Which cables go with what?????
I disagree 100%. If you terminate most any cable with the nominal load and source impedances that it would see during normal operation, most all of them will pass signals with phenomenally high levels of linearity. It is the impedances of each component being linked together combined with the electrical characteristics of the cable itself that we hear, not the cable itself. That's why "Cable A" may bomb / sound horrible between the Super Deluxe 2000 and Whiz Bang 1000 but works great between the Whiz Bang 1000 and a Golden Jalopy 1500. While i do agree that some cables may have a higher DA ( dielectric absorption ) factor, have slightly variable series resistance, varying levels of reactance, etc... most all of them are capable of passing signal without major problems on their own. What makes the big difference is the fact that the terminated and source impedances are changing as both amplitude and frequency are varied. As such, the cables themselves are acting as impedance transformers between the two mating components. How good of a job the cable can do in terms of minimizing the reflections between the two impedances while allowing maximum signal transfer "wins". That is, as far as "system transparency" goes. Cables that lack this ability ( in a specific source / load combo ) will result in some type of "colouration" being presented. This is due to a greater amount of reflections altering how the signal is transferred and how the circuitry responds to those reflections. Changing either the source or the load component could produce drastically different results. When all is said and done, it is more a matter of system synergy / circuit stability / personal preference than any other factor. There are no "best" cables because their are no perfect sources or loads. Sean > |
What i can't understand is how someone like Audioengr can say and believe what he did when he understands ( i think ) how cables and signal propagation works. I can understand how S23chang and Ridge Street Audio could make and / or agree with such a statement, given that ( i'm assuming here ) they don't have the technical background and / or test equipment that Audioengr does. I know that Steve aka Audioengr knows / understands / has experienced the effects of loading / signal reflection in his work. I don't understand how he could disregard the effects that this has on sonics / loading & transfer characteristics. I also don't know how he could overlook the variances that one can run into from component to component and system to system. As such, my comments were primarily aimed at Steve aka Audioengr, especially since he was the one that opened this can of worms. According to S23chang: "If the cable is well designed, it should perform well in all systems. A good cable should enhance what you already have. i.e. A better cable can bring you more detail and image without changing the tone." What is being said here is that a cable can be good even though it doesn't transfer all of the information that was fed into it. A better cable will lose even less signal / convey even more information without altering tonal balance. Well, guess what ? I think we all agree with that premise in basic theory. What i think that most of us here would like to know is how do we find these cables and know which ones they are ? If it is not something that we can measure and / or quantify by some type of physical or electrical characteristics, we are right back to trial and error and ludicrous claims based on marketing hype and / or personal preferences. Sean > |
Audioengr: "No, what I said was that certain cables do not mate synergistically with certain components, at least without degradation of some sort, such as dynamic compression or HF roll-off. In other words, cables that are said to be synergistic only with a particular component are usually "tone control" cables." The comment that you responded to here was meant as a response to what S23chang said, not what you had said previously. He said that a good cable would work in any system and a better cable would give you more of what the good cable already offered without altering the tonal balance. I simply pointed out that if one cable "bettered" another cable, one of the cables was simply "losing" more info than the other ( all other things being equal ). Other than that, i think that you are still missing the point that i was trying to make. We are not listening to any single component in a system. We are listening to a conglomerate of equipment that are all loading into and reacting to one another that can be summed up as being equivalent to Thevenin's Theory. System A is no better than System B even if System A uses "neutral" cables / coloured electronics and System B uses "flavourful" cables with "neutral" electronics. We hear the end result. If both systems are deemed to be "accurate" and / or "musical", etc..., then it really doesn't matter HOW we got there. The end result is the same, we just took different paths. The fact that changing a cable CAN alter the sonics / electrical characteristics of a system / component simply means that synergy DOES come into play and IS measurable. As a side note, try measuring the actual load impedance that a source sees during dynamic use conditions with various cabling. You can even try this with the same cabling of different lengths. Make sure that you vary the amplitude of the signal as you are doing this. Then compare their waveforms using a dynamic passage of music on a storage scope and / or tone bursts at each frequency extreme. Once you get done scratching your head, then swap in a different source or load and do it all over again. Then come back and talk to me about "universal cabling". I think you'll have a slightly different opinion and outlook on things. To sum it up, what you'll find is that the input VSWR that the source sees changes as the amplitude and frequency are varied. When you find a cable that can "buffer" these variations that the source sees, this cable will tend to present a consistent sonic "flavour" due to the fact that the source sees a consistent load. The cable is NOT "flavoured" so much as you are now hearing the effects of consistent loading characteristics of the source device itself. It is helping to negate the varying levels of reactance of the load component that the source would otherwise have to deal with. In effect, it is acting as an impedance transformer. Whether or not one likes the "flavour" that such a cable provides, power transfer and signal linearity are probably operating at or near peak efficiency. That is, so long as the impedance being presented to the source via the cables "transformer action" is to its' liking. Changing to a different cable will present a different impedance / level of reactance and therefore cause the level of power transfer / signal linearity to be altered. Depending on the load component and cables being used, the sonics could get better, worse or have varying levels of consistency due to the aforementioned variations in input vswr as drive levels / frequency are varied. Too bad we live so far apart. Between your Digital background and my RF background, i'm sure that we could come up with some real "wonderous" stuff. We might want to kill each other getting there, but it would be fun and i'm sure, quite enlightening : ) Sean > |
S23: Since each component will influence the sound, both on its' own and due to the inter-action with other components, everybody is right. That's why i have a hard time writing reviews for equipment i.e. change the combo of equipment and you'll change the entire presentation. We are not hearing any specific aspect of any given component, but how that one component responds and causes responses with the other components in that system. That is why it is called "system synergy" i.e. we hear the entire package as an end result. If we wanted to be fair, we could also call it "component compatability" since one change affects the whole system but those changes are directly related to that one component swap. By "component", i'm including ANYTHING that signal passes through and even the AC supply to some extent. Sean > PS to Audioengr: If you can perform the tests mentioned above between an amp and preamp with the amp driving highly reactive speakers, you'll really see what i was talking about in terms of the load "modulating" the source and different cables and length of cables compounding or buffering this effect. Given the amps that you have, it may do better than others with this though as i have a good amount of confidence in the designer of these specific products. |
Audioengr: The system that you've built and use for reference purposes ties in with Leme's response about gear selection. Having said that, do you think that your gear / system is representative of the majority of components / systems in use today ? I don't and that's why i disagree with the majority of your statements. Those theories and statements are based on optimal conditions with gear that is designed to the "nth" degree. Since most people lack the technical insight that an engineer does, their selection of gear is more likely to be less optimally matched and / or designed. Looking at your statements based on the assumption of near perfect conditions, i might not disagree as heartily as i do when i take reality into account and think about the types of systems that most people are running. Sean > PS... How many parts are in the crossover network of your speakers ? You probably don't have enough fingers and toes to count them all..... |
Corona: The fact that you would desire to build a ported speaker for "hi-fi" use tells me more than any of your vague generalizations / thinly veiled advertisements that you call "responses" ever could. Ported speakers are for applications where quantity is more important than quality or where compromises are necessary to obtain "reasonable" extension out of driver that is less than optimal to begin with. You can tell me that i'm "stuck in the stone age" and need to "catch up with technology", but i'm not the one that is trying to take out of phase information and make it arrive in phase. Since we are still stuck working within the laws of physics, i prefer to do the best we can with what we've got and minimize the potential for damage. Installing a "blow hole" into a cabinet and allowing sound to leak out of it at any given frequency, phase and velocity does not make for anything less than a compromise from the start. Audioengr: My comments about the length of the signal path in your speakers was meant to demonstrate that, even as careful as you've been with selecting active components, you are still FAR from hearing what a time and phase coherent signal sounds like. With as much care that went into designing the active components that you have and minimizing distortion within the signal chain, ALL of your signal is now fed to you via indirect "coupling" via capacitors. This is not to mention that, even though your speakers may have a relatively flat impedance and frequency response, much of the nuances of the signal are getting "devoured" by impedance compensation networks, etc.. If you doubt this, disable the Zobel's on the woofers and / or mids and then do a frequency sweep. If the output rises as frequency is increased ( as compared to "stock" ), the "extra" signal that your hearing / measuring was derived from power that was otherwise "lost" or "eaten up" by the Zobel(s). As such, it is only logical to deduce that lost output is the result of lost signal. Signal that you would otherwise hear / be able to put to use. Sean > PS... I have speakers with no crossovers and speakers with 30 parts in the crossovers. Any time you put a "component" between the driver(S) and the amp, you loose something somewhere while trying to gain something somewhere else. As such, the usual "victims" in such an exchange are those things that are audible i.e. a reduction in harmonic structure, air, liquidity, natural presentation, etc... in order to "gain" in the areas of things that are "measurable" i.e. flatter frequency response, lower distortion, etc.. The end result is typically a speaker that measures well but sounds "lifeless", "sterile" and "power hungry". After all, all of those "passive parts" have to be energized to do their jobs. It would be silly to think that they worked for free, wouldn't it ? As to what "energizes" them, that would be the signal that you are feeding them from the amp. Signal that is now lost and can never be recovered. Sure, it can be further altered, but it can never be recovered. |
I don't think that Audioengr is guilty of doing anything but trying to share knowledge in an educational manner. He's made WAY too many posts ( both here and on AA ) conveying nothing more than helpful information for anyone to claim anything other than that. If he had made the same statements without being a cable manufacturer, would anybody have thought twice about it ? Would this thread have just turned into the typical "downward spiral" that most cable threads end up in rather than an attack on his integrity ? Sean > |
Corona: So, now you are trying to say that "proper" power cords could correct / reverse the physics involved with speaker design ? That is the only way for me to take what you are saying... Sean > PS... I think that ports with flares on the entrance and exit ( aka "aeroports" ) alleviate much of the problems associated with this type of design. The high impedance peak / poorer transient response / increased ringing / lack of power transfer that is directly related to the electro-mechanical resonances of such an alignment are still something that plague such designs. This is obviously taking this thread WAY off track though.... |
I recently posted a link from a thread on AA and tied it into this one. If someone wants to read it and the comments that were made there, you can find it in a thread entitled: physical basis of synergy. I tied the two together as i thought that they were inter-related in more than one way. I also thought that the people expressing opinions there might be interested in the opinions being expressed here. Needless to say, i'm running my mouth in both threads : ) Sean > |
