker cable and what it needs to do. It needs to move electric power from one place to another. Along the way it needs to keep most of the power (all cable has resistance and loss even superconductors which have a bit less). In moving power is should deliver all frequencies the same.

Now back to your statement... oxygen free copper cable/wire Hmm, the first step seems to trend to snake oil. I'll grant you that oxygen free has lower resistance than plain copper, but how much? Is it worth the money? Would the money be better spent on maybe a larger wire size? You will find the lack of copper wire resistance tables for copper wire and oxygen free copper wire almost completely absent. The reason is because the change is almost not measurable. If it essentially makes no change, why spend the money.

Copper wire facts are easy to find and are well docummented.

http://www.otherpower.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=6346
http://www.stealth316.com/2-wire-resistance.htm
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/wiring/wire_resistance.html
http://amasci.com/tesla/wire1.txt
http://www.thelenchannel.com/1wire.php

On the other hand the data on oxygen free seems to be tied up in perceptions and not solid facts. Where are the tables?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060198757.html
http://mobile-emotions.com/speakerwire_faq.html?1062644160781
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5443665-description.html
http://www.cda.org.uk/megab2/elecapps/pub122/sec72.htm

"Oddly enough, it isn't the freedom of oxygen in copper wire that makes any difference. The process of removing oxygen also removes the impurity of iron and it's this impurity that can cause the resistance to be slightly higher."

Could someone please define and give a measurement to me for Slightly higher? As in is the change enough to spend money on? Until someone publishes a table, I would assume slightly higher is slightly less than the measuring test equipment. A larger wire size is a measurable change. Oxygen free as far as I am concerned is below the threshold of measurement.

Beyond this, there is zero difference in cables other than packaging and branding.

OK here I disagree with you again. The number of strands and twist in the wire affect the ability of a wire to withstand repeated flexing. When I worked doing some TV studio stuff, I had to show some of the features of some of the cable to the staff. The low loss and low price was a draw to the PHB who thought he was a studio engineer. I showed him the flaw in his reasoning when I held up a 3 foot piece of coax and pushed out a ceiling tile. Then I held up a 1 foot length of super flex which had much poorer response and the 1 foot length flopped over like a piece of braided nylon rope. The signal loss for the studio was a trade off for cable that stood up well following the cameras without breaking. A cable that lays flat instead

This one is straight from a driver manufacturer:

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

I.E.: its all about vanilla 12ga wire!

Agreed. Additionally, I think it's time to once again post a link to Roger Russell's excellent site completely debunking the "audiophile" speaker cable mythos.

The interesting thing that I noticed in reading up on the cable was that Pear is local to me.
So I looked up their address listed, and it's residential. From the appearance, this appears to be a virtual company, in a nice Tony neighborhood, and all the owners have to do is sell a hundred cables and the house is paid for.

Oh, and the first and final word on speaker cable is from McIntosh's Rodger Russell.

in addition to considering Transparent Cable interconnects and speaker cables

No! No! No! Don't waste your money on ultra-expensive "interconnects" (audiophile marketing droid speak for RCA cables) and speaker cables such as Transparent, Monster, etc. It's been well documented time and again in double-blind listening tests that these wires don't do anything *at all* to improve the sound. Heck, the President of Transparent wouldn't even agree to a double-blind test, after initially saying he'd do one.

I'm not saying that the 24-gauge zip speaker wire and cheap molded RCAs that come with most audio components are worth anything, or should ever be used; but you don't have to pay thousands to get suitable cables. Just make sure they're of a suitable gauge for the length of the run you need (to overcome the wire's resistance), and that they have decent insulation and they're not so cheap that the terminators are likely to short out on the ends when bent etc.

For a thorough de-bunking of the audiophile claims of "cable superiority," see Roger Russell's excellent site. The lamp cord versus Monster Cable speaker cable comparison is a classic.

The bottom line is that you can't cheat physics, though the "expensive is best" crowd would love to believe it, and continues to pay thousands unnecessarily. But hey, it ain't my money.

One system that I have looked at is PlutoHome http://plutohome.com/index.php

They can in some circumstances integrate just about everything you want for automation, Phone (Asterisk), Lighting (Insteon, X10 and others), Security, HVAC (I think), and presence based services (Music, phone calls, video follows you from room to room), TV, DVD jukebox, etc.

And if you want to install it yourself you can, or you can have it professionally installed.

For the infrastructure, go for Cat5e, and Wireless A/B/G. Fiber is overkill and doesn't appear to be coming to a desktop as a standard install anytime soon.

Conduit as others have mentioned is also a great idea... How many HD connectors have there been in the last 3 years? How about the next 10? Put in generous counduits between your video devices (TVs, Projectors, etc) and your server room/closets. (3 inch should be good)

Multi Zoned Heating/Cooling System. (If you are looking for do it yourself, Pluto has some built in, and DIY Zoning http://diy-zoning.sourceforge.net/

Depending on Cell phone converage, possibly integrate a Cell repeater in the house.

Plan for also quite a bit of COAX for satelite or Cable. 2 COAX or more per data drop, remember you can use good COAX for your Component, or digital COAX audio also.

Zoned in wall speakers with room based controls (Like A-bus or similar). For the actual home theater system I would stay away from the in wall speakers, stick to good floor standing or wall mountable speakers. For Speaker Wire check out this site before you drop major dolars on "Premium" speaker wire http://www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm.

Plan for Sound deadening your rooms. (http://www.soundproofing.org/index.html or http://www.soundisolationcompany.com/

Also consider running Data cabling where you might not think to, Washing machine, Dryer, Fridge, Stove, Microwave, Freezers. At least you can use this data cabling for alarm circuits to monitor temperatures inside your freezer and fridge to check for temperatures out a range (It sucks to come home to an upright freezer that the door didn't close and it is 95 degrees out... Say goodbuy to your Frozen Elk and Deer...) Also Aquariums for temperature and other sensors that you can feed back into your central HVAC/Security systems. Temperature sensors all over the place (check out the aforementioned DIY Zoning site)

Outlets outside under your eaves for Christmas lights.

And the list goes on.

Good luck and I hope you have some deep pockets... :)

One trade name of the paint was Undark , which is pretty cool for a Green Lantern ring--shame about the deadly side-effects...

Ya know the last toslink I bought was at BIG LOTS.. for 3.99 and I purchased a good bit of other cabling with RCA connectors on them. I won't even go into how much Rad Shack and other places charge for USB cables. I think the 10foot usb cables at big lots were 3.99 as well and 6foot being 2.99. Yes, I live my life in walmart fashion.. but even so walmart is outrageous on cable pricing too. I once picked up a 250 disk cd binder it was 17.99 on the computer access aisle. I walked four aisles over to the audio aisle.. same MFG but different outside design case for cd's "packaging" was 9.95... I have an article linked on a quality assessment of lamp cord vs monster cables. and I was blown away. So now I pass it on. http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

According to http://www.roger-russell.com/mcintosh2.htm, the Macintosh Plus had a sticker that read "Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Macintosh is a trademark of McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and is being used with express permission of its owner."

At the time the dangers of low-level exposure were not well known. Hence all the sicknesses in people living downstream of US aboveground tests, for example. And radium watches (*) were still being made then. And ambulance-chasing trial-lawyering had not become a major industry.

(*) Not dangerous for wearers, but certainly hazardous for manufacturers and as waste. See: http://www.roger-russell.com/jeffers/radiumdials.h tm

Why not just pack the tubes with radioactive material and heavy water? Or Radium and Zinc Sulfide for that retro-look Undark glow? (Risk doesn't seem to be a problem for them.)

You're right, could be risky. Rather than using this stuff, check around to see if anyone still sells Undark paint--it doesn't need UV at all.

You can mix in zinc sulfide (and probably other materials) to get a glow from radiation. It's not going to reduce the time of decay at all or the amount of radiation by much.