Speaker cable - Aside from thickness, does it really matter?

[Matte]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

I'd go further and say you don't even have to listen ...

... with the volume up, blindfolded and with noise cancelling ear muffs you'd still be able to tell the difference!

You can FEEL the difference in bass reproduction, it really is that simple and obvious. One 'excites' the room furniture, the other doesn't.

Lower the volume and it becomes a tad more difficult.

Of course, all cables are the same

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they are all the same, and some may have different effects in different systems. I saying to truly 'try' and test for a difference you would have to have someone swap them for you.

Congnitive bias can not be overcome.

I'd also say that if the difference is truly so clearly heard or felt, there must be some poor design in either the amp output stages or at the speaker end that basically changing the resistive load to either has such a dramatic effect.

Unless one cable is managing to induce current from another source to cause some distortion.

The only thing that needs to be addressed though is volume. You really need to make sure each test is run with the same volume from a spl meter, not the dial, as you clearly observe the most crucial effect on speakers is the replay volume.

But this is teaching grandma how to suck eggs I'm sure.

BTW is it the QED that's better?

Ive just looked it up and is it really £19 a metre! This is where they are having a laugh. Yes pay for the termination, there is a little build time, but that mark up is rediculous, is may seem comparatively cheap to other high end stuff but these cables are just soooooo cheap to make.

You can buy loss loss coax double screened with halogen free low smoke jacket for £3 a metre. And it only works up to 20GHz!

 

[drummerman]

Nothing with cables is that obvious. I don't subscribe to the night and day membership.

Still, it is possible to make differences audible (and measurable ... Miller Labs).

 

[seemorebtts]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

I'd go further and say you don't even have to listen ...

... with the volume up, blindfolded and with noise cancelling ear muffs you'd still be able to tell the difference!

You can FEEL the difference in bass reproduction, it really is that simple and obvious. One 'excites' the room furniture, the other doesn't.

Lower the volume and it becomes a tad more difficult.

Of course, all cables are the same

I recently had the black rhodium foxtrot and it made a huge difference. You would easily be able to tell the difference between this and £5 m speaker wire.too be honest it wasn't my taste but if you don't believe in speaker wire making a difference then buy this.i remember when I first saw the NACA5 I thought this looks like something that's over priced and is just sold because naim say this is the wire you have to have when you buy there product.but when I heard it I was quite surprised and it sorted out some little problems that had been annoying me.i was happy paying £30m

 

[drummerman]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

I'd go further and say you don't even have to listen ...

... with the volume up, blindfolded and with noise cancelling ear muffs you'd still be able to tell the difference!

You can FEEL the difference in bass reproduction, it really is that simple and obvious. One 'excites' the room furniture, the other doesn't.

Lower the volume and it becomes a tad more difficult.

Of course, all cables are the same

I recently had the black rhodium foxtrot and it made a huge difference. You would easily be able to tell the difference between this and £5 m speaker wire.too be honest it wasn't my taste but if you don't believe in speaker wire making a difference then buy this.i remember when I first saw the NACA5 I thought this looks like something that's over priced and is just sold because naim say this is the wire you have to have when you buy are product.but when I heard it I was quite surprised and it sorted out some little problems that had been annoying me.i was happy paying £30m

I think you misunderstood my post. Whilst I can hear differences 'huge' may be slight overstatement.

Still, even if it's only 2% difference and costs 10% of the total cost of a system ie. questionable vfm who is to say it is not worth it for the person concerned.

 

[chebby]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

Okay fine.

 

[drummerman]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

Okay fine.

Perhaps I got caught up in hyperbole.

Still, 'most' would probably hear, or, as in my example, feel the difference.

Incidentally, I sold on the Revelation Signature as I didn't enjoy it as much as the Naim. - No monetary loss just a bit of playing around.

Picking something else to try next, probably VdH.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I recently had the black rhodium foxtrot and it made a huge difference. You would easily be able to tell the difference between this and £5 m speaker wire.too be honest it wasn't my taste but if you don't believe in speaker wire making a difference then buy this.i remember when I first saw the NACA5 I thought this looks like something that's over priced and is just sold because naim say this is the wire you have to have when you buy there product.but when I heard it I was quite surprised and it sorted out some little problems that had been annoying me.i was happy paying £30m

Although, Naim's own cables do have certain attributes that suit their own amplifiers - so there is a benefit to using them.

At the first place I worked at in the early 90s, I remember we had a recommended system which comprised of an entry level Denon CD player, an entry level Rotel amplifier, and a pair of Celestion 3 speakers. This was chosen by a panel at the company, and worked well together. Over the following months, I experimented with cables and stands etc, and found the system sounded its best with a pair of Epos ES11 stands (because of their open top plate), a pair of Chord Company Cobra interconnects, and Naim NAC-A5 speaker cable. Whether or not any given individual would buy these accessories with that system which cost about £450 is another matter, but that's what made the system shine, in my opinion.

Again, this wasn't something you could quickly demonstrate, you had to come to know the system in order to hear the benefits those accessories brought.

 

[nopiano]

I recently had the black rhodium foxtrot and it made a huge difference. You would easily be able to tell the difference between this and £5 m speaker wire.too be honest it wasn't my taste but if you don't believe in speaker wire making a difference then buy this.i remember when I first saw the NACA5 I thought this looks like something that's over priced and is just sold because naim say this is the wire you have to have when you buy there product.but when I heard it I was quite surprised and it sorted out some little problems that had been annoying me.i was happy paying £30m

Although, Naim's own cables do have certain attributes that suit their own amplifiers - so there is a benefit to using them.

At the first place I worked at in the early 90s, I remember we had a recommended system which comprised of an entry level Denon CD player, an entry level Rotel amplifier, and a pair of Celestion 3 speakers. This was chosen by a panel at the company, and worked well together. Over the following months, I experimented with cables and stands etc, and found the system sounded its best with a pair of Epos ES11 stands (because of their open top plate), a pair of Chord Company Cobra interconnects, and Naim NAC-A5 speaker cable. Whether or not any given individual would buy these accessories with that system which cost about £450 is another matter, but that's what made the system shine, in my opinion.

Again, this wasn't something you could quickly demonstrate, you had to come to know the system in order to hear the benefits those accessories brought.

I agree with David that the longer-term benefit is what matters, and therefore switching wires for a day seldom shows that. It might show other things, but not necessarily the ones that provide lasting enjoyment.

I was thinking, when reading some posts nearer the top, that in the case of some earlier Naim amps that the difference between Naim cable and a boutique cable, might be the amp blowing up. That is a night and day difference, and confirms that there is much more to speaker wire than resistance.

Drummerman has referred to Miller Labs and HiFi News, where there is plenty of evidence, both electrical and listening.

Reverting to the OP, I've got two main thoughts:-

1. Placebo trials in medicine were recently found to benefit recipients even when they were told it was placebo! Crazy on the face of it, but does tell me that our minds are far too complex to understand fully.

2. Music is subjective too. The fact that <composer> wrote the notes on manuscript, creates few limits as to how their works are played or sung. I see an analogy with cables - they are the same notes but with a different interpretation!

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

So, if I understand you right. One of those two cable is so flawed that it can't transport a basic music signal accurately. Is it correct ?

 

[drummerman]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

So, if I understand you right. One of those two cable is so flawed that it can't transport a basic music signal accurately. Is it correct ?

No, they are slightly different.

Depends from which end you look at it, either both are flawed or one less than the other. I very much doubt either is perfect but one, in theory, could be almost perfect in the context of my system but I doubt that too.

No analogue signal will be transmitted in its entirety no matter how small and what the cause of signal loss may be. There are several ways of this to happen, not just within the cable but at connections which signals travel through such as terminals, plugs etc etc.. Many of these electrical 'issues' have the effect of lowering SNR. You may argue all this will be to small to to be heared. I and others think we can.

Many here snear at the problem of no measurements. I say it again, go and look at Miller Labs. The figures are there ... and they are not the same for different cables.

The naysayers will no doubt find reasons to even dispute the measurements, the very thing they crave so much for

 

[seemorebtts]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

So, if I understand you right. One of those two cable is so flawed that it can't transport a basic music signal accurately. Is it correct ?

no it means they have different talents.if you were to put the qed on my hifi you would get earache and the naim cable is much more balanced for me so meaning it's different

 

[Gazzip]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

So, if I understand you right. One of those two cable is so flawed that it can't transport a basic music signal accurately. Is it correct ?

no it means they have different talents.if you were to put the qed on my hifi you would get earache and the naim cable is much more balanced for me so meaning it's different

I now use simple Van Damme OFC interconnects and speaker cables throughout my systems. I have had many different and exotic wires over the years, most of which would provide subtle changes to the sound produced by the last in one way or another, but I have decided to leave all that behind in favour of the Van Dammes as a reference. A reference that is constant.

Using cables to "sort out" little problems in a system's overall balance is the road to madness. If something sounds wrong to you about an amp/CDP/speakers then you buy different electronics that you like surely?

 

[drummerman]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

So, if I understand you right. One of those two cable is so flawed that it can't transport a basic music signal accurately. Is it correct ?

no it means they have different talents.if you were to put the qed on my hifi you would get earache and the naim cable is much more balanced for me so meaning it's different

I now use simple Van Damme OFC interconnects and speaker cables throughout my systems. I have had many different and exotic wires over the years, most of which would provide subtle changes to the sound produced by the last in one way or another, but I have decided to leave all that behind in favour of the Van Dammes as a reference. A reference that is constant.

Using cables to "sort out" little problems in a system's overall balance is the road to madness. If something sounds wrong to you about an amp/CDP/speakers then you buy different electronics that you like surely?

Indeed. Cables are the last thing to consider and they are no cure for problems elsewhere. No need to go crazy with price. In a system costing £2.5k for example, spending a hundred or 150 quid on speaker cables is not exactly crazy money but I respect your opinion.

 

[Matte]

Anyone that doesn't hear the difference between a QED Revelation and NACA5 pair of wires is cloth eared and probably in the wrong hobby.

I'd go further and say you don't even have to listen ...

... with the volume up, blindfolded and with noise cancelling ear muffs you'd still be able to tell the difference!

You can FEEL the difference in bass reproduction, it really is that simple and obvious. One 'excites' the room furniture, the other doesn't.

Lower the volume and it becomes a tad more difficult.

Of course, all cables are the same

I recently had the black rhodium foxtrot and it made a huge difference. You would easily be able to tell the difference between this and £5 m speaker wire.too be honest it wasn't my taste but if you don't believe in speaker wire making a difference then buy this.i remember when I first saw the NACA5 I thought this looks like something that's over priced and is just sold because naim say this is the wire you have to have when you buy are product.but when I heard it I was quite surprised and it sorted out some little problems that had been annoying me.i was happy paying £30m

I think you misunderstood my post. Whilst I can hear differences 'huge' may be slight overstatement.

Still, even if it's only 2% difference and costs 10% of the total cost of a system ie. questionable vfm who is to say it is not worth it for the person concerned.

Note to be antagonistic but your initial phrasing did imply an almost night and day change.

But I understand what your viewpoint is after clarification.

I've done cable listening test also and thought I heard some differences but without them being blind, they were as I now know, unreliable.

I am not one to immediately challenge measurements but if they are not peer appraised/ approved and falsified then they should be seen as a possible interpretation of the results found, not to be dismissed but used to build a definitive data base.

I do have a beef with the mark up and marketing behind the cable suppliers though. I approached a rather popular cable company many years ago regarding using silver conductors as speaker cables (as I had access to multiple metres of the stuff) only to be told that they didn't recommend the material, only to find years later them raving over their new cable, which contained silver conductors!

When you work directly with cable manufactures as I do, and realise just how easy and cheap it is to make these things it tarnishes your viewpoint, although that goes for any product really (high end watches/diamond rings) I love watches, so maybe I should drop that and the wife loves diamonds!

It's a little like when I spoke to Arcam (again years ago) over the seemingly basic cable they supplied with their CD player, only to be told that they felt it was good enough and there would be little improvement with anything else but I was free by all means to try others.

 

[andyjm]

My new year's resolution will be to stop posting on speaker wire threads, however one last post before the new year.

Jus to be clear - Of course cables make a difference.

What does not make a difference are two similarly sized cables, decently constructed of approximately the same length - and this is where the problems start. For those who want to understand how speaker cables matter, read on...

A cable has to be adequately specified for its role. There are good reasons why cat5 is twisted pair, aerial lead is coax, kettle leads are thick and bedside light leads are thin.

There is no mystery here. The 'science doesn't know everything' brigade really mean 'I dont understand it'. Engineers really can model cable performance, at audio frequencies is it is very straightforward. Basic cable parameters can be used to accurately predict a cable's performance - so all this 'veil was lifted' subjective nonsense could easily be replaced by a simple table of 3 basic parameters. In fact, if you do the analysis (unless the cable has a wierdo construction), the only parameter that does make a difference is resistance, and that means thickness.

So comparing a 2.5mmsq 'black rhodium this' with a 2.5mmsq 'silver anniversary that' is a complete waste of time, because the speaker output will be exactly the same, and any difference will be purely imagined. In fact, comparing 'bog standard 2.5mmsq cable at 50p per metre' with 'fancy sounding 2.5mmsq cable at £10 per metre' will be an equal waste of time.

What will be different, is a long run of thin cable and a short run of thick cable irrespective of the marketing budget of the supplier.

It is interesting that when the subjective brigade post about this cable vs that cable, they rarely mention the cable length, or the cable thickness - about the only thing that actually matters. If they did that, then perhaps we could have a meaningful conversation.

- one final point - all this 'oxygen free' nonsense is exactly that - nonsense. There is no electrical difference between copper found in decent cables and oxygen free. More marketing I am afraid. In fact, if there was some truth in this, perhaps someone should call the National Grid - they use aluminium for their cables for goodness sake. Don't they realise the millions they could save if they used oxygen free copper and reduced their cable losses?

 

[drummerman]

My new year's resolution will be to stop posting on speaker wire threads, however one last post before the new year.

Jus to be clear - Of course cables make a difference.

What does not make a difference are two similarly sized cables, decently constructed of approximately the same length - and this is where the problems start.  For those who want to understand how speaker cables matter, read on...

A cable has to be adequately specified for its role.  There are good reasons why cat5 is twisted pair, aerial lead is coax, kettle leads are thick and bedside light leads are thin.

There is no mystery here.  The 'science doesn't know everything' brigade really mean 'I dont understand it'.  Engineers really can model cable performance, at audio frequencies is it is very straightforward.  Basic cable parameters can be used to accurately predict a cable's performance - so all this 'veil was lifted' subjective nonsense could easily be replaced by a simple table of 3 basic parameters.  In fact, if you do the analysis (unless the cable has a wierdo construction), the only parameter that does make a difference is resistance, and that means thickness.

So comparing a 2.5mmsq 'black rhodium this' with a 2.5mmsq 'silver anniversary that' is a complete waste of time, because the speaker output will be exactly the same, and any difference will be purely imagined.  In fact, comparing 'bog standard 2.5mmsq cable at 50p per metre' with 'fancy sounding 2.5mmsq cable at £10 per metre' will be an equal waste of time.

What will be different, is a long run of thin cable and a short run of thick cable irrespective of the marketing budget of the supplier.

It is interesting that when the subjective brigade post about this cable vs that cable, they rarely mention the cable length, or the cable thickness - about the only thing that actually matters. If they did that, then perhaps we could have a meaningful conversation.

- one final point - all this 'oxygen free' nonsense is exactly that - nonsense.  There is no electrical difference between copper found in decent cables and oxygen free.  More marketing I am afraid.  In fact, if there was some truth in this, perhaps someone should call the National Grid - they use aluminium for their cables for goodness sake.  Don't they realise the millions they could save if they used oxygen free copper and reduced their cable losses?  

You are comparing cables that carry high electric currents with ones that often transmit minute amounts of current/signals, where losses or reduced SNR, caused by losses can be audible as per my experience.

Another thing, short, thick cables apparently can have detrimental effects on sound compared with a thinner one in a typical short run domestic hifi setting ie. anything less than 50 meters and 5000 watts.

Go figure.

I believe that in our complicated electrical world, with multiple interferences, appliances, voltages, transformers everywhere the choice of audio cables indeed
matter and that anyone looking for a simple answer may simply fool themselves. Still, if they save some dosh by going for the cheapest solution and if it makes them feel good (or superior to us "audiophools') ... who am I to argue

Having said that, conversely the most pleasure I have gotten from things in my life were usually from cheap things, bargains which performed way better than I ever expected rather than from expensive ones where expectation bias was higher. - So perhaps I should try that bell wire after all

Happy New Year! May it be a good one for all.

 

[abacus]

The difference between OFC cables and ordinary cables has nothing to do with losses, it's just that OFC resists corrosion better, (Which is a scientifically proven chemical effect) which will affect low level signals (As used in the audio side of things) at the terminations.

You are perfectly correct about thin and thick cables, however “there is a difference brigade” will not believe you, as 1, they probably didn’t understand even basic science at school, & 2, they cannot comprehend that their ears & brain are easily tricked into hearing that something is different, even when it isn’t.

Happy New Year

Bill

 

[chebby]

My new year's resolution will be to stop posting on speaker wire threads, however one last post before the new year.

Excellent contribution from andyjm. Thanks.

Sadly you'll still be wrongly accused of advocating 'bell-wire' by those without the time or inclination to read it completely.

Please keep doing it though.

We need to hear more from the technically, scientifically, professionally trained amongst us. (You were in BBC engineering IIRC.)

 

[drummerman]

My new year's resolution will be to stop posting on speaker wire threads, however one last post before the new year.

Excellent contribution from andyjm. Thanks.

Sadly you'll still be wrongly accused of advocating 'bell-wire' by those without the time or inclination to read it completely.

Please keep doing it though.

We need to hear more from the technically, scientifically, professionally trained amongst us. (You were in BBC engineering IIRC.)

Obviously Paul Miller's knowledge and experience in developing analysis soft and hardware now used world wide (and his measurements of cables) is not good enough ... . (Miller Audio Research)

My guess is that the above is far more advanced and sensitive than anything that may have been used in the 'old BBC' years ago.

Funny how the naysayers and 'pro science' lot even deny measurements.

I find it amusing

 

[andyjm]

My new year's resolution will be to stop posting on speaker wire threads, however one last post before the new year.

Excellent contribution from andyjm. Thanks.

Sadly you'll still be wrongly accused of advocating 'bell-wire' by those without the time or inclination to read it completely.

Please keep doing it though.

We need to hear more from the technically, scientifically, professionally trained amongst us. (You were in BBC engineering IIRC.)

Obviously Paul Miller's knowledge and experience in developing analysis soft and hardware now used world wide (and his measurements of cables) is not good enough ... . (Miller Audio Research)

My guess is that the above is far more advanced and sensitive than anything that may have been used in the 'old BBC' years ago.

Funny how the naysayers and 'pro science' lot even deny measurements.

I find it amusing

OK drummer, its not New Year yet so I will play ball. It was the BBC that I worked at, although over 30 years ago. As far as I know, the basic circuit theory I used back then has not changed, so unless Paul has repealed ohms law, then I would be surprised if his results are any different to mine.

Just to reiterate, 'of course cables are different, but cables of similar size, construction and length will sound the same, irrespective of the marketing budget of the cable supplier'

I had a search of the Paul Miller site, and I couldn't find anything that would disagree with my statement above. A link to one of his analysis that proves otherwise would be very interesting.

Happy New Year to you all.

 

[drummerman]

My new year's resolution will be to stop posting on speaker wire threads, however one last post before the new year.

Excellent contribution from andyjm. Thanks.

Sadly you'll still be wrongly accused of advocating 'bell-wire' by those without the time or inclination to read it completely.

Please keep doing it though.

We need to hear more from the technically, scientifically, professionally trained amongst us. (You were in BBC engineering IIRC.)

Obviously Paul Miller's knowledge and experience in developing analysis soft and hardware now used world wide (and his measurements of cables) is not good enough ... . (Miller Audio Research)

My guess is that the above is far more advanced and sensitive than anything that may have been used in the 'old BBC' years ago.

Funny how the naysayers and 'pro science' lot even deny measurements.

I find it amusing

OK drummer, its not New Year yet so I will play ball. It was the BBC that I worked at, although over 30 years ago. As far as I know, the basic circuit theory I used back then has not changed, so unless Paul has repealed ohms law, then I would be surprised if his results are any different to mine.

Just to reiterate, 'of course cables are different, but cables of similar size, construction and length will sound the same, irrespective of the marketing budget of the cable supplier'

I had a search of the Paul Miller site, and I couldn't find anything that would disagree with my statement above. A link to one of his analysis that proves otherwise would be very interesting.

Happy New Year to you all.

If you search for his cable measurements you should find the bench results. You may or may not have to subscribe to access the full test.

 

[shadders]

My new year's resolution will be to stop posting on speaker wire threads, however one last post before the new year.

Excellent contribution from andyjm. Thanks.

Sadly you'll still be wrongly accused of advocating 'bell-wire' by those without the time or inclination to read it completely.

Please keep doing it though.

We need to hear more from the technically, scientifically, professionally trained amongst us. (You were in BBC engineering IIRC.)

Obviously Paul Miller's knowledge and experience in developing analysis soft and hardware now used world wide (and his measurements of cables) is not good enough ... . (Miller Audio Research)

My guess is that the above is far more advanced and sensitive than anything that may have been used in the 'old BBC' years ago.

Funny how the naysayers and 'pro science' lot even deny measurements.

I find it amusing

OK drummer, its not New Year yet so I will play ball. It was the BBC that I worked at, although over 30 years ago. As far as I know, the basic circuit theory I used back then has not changed, so unless Paul has repealed ohms law, then I would be surprised if his results are any different to mine.

Just to reiterate, 'of course cables are different, but cables of similar size, construction and length will sound the same, irrespective of the marketing budget of the cable supplier'

I had a search of the Paul Miller site, and I couldn't find anything that would disagree with my statement above. A link to one of his analysis that proves otherwise would be very interesting.

Happy New Year to you all.

If you search for his cable measurements you should find the bench results. You may or may not have to subscribe to access the full test.

Hi,

When I search the latest results are from 2014 for amplifiers. Is this the same for you?

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

 

[drummerman]

My new year's resolution will be to stop posting on speaker wire threads, however one last post before the new year.

 

Excellent contribution from andyjm. Thanks. 

Sadly you'll still be wrongly accused of advocating 'bell-wire' by those without the time or inclination to read it completely.

Please keep doing it though.

We need to hear more from the technically, scientifically, professionally trained amongst us. (You were in BBC engineering IIRC.)

Obviously Paul Miller's knowledge and experience in developing analysis soft and hardware now used world wide (and his measurements of cables) is not good enough ... .    (Miller Audio Research)

My guess is that the above is far more advanced and sensitive than anything that may have been used in the 'old BBC' years ago.

Funny how the naysayers and 'pro science' lot even deny measurements.

I find it amusing 

OK drummer, its not New Year yet so I will play ball.  It was the BBC that I worked at, although over 30 years ago.  As far as I know, the basic circuit theory I used back then has not changed, so unless Paul has repealed ohms law, then I would be surprised if his results are any different to mine.

Just to reiterate,  'of course cables are different, but cables of similar size, construction and length will sound the same, irrespective of the marketing budget of the cable supplier'

I had a search of the Paul Miller site, and I couldn't find anything that would disagree with my statement above. A link to one of his analysis that proves otherwise would be very interesting.

Happy New Year to you all.

If you search for his cable measurements you should find the bench results. You may or may not have to subscribe to access the full test.

Hi,

When I search the latest results are from 2014 for amplifiers. Is this the same for you?

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

I don't know. I have a copy of HifiNews with cable reviews and bench test.

 

[shadders]

My new year's resolution will be to stop posting on speaker wire threads, however one last post before the new year.

Excellent contribution from andyjm. Thanks.

Sadly you'll still be wrongly accused of advocating 'bell-wire' by those without the time or inclination to read it completely.

Please keep doing it though.

We need to hear more from the technically, scientifically, professionally trained amongst us. (You were in BBC engineering IIRC.)

Obviously Paul Miller's knowledge and experience in developing analysis soft and hardware now used world wide (and his measurements of cables) is not good enough ... . (Miller Audio Research)

My guess is that the above is far more advanced and sensitive than anything that may have been used in the 'old BBC' years ago.

Funny how the naysayers and 'pro science' lot even deny measurements.

I find it amusing

OK drummer, its not New Year yet so I will play ball. It was the BBC that I worked at, although over 30 years ago. As far as I know, the basic circuit theory I used back then has not changed, so unless Paul has repealed ohms law, then I would be surprised if his results are any different to mine.

Just to reiterate, 'of course cables are different, but cables of similar size, construction and length will sound the same, irrespective of the marketing budget of the cable supplier'

I had a search of the Paul Miller site, and I couldn't find anything that would disagree with my statement above. A link to one of his analysis that proves otherwise would be very interesting.

Happy New Year to you all.

If you search for his cable measurements you should find the bench results. You may or may not have to subscribe to access the full test.

Hi,

When I search the latest results are from 2014 for amplifiers. Is this the same for you?

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

I don't know. I have a copy of HifiNews with cable reviews and bench test.

Hi,

Thanks. I have emailed them multiple times, with no response. It is annoying, as they state click the red button to download the tests, but they have not updated the Web site to see the tests.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[insider9]

You mention aluminum cables and copper and Ohms law in above comments. I agree with your statement that

<p>

two similarly sized cables, decently constructed of approximately the same length

</p>

will sound the same.

Knowing that copper is a far superior conductor than aluminium how can this apply to two cables one made from CCA and the other OFC. By what I gather considering same length to achieve similar impedance you'd need a 2.5mm2 CCA cable or 1.5mm2 OFC due to differences in impedance of materials used.

I'm just curious... Am I wrong to think that or did I misunderstand your point?

Thanks