I can measurably show there is a differences between speaker cables

[cheeseboy]

That's pretty much it. It isn't a huge difference but I don't think anyone expected one. If there was going to be one at all I'm glad you find it interesting too.

By the way these are cables used in comparison I purposely didn't name them on graphs as the point of the experiment to see if differences are measurable, not really what the differences were.

A - NYY-J / solid core copper 2.5mm2 / £2.35 per meter (unterminated) link

B - Cambridge Audio Ulta 100 / stranded silver plated copper 2.5mm2 / £4.99 per meter (unterminated) link

C - TQ Silver / details unknown / £96 per meter (terminated) link

I've named them A, B, C above. Fancy guessing which one is CABLE 1, 2, 3 as annotated on the graphs?

good stuff, I found it interesting too, thank you.

 

[insider9]

I encourage everyone if at all possible to come up with other more accurate methods and maybe this will rub off on manufacturers.

Is this a genuine remark or a piss take?

No piss take, Andrew. I don't begrudge people selling cables. If they want to make them and others want to buy at whatever price. That's all good. But many of their claims are a piss take.

Would you buy a car without knowing what mpg you can expect? Even car tyres, which is a more relevant comparison, have ratings that indicate expected fuel use, stopping distance in wet and how loud they are.

If consumers expected them manufactures would provide them.

 

[Vladimir]

... some form of frequency slope - perhaps a tail off in LF for thin cables, a pick up in HF or a hump or dip at some point. The spiky nature of the difference plots means there is something else going on, and I am afraid I wouldn' trust them.

That's what my subjective evaluation of cables has shown. FR changes on extremes, either LF or HF, but perception of midrange also changes relative to these. Lack of LF produces faster, leaner, cleaner, more detailed midrange. Lack of HF produces darker, collapsed soundstage, could feel as an improvement with brighter sounding systems/rooms. At best cables are an EQ, so why is it such a freaking astonishment to audiophiles I have no clue. I can achieve more with DSP on my PC/Phone than any wire ever made, at any price. It's not like I could only hear 4 violins and now $250 later I can hear 8.

 

[andyjm]

Andy you profess to being very knowledgeable and you criticise here.

The "spiky nature" of the measurements is how actual freq resposne measurements look every single time.

That indicates to me you have never measured a speaker or a speaker in a room in which case how can you even comment on what insider has done to criticise it?

I think you misunderstood my post. I can't find it now, but didn't Insider post that he was averaging 250 runs for each cable?

If the individucal cable runs are relatively flat, the difference plots shouldn't have +1 -1 dB spikes along tham separated by a few hundred Hz.

 

[insider9]

Insider,

In engineering, it is very easy to think you are measuring one thing, and end up measuring something else.

Unless the cables have active components (and they don't), about the only effect you would expect from a cable would be some form of frequency slope - perhaps a tail off in LF for thin cables, a pick up in HF or a hump or dip at some point. The spiky nature of the difference plots means there is something else going on, and I am afraid I wouldn' trust them.

Luckily there's only one thing you can measure with a measurement microphone. Only things you need to account for are mic sensitivity, noise and the room. I believe that the methodology used shows these aren't affecting results to a large margin.

Spikes are normal and that how every measurements look. I've shown 1/48 octave smoothing on some so there's fewer spikes and they are easier to read. I could smooth it to 1/3 which would appear like a straight line. How useful do you find looking at straight lines?

By the look of your comment you've not even looked at graphs properly, nor read how the measurements were taken. There are no LF there. I've measured only HF. How could there be a "tail off in LF for thin cables" if there are no LF. However "pick up in HF" is clearly shown in 2 out of 3 comparisons. So I can appreciate you don't trust them as you didn't make any effort to understand what they represent.

 

[insider9]

Andy you profess to being very knowledgeable and you criticise here.

The "spiky nature" of the measurements is how actual freq resposne measurements look every single time.

That indicates to me you have never measured a speaker or a speaker in a room in which case how can you even comment on what insider has done to criticise it?

I think you misunderstood my post. I can't find it now, but didn't Insider post that he was averaging 250 runs for each cable?

If the individucal cable runs are relatively flat, the difference plots shouldn't have +1 -1 dB spikes along tham separated by a few hundred Hz.

No, I did no such thing. Nor claimed to do so.

 

[Vladimir]

If he measured electronically (scope), not acoustically (speakers aka transudecers) he would get less variation throughout the FR and from measurement to measurement. Speaker drivers do not move the same in perfect pistonic manner, let alone several of them combined. Averaging out certanly helps with this issue.

Why measure acoustically, not hook up the speaker cable on a scope and measure electric properties? It wont show the wire influence on driver behaviour. Always test under dynamic load for more real life measurements.

 

[insider9]

Insider by the looks of what you have done you have found a spot in the room pretty flat from mid to treble devoid of as many reflections as possible, far from easy.

No, you also misunderstood what the measurements are. There aren't any reflections affecting this. IR is clear. Treble is far from smooth. I've not shown measurements, only differences between measurements. And the differences in treble are flat as they are not big at all.

To do this properly you would also need an anachoic chamber - you can maybe see why these test are not done - its very hard

Don't believe this isn't why these tests aren't done. It's easier to sell something on a promise, opposed to actual proof.

 

[insider9]

That's pretty much it. It isn't a huge difference but I don't think anyone expected one. If there was going to be one at all I'm glad you find it interesting too.

By the way these are cables used in comparison I purposely didn't name them on graphs as the point of the experiment to see if differences are measurable, not really what the differences were.

A - NYY-J / solid core copper 2.5mm2 / £2.35 per meter (unterminated) link

B - Cambridge Audio Ulta 100 / stranded silver plated copper 2.5mm2 / £4.99 per meter (unterminated) link

C - TQ Silver / details unknown / £96 per meter (terminated) link

I've named them A, B, C above. Fancy guessing which one is CABLE 1, 2, 3 as annotated on the graphs?

good stuff, I found it interesting too, thank you.

Thanks Cheeseboy!

 

[insider9]

That's what my subjective evaluation of cables has shown. FR changes on extremes, either LF or HF, but perception of midrange also changes relative to these. Lack of LF produces faster, leaner, cleaner, more detailed midrange. Lack of HF produces darker, collapsed soundstage, could feel as an improvement with brighter sounding systems/rooms. At best cables are an EQ, so why is it such a freaking astonishment to audiophiles I have no clue. I can achieve more with DSP on my PC/Phone than any wire ever made, at any price. It's not like I could only hear 4 violins and now $250 later I can hear 8.

Vlad there's clearly a lift of on HF in 2 out of 3 comparisons. No LF were measured. I've connected only HF terminals. To make sure 1) I only use single wire connection 2) there's less room interaction. I'm tempted to repeat the test on woofer only.

The only point of this was whether I can show differences exist, not specifically what they are. The answer is I can. But I don't want to draw any conclusions on sonic traits from these.

 

[Vladimir]

I haven't measured anything hi-fi related, except polarity, offset and bias with a DMM. All I have is my subjective experience, and it's never EVER been like 99% of cable reviews write it. No cable has given me the enthusiasm I see people write with on forums "OMG you got to try these!!!". No poetry and magic happening, just FR tweaks and thats it.

Tin ears? Unrevealing system? Closed-mindedness?

 

[Blacksabbath25]

That's what my subjective evaluation of cables has shown. FR changes on extremes, either LF or HF, but perception of midrange also changes relative to these. Lack of LF produces faster, leaner, cleaner, more detailed midrange. Lack of HF produces darker, collapsed soundstage, could feel as an improvement with brighter sounding systems/rooms. At best cables are an EQ, so why is it such a freaking astonishment to audiophiles I have no clue. I can achieve more with DSP on my PC/Phone than any wire ever made, at any price. It's not like I could only hear 4 violins and now $250 later I can hear 8.

Vlad there's clearly a lift of on HF in 2 out of 3 comparisons. No LF were measured. I've connected only HF terminals. To make sure 1) I only use single wire connection 2) there's less room interaction. I'm tempted to repeat the test on woofer only.

The only point of this was whether I can show differences exist, not specifically what they are. The answer is I can. But I don't want to draw any conclusions on sonic traits from these.

I would of thought it would be better to test the signal from the speaker cables not connected to the speakers but connected to the amplifier and the other end connected to a bit of gear which I do not no what it’s called but you would need a specific bit of gear to test this .

The other thing that bothers me is direct live how this influences the signal as basically direct live is just a filter that changes sounds and hides how you hifi really sounds even though it improves your room response.

Because if there is a change in sound I believe this is down to phase shift between amplifier and speakers

 

[insider9]

I haven't measured anything hi-fi related, except polarity, offset and bias with a DMM. All I have is my subjective experience, and it's never EVER been like 99% of cable reviews write it. No cable has given me the enthusiasm I see people write with on forums "OMG you got to try these!!!". No poetry and magic happening, just FR tweaks and thats it.

Tin ears? Unrevealing system? Closed-mindedness?

Pretty much my experience too. That why I've been using NYY-J cable for the last year. And it's not even a speaker cable

 

[insider9]

I would of thought it would be better to test the signal from the speaker cables not connected to the speakers but connected to the amplifier and the other end connected to a bit of gear which I do not no what it’s called but you would need a specific bit of gear to test this .

The other thing that bothers me is direct live how this influences the signal as basically direct live is just a filter that changes sounds and hides how you hifi really sounds even though it improves your room response.

Because if there is a change in sound I believe this is down to phase shift between amplifier and speakers

Sabbath. Better? For what? I listen with my ears so expect to see a measureable difference with a mic if there's one at all. This way I know if it's bias or not. I don't use Dirac Live and no DSP was applied on these, neither I have capacity to do so.

I don't share your opinion of DSP. It doesn't hide what your Hifi really sounds like. It helps to remove your room allowing you to make full use of your hifi. I think you'd be amazed how much better your sysem would sound with proper DSP. And if you treated it first, woooof.

Frequency and phase are interlinked. Most of the time if frequency response changes there will be a change in phase response to.

 

[Vladimir]

Pretty much my experience too. That why I've been using NYY-J cable for the last year. And it's not even a speaker cable

It's an electric cable but its well known and popular with audiophiles, especially the DIY minded. *good*

 

[andyjm]

Andy you profess to being very knowledgeable and you criticise here.

The "spiky nature" of the measurements is how actual freq resposne measurements look every single time.

That indicates to me you have never measured a speaker or a speaker in a room in which case how can you even comment on what insider has done to criticise it?

I think you misunderstood my post. I can't find it now, but didn't Insider post that he was averaging 250 runs for each cable?

If the individucal cable runs are relatively flat, the difference plots shouldn't have +1 -1 dB spikes along tham separated by a few hundred Hz.

No, I did no such thing. Nor claimed to do so.

Well, you should do. I misunderstood the 'smoothing' heading on the graph.

As Vald the wise points out, speakers and mics are mechanical systems. You need to average over multiple runs. A single sweep is subject to all sorts of variables and pretty meaningless for difference calcs - that would go a long way to explaining the spikes I didn't like on the graphs.

I am not that familiar with REW, does it use a digital 'chirp' or a slow ramp up in frequency? A digital chirp can be run in a couple of seconds and the system I used can be set up to run a couple of hundred sweeps and average automatically.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I would of thought it would be better to test the signal from the speaker cables not connected to the speakers but connected to the amplifier and the other end connected to a bit of gear which I do not no what it’s called but you would need a specific bit of gear to test this .

The other thing that bothers me is direct live how this influences the signal as basically direct live is just a filter that changes sounds and hides how you hifi really sounds even though it improves your room response.

Because if there is a change in sound I believe this is down to phase shift between amplifier and speakers

Sabbath. Better? For what? I listen with my ears so expect to see a measureable difference with a mic if there's one at all. This way I know if it's bias or not. I don't use Dirac Live and no DSP was applied on these, neither I have capacity to do so.

I don't share your opinion of DSP. It doesn't hide what your Hifi really sounds like. It helps to remove your room allowing you to make full use of your hifi. I think you'd be amazed how much better your sysem would sound with proper DSP. And if you treated it first, woooof.

Frequency and phase are interlinked. Most of the time if frequency response changes there will be a change in phase response to.

But I thought that DSP cuts the frequency’s ?

Its not a cretinism just trying to understand more that’s all *smile*

 

[insider9]

But I thought that DSP cuts the frequency’s ?

Its not a cretinism just trying to understand more that’s all *smile*

No, DSP doesn't even have to touch frequency. You could have a big improvement without changing frequency response. Ultimately DSP does what you tell it to do. And that depends on the room, gear and listener.

 

[insider9]

Well, you should do. I misunderstood the 'smoothing' heading on the graph.

As Vald the wise points out, speakers and mics are mechanical systems. You need to average over multiple runs. A single sweep is subject to all sorts of variables and pretty meaningless for difference calcs - that would go a long way to explaining the spikes I didn't like on the graphs.

I am not that familiar with REW, does it use a digital 'chirp' or a slow ramp up in frequency? A digital chirp can be run in a couple of seconds and the system I used can be set up to run a couple of hundred sweeps and average automatically.

All the info is very accessible. All you need is to go back and read it. Apologies, I don't want to have to repeat it to everone who asks. I'm happy to provide clarification, just as I did when you claimed something that I've never done, or as I'm doing below.

I have 142MB of raw data from this and another 400MB that I've used for comparisons. I've also done averaging late last night. Same results, I can show differences exists.

Measurements used here were 5.5s long. 20Hz-20kHz however only HF terminals were connected (crossover point is around 250Hz) There were 20 measurements taken per cable.

 

[insider9]

Pretty much my experience too. That why I've been using NYY-J cable for the last year. And it's not even a speaker cable

It's an electric cable but its well known and popular with audiophiles, especially the DIY minded. *good*

Is it really or are you just referring to me?

Only reason I got that cable was I needed something high gauge cheap copper. I've not seen any reviews or anyone else using them, bar someone who bough a pair from me I had unused (at a cost price, might I add).

 

[Vladimir]

Odd you don't know about this yet you bought Lapp cables. lol

Quite popular in Eastern Europe as well.

 

[insider9]

Fascinating! I had no idea. I was just looking for best conductors I could at a reasonable price. Comparing specs and that was it. I wouldn't think anyone else ever used it for a speakers cable, let alone there were lots of people doing it *pardon*

 

[nopiano]

Strange that nobody else has attempted to guess which cable is which. Reminds me of politicians who say “The question you should be asking is...”!

 

[ellisdj]

Insider by the looks of what you have done you have found a spot in the room pretty flat from mid to treble devoid of as many reflections as possible, far from easy.

No, you also misunderstood what the measurements are. There aren't any reflections affecting this. IR is clear. Treble is far from smooth. I've not shown measurements, only differences between measurements. And the differences in treble are flat as they are not big at all.

That is what I said devoid of reflections - as close to honest sound as possible, that is not easy. You must have measured a sweep though same as always and got a plot then compared the plots. The low graph numbers x axis is that the potential differences of the comparison?

 

[andyjm]

Well, you should do. I misunderstood the 'smoothing' heading on the graph.

As Vald the wise points out, speakers and mics are mechanical systems. You need to average over multiple runs. A single sweep is subject to all sorts of variables and pretty meaningless for difference calcs - that would go a long way to explaining the spikes I didn't like on the graphs.

I am not that familiar with REW, does it use a digital 'chirp' or a slow ramp up in frequency? A digital chirp can be run in a couple of seconds and the system I used can be set up to run a couple of hundred sweeps and average automatically.

All the info is very accessible. All you need is to go back and read it. Apologies, I don't want to have to repeat it to everone who asks. I'm happy to provide clarification, just as I did when you claimed something that I've never done, or as I'm doing below.

I have 142MB of raw data from this and another 400MB that I've used for comparisons. I've also done averaging late last night. Same results, I can show differences exists.

Measurements used here were 5.5s long. 20Hz-20kHz however only HF terminals were connected (crossover point is around 250Hz) There were 20 measurements taken per cable.

Ok, just so I have got this right, you ran 20 sweeps for each cable, and performed an arithmetic average of the 20 sweeps to come up with the 'average sweep'. You then compared the 'average sweep' of each cable with each of the other cables, producing a difference graph.

If so, I stand by my earlier comments, the spiky + -1 dB difference plots don't look real. I don't know what artifact is causing this, but it is extremely unlikely that changing the LCR parameters of the cable would lead to that sort of difference. As I posted earlier, (understanding that you didn't use LF yourself), cable effects are LF slope, HF slope and possibly a hump or dip in midrange. To all intents and purposes, your cables are identical apart from this 'noise'.

If you have the time, you could start the whole process from scratch and see if the difference graphs are similar.

Didi you move around the room when you were doing these tests, or did you always stand in the same spot?