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

The quoted author then says a 10Khz square wave is audio frequencies. That should be your first clue. The fundamental of the 10khz is audible , i.e. 10khz. All the harmonics are inaudible. A 10khz square wave does not represent real audio. It is shown sometimes to illustrate amplifier stability / damping but that's a different problem.

I would withdraw the white paper. It's based on a poorly written and technically weak paper to draw conclusions that are simply not remotely correct while including erroneous and irrelevant simulations, and other noted errors. Withdrawing it would be the most honorable thing to do.

We have measured a phenomenon and have postulated an explanation that has been peer-reviewed by two highly experienced electronic engineers who agree that the conclusions are correct.
You obviously disagree, so could you please explain why there is a difference in the error voltage, shown in fig 3, that correlates directly with the characteristic impedance of the cables?

"Highly experienced electronic engineers" ....

It is not a matter of whether I disagree or not. Anyone with a basic knowledge of transmission lines, knows that the speed of reflection is so fast, that the signal quickly settles to the final value, and since we are looking at frequencies of <=20Khz and lengths of 7 meters, the error is literally smaller than 1000db.

Let’s talk about your "figure 3". As I stated previously, your scale is not defined (which another noted above), so it is hard to properly interpret comparative results, especially since in addition, you have a 2db roll-off at 20Hz, which we don’t know if it is causes by amplifier saturation, measurement roll-off, amplifier roll-off, etc.


Let’s talk about other errors. Your impedance shown in Figure 2, dummy load does not match the circuit. The 330uH inductor is 2*pi*f*l at 20KHz = 41.4 ohms. That is in series with the 7.3 resistor putting a lower limit on impedance of 48.7 ohms. The 1.4mh in the other leg is almost an open circuit at 20KHz. Yet you show 8 ohms impedance at 20KHz. Gee .... what could be wrong here? Could it be that your model is missing the Zobel that is typically on amplifiers for stability. Was that actually in your load or not? Hard to make claims when even the most basic aspects of your article are wrong.


Your appendix has a column Cable Fig. 2, but figure 2 is the dummy load, and the numbers in this column don’t actually relate either the traces Figure 3, or Figures 4-10 as there is no way to correlate them. The one marked XXXX appear to the same cable in 6, 7, and 8 meter lengths (point of that was), but in the Cable Fig. 2 column, it is marked 5, 4, and 6 which has no meaning to anything else. And then another marked XXXX that is 10 meters but is a different cable. I don’t know who you had peer review this, but you should fire them. I am up to at least 4 glaring errors without even getting to the conclusion.


So as I said again, Figure 3 is explain by inductance -- measured with a proper inductance meter close to the actual frequency, and as necessary, also taking into account skin resistance.


Of course, to properly correlate anything to Figure 3., you would need to fix the measurement errors, define what the scale actually is, define the readings on the spectrum analyzer (rms? voltage average, peak), and provide accurate inductance and capacitance values for specific cables as they relate to figure 3, something you have not done at all.

However, as I have stated in my previous posts, using educated guesses, variances of 4-5db in the cable drop method you have used would be what happens between the inductances listed for the several different types.

audio2design235 posts11-21-2020 2:58pm

"Highly experienced electronic engineers". Actual engineers do not call themselves "electronic" engineers. They call themselves electrical engineers, perhaps electrical and electronic engineers. Please feel free to share the names and education and work qualifications of those that peer reviewed it.

If you're going to request this information, then it's only fair that you provide the same.

I had actually taken that out shortly after I wrote that Cleeds as I wanted to save them embarrassment after I tried to simulate the results in figure 3 and found more and more critical and fundamental errors in the paper.  I know it was not fully reviewed by engineers with the qualifications to analyze it.

However, I have my Bachelor's (EE) from Cornell before working in the recording industry for a major equipment manufacturer, before I left to start my own company supplying custom tools and services for equipment calibration and maintenance to the industry, that I sold before going back and doing a Master's (EE) and starting my PhD at Berkeley. Never finished that because I ended up running a group developing professional audio equipment for the recording industry. They were happy with their niche, I wanted to grow, so I put together a team that worked on software plug-ins and hardware that we eventually sold to a competitor. Since then been dabbling with a number of companies across a range of tech.  In other words, yes, I actually do have a clue what I am talking about, but that is probably evident from me picking up easily things like incorrect speaker models, simulations that can't possibly match actual transmission line effects, quick estimation of cable losses, and all the other errors in the paper.