Speaker wire - does it matter?

Not a problem, I've endured far worse.



You're probably not going to like this, but wire really is that simple. It's easy to prove with both listening tests and physical measurements how a wire does (or does not) change the audio passing through it. It's also easy to prove that people will report hearing a difference even when hearing the exact same material. So we know for certain what wire does, and we know for certain that ears are not as reliable as we wish.

I'll also address the idea that there may be more to what a wire affects than is currently known. The proof is the null test. Nulling has been around since the 1940s, and if there really were some as-yet unknown aspect of electronics or fidelity, it would have been revealed years ago.

--Ethan

Ethan, i agree with you 100%, just to play the devils advocate, do you think there could be a capacitive storage that may occur in a 00 awg power cord, when placed at the end of some 14 gauge romex, and in front of a piece of gear that doesn't draw a lot of current? Maybe allowing for a better transient response for said piece of gear?


( 8Dhe continues to beat this poor dead horse further as he says...)
I think this "could?" be possible?, but would point to an inferior circuit and psu design on said piece of gear IMO

Thanx
T


 

OK.
Very interesting discussion, and i must admit, i waited for Ethan to chime in here.

One thing that striked me, was LesC mentioning physics that is 'not known' or 'not known well enough' - and especially he made a vague comparison to *quantum physics*.

Whenever i read quantum physics all alarm bells ring in my head.
This is in 99,9% an argument that leads to an esoteric conclusion. This is a fact. No matter what has to be sold, devices that magically clean up water, suck water from walls, cure illnesses, and yes, audiophile products.
In 99.9% quantum physics is simply not applyable. That's it. To claim it is, is just possible, because the average buyer knows nothing or not enough about it. But it really sounds scientific. But it's definitely NOT.
Well, i just studied quite a few semesters of physics and electrotechnics, but was enthusiastic about atom physics, and almost never anyone claiming his product works because of quantum physics ever explained it in any scientific way.
It is nowadays even more like:
"Well, see, quantum physics is very strange. There happens stuff you don't understand. And therefore, my product works just this way, your logic won't work here." (Don't try to understand it logically, because it is incomprehensible like quantum physics...)

Just wanted to mention this, no offenses against anyone intended.
Sometimes it is very cleverly introduced, just like "don't trust science generally, it failed too often". But Newton did not fail, Einstein did not fail, and Planck did not fail. Each of them just found a model of the world that fits a wider scope than known before....
Audio Analyzers CAN be more precise than the human ear. I think this is a fact.
So i totally second wiz.....

Best regards and with all respect,
Martin

:-)
Ahh,
ok. Quantum tunneling was actually observed = measured (not by the psychically affectable human senses!) in 1897 already, it just could not be explained then, in the twenties there was further work on it and the effects were already in use, 34 the FET was actually built.
No mystery in this... ;-)

I do think, the mysteries of audio engineering as of today ly in the field of psychoacoustics, the perception in its physiological and psychological components. Not in the field of physical acoustics in itself...
Maybe my last 2 cent, the horse looks pretty dead already. Guess we already hacksaw it....;-)
But well, fun nevertheless...

Best regards,
Martin

(Side note: Recently, in germany they found horse meat in deep-frozen supermarket lasagne. I guess all our dead horses have to go somewhere....)

Yes.
It's a pretty interesting point, that you mention about Penrose.
I once read an article by a linguist who found syntactic affinities of early chinese literature to mathematical descriptions of quantum theory, assuming nearly the same, that the abstract thinking in terms of quantum physics may be immanent to the human beeing since the beginning.......
Nothing to apologize really, i really appreciate the polite and respectful nature of discussion we can have at this place as well.
:-)

Again, I honestly don't have the time to get into a full on debate, just enough to offer a different point of view. There is just as much evidence to the contrary that there are differences in various brands of speaker wires. Just try it, don't make your mind up because someone says so, try it for yourself. Blind tests have huge biases too. Important differences can become apparent over time, and then, because you can now notice them, you can choose to your taste. I currently don't use really expensive speaker wires. I use Tributaries wire. It costs maybe 3X as much as Monster or Radio Shack wire, if memory serves. So, for an extra, I'm guessing, $80, I'm much more satisfied.

Her's an important difference I experienced. With the Monster and Radio Shack wire, there was a favorite Tom Waits song I used to listen to. I could never understand a few key words, but I figured , well, it's Tom Waits, whadda you expect. I changed to the Tributaries, and the words were perfectly clear now, intelligibility was obviously much improved. On another tune, I had assumed the bass was a synth, when I changed to the Tributaries, it was plain to hear it was a real bass, bass was now tuneful and again, much improved. That's a huge difference to me. I know, you'll give me a half dozen reasons why I'm mistaken. Well, that where I beg to differ. I hear what I hear, and I've made a living doing it full time for 40 years, trusting my judgement about things like this.

Again, for goodness sake, if you're curious, stop typing and buy a new outlet, ( I recommend you start with the PS Audio), or speaker cable, interconnect, try it in your home or studio, give it a couple of days, and THEN tell me what you hear, not what you believe.

I've A/B'd many things in my years... after 25 years or so of doing this my listening skills are better than ever. Just a few months ago I A/B'd several A/D convertor clocks. After repeat listening over several different days, I concluded that one particular A/D clock was the clear winner over another. Then a friend did a null test on the two I was comparing and it ALL cancelled out! Haha... point being, I *thought* I heard something that wasn't really there. The mind is a tricky thing. The null test is pretty dang irrefutable to me.

Just for fun, yesterday I compared the output of a Dangerous D/A to an RME UFX D/A. I have the UFX AES/EBU connected to the Dangerous Source using high-quality cable, which is my normal monitoring setup. And I ran some crappy cable I had lying around from one of the UFX D/A's to an analog-in on the Source. I level-matched the best I could, and tried three different monitors and 2 different headphones. I tried going back-and-forth for quite a while, hoping that I could detect an improvement with the vaunted Dangerous D/A. No matter what I did, I could not hear any difference whatsoever. I was definitely biased to hear a difference and I couldn't.

I hesitated to write this, because given the difference in reputation between Dangerous and RME, it's a bit embarrassing that I can't hear a difference. If I wrote this at GS, the thread would be inundated with people proclaiming that there is a night-and-day difference, and that I must be an idiot with no ears and I should take up another hobby. Maybe they would be right.

I certainly don't regret the purchase of the Source anyway, because I wanted to be able to switch between three sets of monitors with high-quality switches and volume controls. For the price, Dangerous is almost giving away two D/A's. And I will continue to use the Dangerous D/A into the Burl A/D for mix bus processing. Just because I can't hear a difference, doesn't mean there isn't one. Maybe one day I will try a step-up from the Dangerous, possibly a Burl D/A. In the meantime, my opinion of the UFX has risen.