"Speaker Wire A History...." (1 Viewer)

[Chu Gai]

higher purity is not a result of extrusion. it results from raw material considerations and the method that it's handled. Fibonacci numerical series are nothing new. I looked at their website Lee...damn, doesn't it ring of something mystical, like Harry Potter or Stonehenge!
Lee, I was hoping that George was going to include some statistical listening tests!! Not even a white (advertising) paper to tell people his suggestion for a listening test!! I'm disappointed! The term cable resonance suggests that the cables have an inherrant vibrationI know you're a fan of Cardas and for those who wish to read the text version of the patent referenced earlier, they can click on the following link:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...1&f=G&l=50&s1='4,980,517'.WKU.&OS=PN/4,980,517&RS=PN/4,980,517
A big difference between power line transmissions and audio. Even if there is a reduction in 'vibration' (and we certainly don't know what kind of vibrations he's talking about, it remains to be heard if his manufacturing technique results in an audible improvement.
By the way, as George pointed out in his patent,

A typical golden ratio progression is 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597.

Referencing the wires gauges he used in his patent, 39, 37, and 32 awg we have the following information on those sizes:
conductor size 39 AWG
area 0.006 mm^2 (square-mm)
area 12.5 CM (circular mil)
diameter 3.5 mil
diameter 0.090 mm
DC-resistance 2.729 Ohm/m
conductor size 37 AWG
area 0.010 mm^2 (square-mm)
area 19.8 CM (circular mil)
diameter 4.5 mil
diameter 0.113 mm
DC-resistance 1.716 Ohm/m
conductor size 32 AWG
area 0.032 mm^2 (square-mm)
area 63.2 CM (circular mil)
diameter 8.0 mil
diameter 0.202 mm
DC-resistance 0.538 Ohm/m
Ratioing the areas we come up with the following ratios:
5.33:1.67:1
Now that doesn't look too much like a golden series does it? Damn, the Egyptians did a better job of hitting the numbers! I guess its not just horseshoes that close matter Of course Cardas could've used specially manufactured wire, but he's no fool considering that standard gauges are readily and economically available. Out of curiousity, what happens when you bend the wire and introduce physical and permanent distortion into the wire? Has the golden rule then been transformed to maybe the aluminum rule?
George has gone through all this trouble, and expense, for one simple reason. He's concerned that his measurements don't translate into a sonic difference and chooses not to conduct valid tests that can be independently verified. And to me, that's playing the science card when it suits him.
Hey Lee, bring up some of those damned fine Georgia peaches with you. I do like them.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Chu,
What's the problem here? Did the osci graphs not tell enough of a scientific story for you? It sure looked convincing to me.
Hello RicP? I need some backup here.
Maybe I can get George to join the forum and reply as to why the wire gauges don't seem to meet the perfect ratios. I do think the overall point is that bass frequencies travel on fatter wire on down to high frequencies that carry on small wire strands.
As for those Georgia peaches, I like them too. Unfortunately carrying beautiful young women across state line is against the law!
Lee

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Jim,

Here is another one of the ANY connector advances...

Quadeutectic solder which allows better connections by a better mix of solder ingredients!

Ha!

Lee

 

[RicP]

Hello RicP? I need some backup here.

Sorry Lee, I'm sitting this one out. Dr's Orders!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Darn Ric, just when I needed reinforcements!

Lee

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Lee wrote...

Cardas’ cable design incorporates patented, Golden Ratio, Constant Q, Cross-Field, pure copper Litz, conductor technology. Why should I use it? What will it do for my system?

Do you believe everything you read?

 

[Chu Gai]

Awwww, come on Lee. I never said wires can't measure different on test equipment. Nor do I have any issue with your owning those wires or any others. The issue is do any of those measured differences translate to an audible difference as well as a preferred difference.

George is putting the cart before the horse. Rather than conducting controlled listening tests that have statistical merit to establish both a difference and a preference, he opts for the scientific graphs. First comes the listening tests that proves he's got a superior product. Then we look at scientific data to look for a reason. I'm still waiting for Cardas' to reply to an email asking for clarification on listening tests.

When you leave the method of listening up to the individual you allow all sorts of variables and biases to enter into the equation.

Now his cables might measure better and maybe the alphacores measure better yet, but is it 'really' an audible difference?

I might not have read the patent thoroughly enough, but no where in the patent does he state his design results in an audibly superior product...its basically a patent of construction. Now maybe one can make infer the reason he does't make an audibility claim is because there is none...maybe not.

And when's the peach season over there? Damn I like biting into a fresh, ripe peach.

 

[John Sully]

Lee,

I took a look at the measurements you referenced. The square wave response was illustrative: it showed more ringing for the 12AWG wire, which could be expected given the higher inductance of the plain old wire and the rather substantial .4mf capacitance in the test circut. The ringing is indicative of reduced high frequency bandwidth, which is exactly what is to be expected given the substantial reactive component of the test load.

Personally, I can't tell what the pink noise or triangle wave charts are supposed to illustrate or the magnitude of the differences since the charts don't appear to have a link to larger versions which might allow us to read the scales.

I doubt very much that any of the cable non-believers here would argue with the fact that series inductance can affect the frequency response of the amplifier/loudspeaker interface given a highly reactive load. Whether the measured differnce between the Cardas cables and zip cord is audible in the presented (worst case, by Cardas own admission) load or in a more "friendly" load remains to be demonstrated.

 

[Philip Hamm]

speaking to the subtopic of soundstage, how would you define that....subjectively speaking of course.

Well, I can tell you what I heard in my wire test a couple weekd ago (look for Tan's post).

On the Alan Parsons Project disc, at the intro of track 3 "Some Other Place" there is a synth line that is recorded with phase characteristics that make it seem to float around the room with a properly set up stereo system.

Using my regular AudioQuest cables (not high end at all, something like $35 turqoise in color about 3 years old) I could hear the synth line surrounding me, filling the room. There were a couple notes that responded particularly in my room those were a little more pronounced.

Using the megacheap cables that came with some compnent (the worst looking cables I could find from a big box full of them), the synth line was much more confined to the stereo speakers. The notes that were a little more pronounced using the AudioQuest cables stood out very loudly, but the rest of the line did not have the "floating around the room" imaging that the AudioQuest did.

This was using the same DVD player for the 96/24 DAD, my Technics DVD-A10, with both sets of outputs hooked into my pre/pro (Sherwood 9080) in stereo TONE DIRECT mode on both inputs. The effect was noticable to me (but could very well have been in my head, I'll admit that!).

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Jim,
You are using flawed logic again. :frowning:
You never said that any connector advance had to be used by EVERY high end cable manufacturer - you said ANY and I gave you two good examples. The fact that Audioquest has has a different method is Example #3!
The purity of many cables has gone up as well. Extrusion does in fact matter because it allows us to work with more and thinner types of material.
Your last question was a rhetorical question Cardas posed to his reader so it is irrelevant.
Chu,
George does conduct listening tests with his own ears. He and I have talked about his tests a while ago. He uses vinyl as a source at times. But because he knows from first hand experience that cables sound different he does not feel a need to create a bullet-proof scientific test if one can in fact create one. He sells to audiophiles and sound engineers who believe in the sonic differences because they have heard it for themselves.
Chu, as far as the patent goes, it was correctly referenced in Cardas literature as related to the Golden ratio. The government does not have the technical skills to make judgment about audible differences in patented circuit design and whatnot, so it is no surprise the patent does not reference this.
John,
I think the charts speak for themselves. Is it too hard to believe that these different measurements lead to audible differences? NO, of course not.
In any event, why don't the three of you buy some Cardas cable and see how it sounds in your system.
Lee

 

[Jim A. Banville]

You never said that any connector advance had to be used by EVERY high end cable manufacturer - you said ANY and I gave you two good examples. The fact that Audioquest has has a different method is Example #3!

And my logic is flawed? Oh my God! My "logic" is that if something were a TRUE advancment and not just a CHANGE, then other manufacturers would HAVE to use it or be considered obsolete because the ADVANCEMENT would be a REAL IMPROVEMENT that could be observed in an OBJECTIVE COMPARISON! Was fuel injection an advancment over carbuerators? YES! Were radial tires an advancment over bias-ply? YES! Were lap-and-shoulder seatbelts an advancement over simply lap-belts? YES! So, I assume if Meguiar's said that if you polish your car with their wax in a cerrain "new" pattern vs. the way all the other manufacturers suggest, that your car would perform better, you'd do it, huh? Would that be an advancenent in automtive wax technology? Using your logic, simply adding some new "special" ingredient that can't be proven to make the wax "better" than any other wax in a side-by-side comparison would be an advancment?! What if Eureka said that their vacuum cleaner would work better if you vacuumed from north to south vs. east to west? Would that be an advancement in vacuum technology? What if Eureka said they used silver wire vs. copper in the vacuum's "new" motor which made it run "smoother", you'd consider that an advancement? Even when in blind side-by-side comparisons, people couldn't tell the performance of the old motor vs. the new motor? PULEEZZZ! Cable makers can make all the claims they care to, but if the end result of these "changes" can't be observed in a blind test, then the "changes" are NOT an advancent. They are simply that, a CHANGE. Sorry bud... you lose

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Jim you said:

Please name a connector that exists today that din't exist in 1990. Or point out how ANY connector has had its quality improved. Content and size affect a cable's ability to carry an electrical signal unimpeded, not how it was extruded (unless you beleive everything you read from the "high-end" cable makers).

I did name two advances. You added the Audioquest connector.
This point does not bring up the subject of audible differences!
That is a separate point that we have debated ad-infinitum and will only be solved as believers and non-believers continue to play with cable substitutions and hear for themselves.
The analogies in your post are not useful in my opinion. The audio world is its own animal.
Lee

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Quote:

Yeah That's what the high-end cable makers want you to believe. Looks like they got you - lock,stock and barrel :frowning:

 

[RicP]

Jim, you have truly mastered the art of backpedaling. You asked for something very specific, Lee gave it to you. Now suddenly it's not good enough. How long do you plan to continue this?

Can you PROVE that the Cardas plug is an improvment over older designs?

Here's a better question. Can you prove they're not? You asked for "advancements", Lee gave you 2 and you added another. Why don't you actually do something more than be contrarian and actually do some leg work yourself? I look forward to seeing your proof that the Cardas plug is not an improvement.
Did a Speaker Wire kill your Dog or something? Is that why you have this manic obsession?

 

[Bob McElfresh]

Guys -
You were doing great with this thread keeping it about the reports/technology.
These threads go south when people start attacking/challenging each others post.
Strong Suggestion: When you reply, remove the word "You" from all sentences. Then remove the sentence if it no longer makes sense.
I'm not trying to stop honest discussion or disagreement. But I will close the thread if it becomes another head-butting contest.
Examples of challenges that will get this thread closed:
...your post are not useful in my opinion
...you can cite xxx but can you..
Using your logic...
Please, keep this about what You know/feel/found, and not try and dominate/critize/challenge each other.
Note: Putting smilies after insults or put-downs does not remove the sting.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Whatever happened to the original topic?

 

[Phil A]

Jim, the competitive nature of the audio industry makes it imperative for people to produce better products than their competitors. Just like any other industry, research (e.g. pharmaceutical, robotics) and development occurs. When some of the earlier tests were performed in the article cited, PCs were prototypes and in the later tests they were basically just starting to become main stream in the home and not any where near the technology we have today to do things. Products engineered in the old days whether they were audio or other products did not have the level of tools that we have today and we will even have more in the future. If we all did whatever our ancestors did, we would still be living in caves. Think how difficult that would be to have this debate. You would have to chisel your reply as to why a rock does not sound better than another. Arguing for such old data is like telling Columbus in 1505 that don't sail around the world in 1492 since the world is flat and you will fall off. Getting back to HT, they just indicated they now believe that T-Rex could not run contrary to a few years ago when Jurassic Park was out. Computer models of the animals physiology and more sophisticated computers and programs allowed this fact to be brought to light. The article lacked enough detail to come to any reasonable conclusion, let alone the time it was based on.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Jim, the competitive nature of the audio industry makes it imperative for people to produce better products than their competitors.

Fine, but some things can't be "improved" upon, such as an "adequate" audio interconnect or speaker wire. When I say "improved", I mean that whatever you do to it, it must perform better, i.e., "sound better". Coat it, stretch it, twist it, whatever. Someone can attach some long "white paper" on why the latest and greatest cable sounds superior, but if people can't HEAR an "improvement" in a blind test, its a bunch of hot air :frowning: If I make an interconnect out of solid wood and claim that it is the latest and greatest advancement in cables, is the impetus on me to PROVE it or on everyone else to PROVE that it isn't? Seems like a simple question, but some people would have us believe every word uttered by the cable guru's :frowning: All anyone in this thread has done is point out NEW claims, NEW materials and NEW designs. Have any of them been ADVANCEMENTS (a.k.a. IMPROVEMENTS)? Nope. The "best" quality cables made today aren't any better than the "best" quality cables made in 1990. Are pencils better today than they were 20 years ago?
Now, why do I create and respond to threads about cables? I could ask the same question to those who are always harping on Bose speakers or OAR. Some things you could care less about, some things you strongly agree with and others you strongly disagree with, simple as that.
My question is why someone who posts his opinion (which is contrary to mine) numerous times in the same "cable" threads wouldn't consider himself "obsessed", but yet thinks I am. Odd, indeed. It reminds me of that silly Phil Hindry (sp?) radio show I listened to the other night. He was acting like a guy looking out for child molesters in the park. How was he doing it? By looking up little girls' skirts to note their underwear color/style in case he were to later find it was missing. He was performing a perverted act in order to keep another guy from commiting a perverted act, but he couldn't comprehend it!

 

[Kenny Booth]

Lee,

I'm from Ga. myself and I've never heard anyone around here use so many big words. I'm impressed!

 

[RicP]

My question is why someone who posts his opinion (which is contrary to mine) numerous times in the same "cable" threads wouldn't consider himself "obsessed", but yet thinks I am. Odd, indeed. It reminds me of that silly Phil Hindry (sp?) radio show I listened to the other night. He was acting like a guy looking out for child molesters in the park. How was he doing it? By looking up little girls' skirts to note their underwear color/style in case he were to later find it was missing. He was performing a perverted act in order to keep another guy from commiting a perverted act, but he couldn't comprehend it!

You've certainly stooped to a new low here Jim. I will no longer perpetuate this ridiculousness.
If anybody wants to discuss things intelligently, let me know. :rolleyes