*WHITE PAPER* The Sound of Music - How & Why the Speaker Cable Matters


G'DAY

I’ve spent a sizeable amount of the last year putting together this white paper: The Sound of Music and Error in Your Speaker Cables

Yes, I’ve done it for all the naysayers but mainly for all the cable advocates that know how you connect your separates determines the level of accuracy you can part from your system.

I’ve often theorized what is happening but now, here is some proof of what we are indeed hearing in speaker cables caused by the mismatch between the characteristic impedance of the speaker cable and the loudspeaker impedance.

I’ve included the circuit so you can build and test this out for yourselves.


Let the fun begin


Max Townshend 

Townshend Audio



128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xtownshend-audio
Townshend-audio, It appears that you joined our audio forum only in attempt to place free advertisement for your product. It is dishonest IMO and I wouldn't buy anything from you. Audio2design attempted to explain to you why using square waves in audio is nonsense, but you don't get it.

Administrator please remove townshend-audio posting. We don't want it here. You want to advertise? - pay like everybody else.
Square waves have been universally used in audio since the invention of the oscilloscope and the square wave oscillator. It is an essential tool in our industry because it allows you to analyse all audio frequencies at once.

As far as accuracy is concerned, some measurements may be out by +/-20%, but that is not the point.

Join in the Zoom session 6 PM GMT 5 Dec and I will show you the experiment and you can ask any question you like.
The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[5][6] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies.
We use low frequency square waves if we want to cover the audio band. A 10Khz wave may be used to show amplifier extended frequency response which is only important for showing phase shift.

A 10Khz square wave has exactly one frequency component, 1, uno in the audio band, namely 10KHz. Every other harmonic is inaudible. A 10Khz square wave does not contain all audio frequencies it contains 1, 10KHz, no more, no less.

Measurements out 20% can be important because that can be the difference between causation and correlation but you have shown no causation between impedance (measured wrong anyway) and your results. That literally does not exist in your paper.

Again telling that your ignore 10+clear errors in your paper, but try to attack one small item (wrongly).

But you go ahead and spam your zoom call. I expect you won’t allow the likes of me or Kijanki an open forum to point out to the audience how woefully flawed the paper is including the conclusion.
Scientists don’t ignore all previous knowledge and it in general is why scientists make new discoveries after absorbing all the knowledge and discoveries of those that came before them, never ignoring it, even if they don’t agree with it.

You have had lots of opportunity to fix your errors and clear up unclear info as indicated. What would I ask in a call that you have not already ignored, not addressed or got wrong already?