Some sense creeping into the hifi press at last?

Well that backs up my findings and simultaneously blows them out of the water!

I'm very interested in what is a gross electrical mismatch in A5, it appears a very simple and non-pretentious cable visually, though IMHO it does have a 'sound' (albeit one I like). Kimber being 'off' doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I think it is truly horrible stuff!

Tony.

 

Many solid state amps have a big inductor before their output sockets. This is to keep them stable into capacitative loads at high frequencies. Naim amps don't, and they are a bit marginal on the stability front full stop. So Naim produce a cable that is intrinsically high in inductance and low in capacitance, purely due to its spaced pair construction. Kimber whatever is a woven cable, this makes it intrinsically low in inductance and high in capacitance, again purely due to its contruction or geometry.

So if you have an amp with a big output inductor you probably ought to use either very short cables or low inductance cables. If your amp doesn't have an inductor you can use pretty much any cable but possibly ought to steer clear of long lengths of highly capacitative cable like Kimber.

None of this is surprising to anybody. What is are assertions that cables with similar characteristics sound different. So for example if a Naimie could spot the difference between similar lengths of NACA4 and NACA5 under blind conditions that would be interesting.

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

how does that square with Kimber being originally used in the professional field for superior sound in large outdoor rigs where long runs were required

 

I don't have to do a swap, I'm already using Hitachi speaker wire (about £1.50 a meter as I was impatient and didn't mail order) and interconnects for under £20 each (apart from an 8m sub cable).

No, all the same.

Anytime you believers want to organise a blind test I'll be happy to help set it up (work load permitting).

The reason all systems don't sound the same is down to different speakers, room acoustics (how can you say give or take these!?), furnishings, our position within a room, our mood and our poor acoustic memories to name the main ones. None of this should be news to you so I'm not sure why you asked the question.

To respond to some of Julian questions:

A cable is broken if it strays off a flat frequency response. If it does this there will be a measurable difference and there is no need to do any listening testing as the fact that there is a difference is clear. If it is not designed to have a flat FR then it's not just a cable, it's like hardware EQ.

Where there is no measurable difference non-believers (funny how we use almost religious terms here isn't it? Better not go down that road) assert people will be unable to tell the difference in a blind test. This is the crux which you seem to be unable to see.

What exactly is the agenda of non-believers? In my case I bother to argue in these types of thread because I don't want to see any more newcomers to audio wasting their money. What do I have to gain?

For believers however, especially those who work in the industry, it's not hard to see why they might have an agenda. They may be justifiying their purchases or defending their profits.

 

Taken from a post by a friend of mine on another forum. It's not the debate we are having here but I found it interesting none the less:

 

daneel,
the origional posts about this involved taking 2 cables (any 2 cables) dbt ing them and winning a prize for doing so correctly - it was in reference to a forthcomming article where 3 cables had been dbt'd in hf+. i pointed out that there would be a bunch of caveats attatched to the prize to do with level matching and the cables having similar measurements and that i felt this was tantamount to massaging the results ofthe test to fit an agenda (which i still do). predictably those who for want of a better phrase 'don't believe in cables' confirmed my suspicions and tried to justify them. it seems similar to the situation in the 70's where a drag racer entered a small engined turbo car. all the 'aint no substitute for cubic inches' boys laughed until he absolutely anhialated them on the drag strip. after much whinging by the losers the govorning body ruled that his engine didn't comply with regulations and disqualified him.
nothing you've said sways me from this position.
also i'm struggling to see the relevance of your other post about cable vfm and dealer profits.

cheers


julian

 

There's no such thing as a cable with a flat frequency response. All cables will have inductance, capacitance and resistance due to their construction, and act like a filter. The trick is to get the LCR to match what your equipment is suited to and such that it doesn't completely mess up the sound by rolling off at the extremes of the audible range.

So, identical cables sound the same (surprise surprise) and cables that use different materials and are constructed differently sound different. ie the argument that all cables sound the same is complete tosh because different manufacturers have different philosophies on cable design. If bellwire, mains cable or cat5 works in your system, then good for you. Personally, I've done blind testing of my home made cables against cables from VDH, Chord and Audioquest and tweaked my cables to give me what I want. I've also dismantled the manufactured cables to see why they each sound different, and guess what, they all have different designs and use different materials.

Heath

 

Dannel,
Do I detect a little angst in your voice?

 

No. Perhaps a little frustrustration. Marvelous reply by the way. What is this? He must be young and has a low post count so clearly doesn't know what he is talking about? Nice.

 

I shall qualify my statement. The cables have a flat FR within a given range (audible) and to a tolerance (low enough to be inaudilbe). I can try to put some figures on those if you like, for starters lets say 5Hz to 25kHz and within 0.05dB. If this is the case the material and construction do not matter as the end result is the same.

 

Dannel,

Frustration eh?, its a common problem amoungst both young and old adults for a various reasons. Prosumption on the other hand by your part is another matter.
But digression aside,
"I shall qualify my statement. The cables have a flat FR within a given range (audible) and to a tolerance (low enough to be inaudilbe). I can try to put some figures on those if you like, for starters lets say 5Hz to 25kHz and within 0.05dB. If this is the case the material and construction do not matter as the end result is the same."
please do put some figures together Dannel, we are keen for your input on this subject matter.

 

Actually no, that wasn't what the original post was about but that was what the thread became.

As Heath as kindly illustrated, he believes cables of different construction will sound different, with no mention of measureable differences. It is possible and feasable to make cables that fit the measurably the same category with different materials and different construction. I argue the sound the same.

Without level matching and checking that the cables are not messing with the sound no one would argue they sound the same.

You still haven't explained what the agenda is.

The point was to show how people get sucked in at entry to the hi-fi world and once in struggle to get back out again. After all, they would have to admit that the load of money they just spent gave no audible benefit.

 

That's bullshit merlin and you know it

I changed my views on cables based entirely on my own experiences in mine and other people's systems where, when I was honest with myself, I consistently failed to hear any difference. I certainly succumed to the pressure of the cable believers early on my "hifi" days by convincing myself I was hearing differences when I really wasn't

Michael.

 

My name is Daneel not Dannel. I did put in some figures, 5Hz to 25kHz and within 0.05dB.

If treating me like an impudent child makes you feel better please continue, I've had experience of this attitude plenty times before, particularly in hi-fi. It doesn't reflect well on your argument though.

Your disregard and lack of rebuttal for my arguments is telling, but unfortunately not uncommon.

 

It's all well and good thinking up numbers, but the problem with this is that it is a theoretical model - you haven't actually got the cables. If you can come up with some actual examples with frequency sweeps showing that they have the same responses, that's another matter.

The point I was making was that the cable non-believers bang on about how any old cable will do, when it is clear that there are differently constructed cables on the market that have clearly different properties, but when challenged on their views by saying cable A sounds totally different to cable B they then say 'you can't compare them, they don't have the same properties'.

Heath

 

I'll try to find some FR sweeps for you shortly. From an initial search 0.05dB appear to be too restrictive and a lower tolerance than is required for inaudibilty.

A standard OCF (I say OCF for its resistance to corosion rather than any difference in electrical properties) cable will have a FR approximately within acceptable bounds.

Define different properties. All that matters to the sound is the FR, which is of course, influenced by resistance, capacitance etc. If you want to make them out of multiple stands, single core, copper silver etc as long as FR stays the same within a tolerance it will sound the same.

From what you have said then, you do agree that cables which measure the same sound the same but you feel that different construction will alter the FR response and so have a different sound?

I am in agreement with that. What I disagree with is people who say that cables which measure the same sound different.

There are two separate issues here. The above one, and which methods of construction and materials used actually change the FR.

 

NACA5 and possibly a few other deliberately-engineered-to-be-different cables aside, my understanding was that just about every cable on the market measured close enough to meet the requirements for the famous test.

-- Ian

 

The FR of a cable may not be 'all that matters to the sound'. Could there not be some differences in attack or decay? Is it inconceivable that resonances may be present that are only discernable by taking the time domain into account? Impulse derived measurements may give more information than an FR sweep.

 

This is pointless.

I'm not going to offer you a prize for doing something unsurprising and uninteresting, this isn't primary school. I'm going to offer you a prize for doing something surprising, in this case distinguishing audio cables by ear where there is no physical reason for them to sound different.

Cable Believer: I can hear the difference between cables!
Sceptic: Well of course, some cables affect the frequency response of your system or trigger oscillations in your power amp.
CB: No, I mean I can hear differences apart from those. Even if you just turn the wire around it sounds different.
S: OK. I'll give you £10 if you can prove this.
CB: Sure. But only if I can use cables that affect the frequency response and make my amp unstable...

Paul

 

Daneel,
(Spelling I'm afraid is not my forte' & many will testify to this, that wasn't deliberate), your asumption that I'm talking down to you, is indeed telling & most inaccurate on your part.
You did state " If treating me like an impudent child makes you feel better please continue" It doesn't make me feel anything Daneel and implying such is touch unfair I feel.
Suposion on your part seems to stem possibly from this "I've had experience of this attitude plenty times before, particularly in hi-fi. It doesn't reflect well on your argument though."
I too have had my fair share of experiance with your style of attitude, in hifi and may other branches of socitey (particulary professionals), its common enough character trait, that once your broken through the force field exterior, the inside is a little different. usually after the initial 'bumping of sheilds' has been done, a more constructive form of dialogue is achieveable and 'arguements' thus conducted with a little more decorum.
Sorry I'm digressing again, back to subject matter at hand,
your feelings here
"It is possible and feasable to make cables that fit the measurably the same category with different materials and different construction. I argue the sound the same."
Now were getting to the meat & potatoes of the issue, now we have 2 cables, that have indentical constructional techniques, they have identical LRC's, the Spectrum Anayliser reads them both as 'close as it gets', same terminations on both cables, no other Quote yourself "
checking that the cables are not messing with the sound ", ie magnets, quantum filters, resistors, caps etc. They are the same length, they are however constructed from completely different materials, and between 78-92db in the same system, no other changes, they give a different sonic presenation, I may be not the only one that has noticed this effect possibly. This is not an uncommon phenomenon strangely enough.
I would suggest, they sound different nothing more. (but as you've pointed out here I have a vested interest) so prehaps I would say this, its a fair comment and in the same way a passenger in a car crash cannot be taken as a realiable whitness.
So were does that leave us?, I say Potato you say Potatoe.
Evidence, quantifible from both sides is required to silence this once and for all, will it happen?, will either party just use the presented facts & figures to 'guide' their view over one or the other, most proberbly.
Here's a little side bar for you.
Motor vehicle emissions today are tightly controlled, the vehicles them selves use Lambda sensors to correctly gauge the amount of fuel required to run the car efficently, the Lambda (oxygen sensor O2) is cited in the exhaust before the catalytic converter, the O2 sensor, senses the amount of oxygen present in the spent gasses, it measure in volts between 0.1-1.2v if the mixture goes lean, the O2 sensor gives a high voltage indicating to the ecu, to add more fuel, then the O2 (after the next few engine cycles) will read a richer mixture and therefore switch lean, its 'ideal switching voltage' range is .45-.65v say 12 switches in an 20 second time window @ 3000 rpm, this would produce (if all other things we correct, no leaky exhaust/map sensor ok, plugs alright etc) a theorectical air/fuel of 14.7:1 (I atmosphere), or lambda 1 going by the numbers calcs etc.
Note the O2 sensor goes open loop in certain conditions, usally after 4000 rpm/ 3/4+ throttle postions, indicvating its been bypassed and a more fuller fuel/ignition map is presented to the engine.
Now if you want your vechicle to preform better you need to increase the VE volumetric effiency of the engine, and tune it to make more torque/horsepower.
when setting the vehicle up on the rolling road, having a A/R of 14.7:1 or Lambda 1 isn't desirable, most tuned vehicles run a lambda ratio of .889 (rally/circuit cars) to .945<>.975 for tuned road cars.
My point here is theory is good practice and grounding and is essential in any new product design and construction, though hands on testing and development can yeild many and often surprising results that may/may not contridict the 'numbers game'
sorry for the long post