Davis, Fred E., "Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions", JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91
link to a download of the paper here http://blog.audioworkshop.org/cables-speakers-and-amplifiers/ - it's an interesting read.
another interesting read is here http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_spkr_cable.pdf
I've just read the first paper. which suggests that speaker cable construction has an effect on sound (as does the combination of cable and amplifier). He also appears to be a scientist who isn't trying to sell me anything.
Cambridge Audio StreamMagic 6 | 751BD | 651A | Diamond 9.1 | Minx Xi | Sonos Play:3
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com
I don't want to get involved in these endless debates on whether cables can or can't make a difference but I can't help but wonder why people keep referring to science? I'm a biologist which does not qualify me to comment either way in this debate however I have yet to see someone produce an article that has been published in a scientific journal supporting either side of the argument. Links to websites and things found on google are not credible in the world of science I'm afraid. I know some people are in engineering and I respect your views from that point of view but could other people stop referring to science unless they can produce published articles.
I agree. Too much Googling being passed off as 'science'.
The subject probably isn't important enough to warrant being published in a scientific journal. Are the tests referred to considered worthless and non-scientific because they haven't been published? What might you consider robustly scientific? What would you change?
in the academic/scientific world, unless you are published, people think that you are worthless. I've worked with enough professors and doctors to know that ego and reputation is a lot of the time more important to them than what they are actually doing. Hence one of the reasons Darwin held off so long from releasing the theory of evoloution origin of species thinggy. Shame really, if they all stopped EDITEDing at each other and actually got on with it, we'd probably have the flying car by now...
Of course speaker cable construction has an effect on sound.
I was in two minds about posting details of the paper. These things always get misinterpreted. It has to be read with a basic understanding of the engineering behind it.
What the paper says is cables that have different physical construction (multi conductor vs 'shotgun', and thick vs thin) have different electrical properties (resistance, capacitance and inductance) and this can effect the frequency response of an amplifier / cable / speaker combination. No surprise there.
What is doesn't say is that two cables of approximately the same construction and similar cross sectional area will sound any different - or that there is any secret sauce hidden in speaker cables.
I would also point out that even given the large differences in cables tested, the spread of frequency response was generally less than 1dB at 20KHz, which even if the posters on this forum could hear 20KHz (and the vast majority won't), will not be detectable.
Two interesting papers that support cables making a difference to performance. It would seem that different cables are suited to different applications which is quite contrary to the marketeers model that cables get 'better' the more you spend on them. Also interesting is in these papers are that the authors elude to cables having a synergy to the electronics being used, meaning most systems could differ in there cabling needs.
Arcam Alpha 9/9P amps and Alpha 9 CD all extensively modified by Fidelity Audio (level 3+), Acoustic Energy speakers, Fidelity Audio NNU X Reference Mains Filter, quality cables & interconnects, Sony AV.
And burn-in? Does construction change the more music is played?
I'm not a mettalurgist so don't know, but my view of the likelihood of it being the case is such that it's not something I concern myself with. I just plug and go.
(In other words, I think burn-in is b-llocks, but YMMV)
He could be entirely mistaken of course,
The second shows that signal can be lost along the cable, which is why you should use thick cables with low resitance.
These are MEASURED results, I'll take those over idiotic guesswork every day of the week. You can do what you like.
No signature worth mentioning...
succinct and to the point as usual
Sonos ZP90>Missing Link "Digit">Dacmagic>Chord Cadenza>Leema Tucana I>Van Damme UP LC-OFC>ATC SCM40s
Sonos Connect:Amp>Mission 760i and MA Radius 90HD in series
Sonos Play 5 x2, Play 3
No guesswork from me. No overly complex claptap about skin effect either. Skin effect and cable capacitance is only important at radio frequencies, and I'll warrant this "paper" was commissioned by a cable company.
... but unless you are under 5 years old, or swapping out bell flex for nice thick speaker cable, you won't be able to detect it.
So if a scientist who is not trying to sell us something says something you don't agree with, it must be because non-scientists who are trying to sell us something are making them say it?
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing