most overpriced but popular speakers? (1 Viewer)

[Brett DiMichele]

I am not arguing with the "blind faith" cable guys here..
I teeter on what I believe in cables. I work with an EE who
has spend half of his life working for Royal Phillips and
the other half as our cheif telecomm go to and considering
we run thousands of servers and millions of feet of cat-5
I take what he says very seriously. We have discussed ad
nauseum about cables for audio equipment and he gets quite
a laugh out of the hype in the consumer audio cable world.
I never said cables don't make a difference. I know certain
cables will make a difference, for example a high strand
count pure copper cable will exhibit less skin effect than
a solid core conductor of the same guage and purity. Like
wise a 12 twist per inch will evoke Common Noise Mode
Rejection into any cable.. I also understand Capacitance
and Inductance of wires (lower one, raise the other.. No
way around it..)
A good wire WILL outperform a cheap wire.. But a "Good" wire
does not have to cost $10K per meter either.. You are paying
for unobtanium at those prices no matter what anyone says..
Even a $500.00 per meter cable is horrendously overpriced.
You can go to eBay and buy yourself some 20Awg Mill Spec
Pure Silver Litz and some Teflon Tube and make your own
"High End" wires.. Hell you can even 12 per inch braid them
if your heart so desires...
Why can't some of you admit you are paying for #1 Name and
#2 Packaging.. Not "high" manufacturing costs.
Don't bother "debating" with me on this anymore because I
really don't care what you believe in.. I have my own cable
belief system and it works for me..
My "junk" pre and tube amps sound just fine on 12Awg 999.999
OFC and I didn't pay for someone's fancy terminology or nice
wooden cases with red ribbons and white gloves.
Again... These are all toys... Nothing more.. There are
certainly more pressing issues to discuss

 

[Mike Wladyka]

Edwin C,

"most of all, the 2nd law of thermodynamics - entropy - wouldn't exist."

i'll jump in on this...unfortunately, you made a typo here...hopefully you realize this. But the second law of thermodynamics is actually about ENTHALPY not entropy (that is the third law...this is actually a common mistake). Anyway, i can easily see the argument that you make and you are right about the scientifics.

Mike

 

[Edwin_C]

actually, the first law is about enthalpy, not the 2nd. the 2nd is about entropy and the 3rd is about gibbs free energy.

brett - yea you can get a good wire for cheap, but it wouldn't be the best. if you want the best, money isn't an object.

and when it comes to highly priced equipment.. yea, you are paying a lot for name but you're mostly paying for failed research.

Don't bother "debating" with me on this anymore because I
really don't care what you believe in.. I have my own cable
belief system and it works for me.

if you don't care what i believe in, then why would you bother trying to change my view?

"cable belief system" hahahah... that's classic. it's not religion.

 

[Mike Wladyka]

Edwin C,

Oh so you are physics major...the first law is encompasses translational, kinetic, and potential energy, heat, and work energies...this is only applied to closed systems and is mechanical in nature...the second law brings in the enthalpy (internal energy of a material), and is used for processes containing chemical reactions...although heat and deltaH (enthalpy) are related they are not the same...therefore the second law deals with enthalpy...and the third is about entropy, which is related to gibbs free energy along with enthalpy and temperature...

this info is from "Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics" by Smith, Van Ness, Abbott. published McGraw-Hill

 

[Jonathan_E]

I have a physics book in my lap at this moment: "Physics, 4th edition, Vol 1" By Resnick/Halliday/Krane, Published in 1992. (No need to mention that this is one of the most widely used physics books)

Second law of thermodynamics -
"In any thermodynamic process that proceeds from one equilibrium state to another, the entropy of the system + environment either remains unchanged or increases."

This is a direct quote from page 585. So, the second law is about entropy, not enthalpy.

So, I must agree with Edwin on this point. I do not however, agree with Edwin on the whole speaker cable debate. I think that cables can be extremely over priced, but if he believes he can detect a .1 db change, then to each his own. As for me, going through school to be an electrical engineer and after doing an internship where I saw what an acceptable variance in equipment can be, I think there are other matters that require more attention than speaker cables.

-Jonathan

 

[Brett DiMichele]

Edwin,
I would never try to change your view.. I don't really
care what your view is to be honest.. Cable believers or
disbelievers there is room enough for either in the world.
And I beg to differ, it is a religion.. You claim to hear
audible differences that are barely measureable with test
equipment far more sensitive than your ears.. That's what
I call faith! (Certainly not Science, Your ears are not
as accurate as a precision measurement tool)..
To each his or her own!

 

[Mike Wladyka]

Yeah i have those books too, only i have the newer versions by halladay, resnick, and walker (walker, was my physics prof.)...that is why i asked if he was a physics major...see there is always a debate about this topic in pretty much all colleges of engineering and colleges of physics...i saw that he wanted to debate and me being an engineer, i could not resist because i figured edwin c was a physics major...i was just trying to have some fun (as i like to debate also)...it is pretty much all in the wording of the laws, physics majors/books word it one way, while engineers/thermo books word it the other. I actually had to prove the different wording actually meant the same thing on one of my thermo tests...No hard feelings edwin_c...we were both saying the same thing.

it is just kinda of an ongoing arguement between physics and engineers b/c physics thinks it "owns" thermo and so do engineers...

 

[Edwin_C]

the first law doesn't apply only to closed systems, it's the nature in which we understand the universe. it states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. it's the basis for all physics and chemistry.

the second law brings in enthalpy but is related to entropy. the second law states that in all natural processes, everything moves so to minimize potential (maximize entropy). so basically, you can't get order from disorder naturally. this applies to everything in nature. this is the reason why the big bang theory can't be true.
dS = dQ / T

the third law states that the enthalpy of a perfect crystalline at absolute zero, is zero. this gave way to the equation: dG = dH - TdS. this law isn't related to gibbs free energy, it defines gibbs free energy.

jonathan - i would never spend the money that people do on the best speaker wires. i'm satisfied with what i have, i see no point in it.. but if money wasn't an issue, i would go for the best. this whole debate was about the fact that the best speaker wires are the best for a reason.

mike - biomedical engineer

 

[Kevin Farley]

Westlake Audio and most other "professional" monitors

[SOAPBOX MODE ON]

Monitors are not loudspeakers.
(repeat 3 times)

I've had lectures with Bruce Swedien, who, with 8 Grammy nominations for best recorded album, and a win for Thriller (Michael Jackson), I would say he knows a thing or 2 about sound. He won't work with anything but Westlake Audio monitors.

Loudspeakers are designed to fill a room with sweet sound, and bring the enjoyment of music to you.

Monitors are designed to display the sound coming through them, either from microphone, mixing console, or tape, with maximum accuracy of signal. They're not designed to sound "good", just accurate. Just the facts, ma'am. In addition, they have a specific designed placement range of listening. Near field monitors are designed to be heard at a specific short distance from the ear. They're a professional system that allows the engineer to know what is being recorded. Some monitors (the Yamaha NS-10 in particular) have certain deficiencies that would make them very bad loudspeakers. However, what's been discovered is that if you mix an album to sound "good" on the NS-10's, it will probably sound good on any loudspeaker system. That's why you will find them in 99.97% of recording studios.

Westlake Audio monitors are very highly regarded in the industry for being of excellent quality. However, using them as home loudspeakers will have certain caveats. Bulldozers don't make good sports cars. If you use them and enjoy them, great! But it's not fair to "compare" them to loudspeakers and quibble about cost. (Gee, this bulldozer must suck if it doesn't do 130.)

[SOAPBOX MODE OFF]

Peace!

 

[Mike Wladyka]

Ok, so want to continue the debate...

i can see your arguement, but it is still from a physics major and not from a engineering perspective...so basically you are going to be way more theoretical about entropy being in the second law, whereas the engineer takes the original equation and manipulates it to suit the actual needs for solving the problem, and once the engineer solves the problem, he uses the knowledge from the derivation of the orginal equation for future use and rarely revisits the original equation, hence the difference in physics books compared to thermodynamics books, and also the different intrepretations of the laws of thermodynamics...

Edwin C you will always have the edge on me, in the theoretical physics and the reasons for the laws...but i believe that the thermodynamics taught to me by thermo PHD's, is the correct engineering intrepretation, and after 5 years of using the "realistic/engineering thermodynamics", as opposed to "theoretical/physics thermodynamics" that both are correct, but suited to different ends.

Your intrepretation will always be different from mine, and they will not probably change much...

but if you want to continue the debate, let me know and i will open a new thread in a different section, since this doesn't apply to any of the overpriced speakers...

which has more leverage to the readers...info from a book on entirely thermo or a book on physics?

PS - not a biomedical engineer

 

[Edwin_C]

yea, open up a new thread. i won't be able to get to it till later on in the day, after i get off work.

 

[Mike Wladyka]

ok new thread opened, it is in the other distractions--after hours lounge titled Thermodynamics Engineer vs. Physics

I would have posted a link, but i am not able since i am relatively new here

 

[Steve_D]

Speaker cables do make a difference for music. I have heard it in my system. I did not want to hear it in my system. My bias was against speaker wires differences, but they are there. In my case, going from Monster 12GA to DH Labs Silver, $20 to $50 per cable, so I didn't go ballistic.

Anyone that wants to add to the debate should get some decent quality cables, like the Monster, and A/B them with their own music in their own system, with another higher end cable. Simply report back on whether or not you can hear a difference, and if so, which you prefer. It's entirely possible the difference could be less well liked!

I do not know if analog interconnects make a difference. I suspect they do, I haven't played with them much yet.

 

[Frank_S]

And I beg to differ, it is a religion.. You claim to hear audible differences that are barely measureable with test equipment far more sensitive than your ears.. That's what I call faith! (Certainly not Science, Your ears are not as accurate as a precision measurement tool)..

Brett, is there a scientific measuring tool out there that can measure soundstage, soundstage depth, et all.?

 

[Jonathan_E]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the soundstage is an attribute of a particular speaker. A better cable may improve frequency response, but given any source, the soundstage will be the same because the soundstage is dependent on the design of the speaker, not the source signal. So using low-end wire vs. high-end wire won't effect the soundstage, but may improve other attributes of the sound.

 

[Frank_S]

A better cable may improve frequency response, but given any source, the soundstage will be the same because the soundstage is dependent on the design of the speaker, not the source signal.

The "given any source" statement is completely inaccurate.
Saying that the soundstage has nothing to do with the source signal is also debatable.
Finally, you contradicted everything you said by mentioning, "A better cable may improve frequency response"This will affect soundstage, no?
I still would like to hear from the scientists regarding the "soundstage" measurement instrument.

 

[Jonathan_E]

Frank -

To my knowledge, a frequency response is how accurate a speaker can reproduce a specific frequency and how much distortion will be present when reproducing that frequency.

The soundstage is the geometry of how the speaker projects the sound. I.E. does the speaker have a very narrow soundstage the requires the speakers to be pointed at you to get the best sound, or do they have a very spatious soundstage that fills a room. Since the soundstage is a geometry factor related to how a speaker is designed, I don't see how a better cable could effect the geometry of the projected sound.

I know that a better wire can carry a more pure signal that will be reproduced more accurately by the speaker, but how will a cleaner and non-distorted signal effect how the sound waves disperse from a speaker?

Again, I could be completely off here, but this is how I understand it and I would also like to hear from someone who may have a better understanding of this. I haven't taken a class yet that has discussed wave propagation yet, but that should be coming up this next semester.

-Jonathan

 

[Michael R Price]

Apparently the speaker cable causes not only aberrations in frequency response, but nonlinear distortions that could add up to something noticeable. *Could* being the key word, here...

I would guess the soundstage is dependent on the speaker baffle and dispersion characteristics... but more so on the signal you feed it. It depends how the music's recorded and how well your system reproduces it. Some CDs have a big solid upfront soundstage from and some have a more precise and 3-D feel to them (as in, "I can pick out the percussion arrangement back there.") The way we perceive the size and location of sounds depends on the way the signal was manipulated... both in the recording chain, and our playback chain. A better amplifier made my soundstage a bit better ("larger", "clearer"), so I imagine cables could have similar if much smaller efrect.

 

[Brett DiMichele]

Frank,
Of course you can measure Sound Stage, You need the new,
pattented Sound-StageO-Meter from Unreality Inc. It's not
cheap but it measures in real time, Hight, Width and Depth
of the stage as well as what the stage was made from (ply
wood or composites, etc..)
DH Labs Silver cables Vs. Monster Cable.. Correct me if I
am wrong but isn't the DH Silver a silver coated copper
conductor? Of course it would measure different, hey it may
even sound different ( I won't confirm nor deny this..)
I would say a silver tinned or solid silver cable if any is
going to impart a sonic charecteristic, would.. It's a real
measureable change over copper.
I also believe Capacitance and Inductance can effect the
cable these are measureable and undenyable forces.. But
the question is, are they audible? The ear just isn't as
sensitive as some people would like you to belive it is.

 

[Frank_S]

The ear just isn't as sensitive as some people would like you to belive it is.

You may have a point there. Screw it, I'm selling all my gear and buying a Bose acousta-mess system.