Why on earth do speaker wires sound different?

[Beef Oven]

I've never been convinced by that arguments about speaker cables transforming or destroying 'hi-fidelity' can be resolved, since the sound that pleases is subjective. My neighbour's ancient Dynatron radiogram sounds awful to me but he listens enchanted to R3 and frequently asks me to admire 'the tone'. Its the music really ain't it.

Yes, it is the music, but there is a difference that can be heard by, for example, changing bell-wire for a reasonable, moderately priced speaker cable. Although 9/10ths of hi-fi spiel is placebo, some of it is valid. It's about knowing when to stop and get on with the listening.

[Nevalti]

I've never been convinced by that arguments about speaker cables transforming or destroying 'hi-fidelity' can be resolved, since the sound that pleases is subjective. My neighbour's ancient Dynatron radiogram sounds awful to me but he listens enchanted to R3 and frequently asks me to admire 'the tone'. Its the music really ain't it.

If his, to you, sounds "awful", you presumably think yours sounds 'better'. If yours sounds 'better' could it not be that something else would sound even 'betterer'? What is the ceiling to quality?

If it is just the music why do we listen on a hifi system rather than on a little tranny?

[Gordon]

Reply to #43: Thanks! Sorry if I confused - if there is a ? after a sentence I mean a question and usually it is rhetorical unless context clearly denotes otherwise.

Some brief comments: early CD was flawed both in mastering and in playback machines and the marketing people did it no favours - the "perfect" label was more about the convenience of use, compactness and freedom from clicks, swings, warps and pops of LP. I was all for CD when it came out because I had become so intolerant of bad LP pressings. I don't want to start a vinyl argument here.

I raised the soundstage etc point because of the vagueness [from an engineer's persective] of some the subjectivist terms. What are the factors that influence a credible soundstage? [rhetorical question]. The reproduction system does not have control of all of those factors. If the mics are set up badly no amount of faffing with the repro system will mend it.

Another word I might have added is "synergy" in relation to system. What does that mean? [rhetorical again].

The illusion needs to be good enough and no more but it seems that some people have in their minds - they were never at the venue so how do they know, and where would they have stood to listen anyway so which of many soundstages are they aiming at - some "super-real" idea of what it should sound like. How do you know the sound wasn't actually muted in the acoustic - or is the engineer supposed to "distort" that acoustic reality in order to meet an unreal idea of HiFi? Another series of rhetoricals.

One could say that HiFi reproduction is an art informed by science and as such should be approached subjectively rather than objectively. Trouble is those that involve themselves in the art will insist on delving into the objective elements eg specs. A spec is a measure of potential set against a notional level of performance considered to be generally adequate; at a personal level "adequate" is not a universal.

[Phileas]

When CDs first appeared we were told how 'perfect' it was and that we could not possibly hear the discrete 'steps' in the digital wave form.

You might find it useful to know that there are no "discrete steps" in the "digital wave form". The original analogue waveform is recreated exactly from the digital samples (minus frequencies above about 20kHz, plus a bit of very low level random noise).

[Nevalti]

You might find it useful to know that there are no "discrete steps" in the "digital wave form". The original analogue waveform is recreated exactly from the digital samples (minus frequencies above about 20kHz, plus a bit of very low level random noise).

Interesting! Are you saying that CD really is 'perfect'? Is there any point in ever trying to do better? SACD, HiRes etc?

What is the drawback to CD sound?

[Gordon]

Interesting! Are you saying that CD really is 'perfect'? Is there any point in ever trying to do better? SACD, HiRes etc?

What is the drawback to CD sound?

Phileas is quite correct about CD and how it works. Perfection is in the mind of the observer. Most non audiphiles are happy with CD and those that listen on headphones are more concerned about compressed formats.

The drawback of CD according to some, its limited sampling rate that constrains its bandwidth to about 20 kHz and the limited bit depth that constrains its S/N or dynamic range however you want to express it to something around 100+ dB. It uses linear PCM of course which SACD advocates think is not as good as DSD. Without going into detail [I think we've had a thread on it before] there is an argument that says that DSD can follow the waveform better but this argument depends on adequate engineering to implement it.

Audiophiles prefer that a PCM system samples at 96 or 192 kHz and has a bit depth of 24 bits. What they think there is in those extra bits and samples I don't know but I think it's to do with details, subtleties, shades of this and that etc. I can't hear any significant differences between CD and SACD versions of the same music. In mastering studios I would agree that starting higher gives headroom for all the post processing that is done before the final product is made so that the 16 bits of CD are real rather than 16 actual bits that only carry the information of say 13 or 14.

Why stop there? [rhetorical]. Why not even more bits and even higher sampling? Where technically does the true audiiphile slake his/her thirst fro perfection? I think I know the answer to that [no, not the pub]!!

Hi-REs [I assume you mean BBC R3 Streaming for example] is part of the world of compressed audio which starts with PCM anyway. Here we do get into dubious territory where application convenience tends to override quality and there is a vast range of choice of method/algorithm to do the compression. There is another thread here about that.

[Nevalti]

Phileas is quite correct about CD and how it works.

....The original analogue waveform is recreated exactly from the digital samples (minus frequencies above about 20kHz, plus a bit of very low level random noise).

OK I underlined 'exactly' just to make my question clear, but why then...

....there is an argument that says that DSD can follow the waveform better but this argument depends on adequate engineering to implement it

If "DSD can follow the waveform better", in what way is it "better" than CD if "The original waveform is recreated exactly" on a CD?

Perfection is in the mind of the observer.

Mmmmm. Not sure I agree with that but..... 'perfection', to me, is that which gives a convincing illusion of reality and is free from annoying 'errors', for want of a better word, that keep reminding me that I am only listening to reproduced sound. For pop music, which is virtually all electronically created, in one way or another, we can have little ideas what it originally sounded like so it is less important BUT a live concert should still sound like a live concert and not a sanitised one with the audience engineered out. I know... that is my opinion only; I am the observer in that instance. Going back a few posts however, IF we can measure everything that we hear, at a live performance, we could, theoretically, make a perfect reproduction of it. So maybe we do have an objective measure of perfection.

Audiophiles prefer that a PCM system samples at 96 or 192 kHz and has a bit depth of 24 bits.

Perhaps a bit of a generalisation. People sometimes call me an audiophile, I think it is some sort of insult, but the technology behind the sound is largely a mystery to me; I just love listening to music and I hate having it spoilt by distractions from the very system that I am using to listen to that music. I have tried some 96 & 192/24 downloads (which is actually what I meant by HiRes) and I could hear no obvious benefit. I did not buy and listen back to back with a 44.1/16 version of the same recording because I have read that the 24 bit and 16 bit versions are generally mastered differently. That renders a simple comparison rather meaningless. Maybe I can make my own down-sampled copy and try again some day.

Hi-REs [I assume you mean BBC R3 Streaming for example] is part of the world of compressed audio .....

No. The 320kbpsAAC R3 stream is obviously a huge step up from the dire offerings of DAB and the BBCs 128kbpsAAC streams but it is noticeably inferior to CD. At least the R3 stream is not actively annoying like most internet stations and DAB is.

[Gordon]

OK I underlined 'exactly' just to make my question clear, but why then...

If "DSD can follow the waveform better", in what way is it "better" than CD if "The original waveform is recreated exactly" on a CD?

Let’s deal with this bit first, we’ve been slighly loose with some of our statements.

Sampling Theory says that any waveform that is constrained to meet the Nyquist Criterion can be reconstructed exactly from a series of regular samples taken at an appropriate rate. That rate must be equal to or greater than the highest frequency component present in the signal. It follows from this that the signal MUST be bandlimited before the sampling to remove any components that would violate the rule. Hence this sampling system is inherently a bandlimited one. So far so good.

But for CD and any digital system we also perform another process to allocate a finite length digital code usually binary to each sample value to rcord its amplitude. That code quantises the amplitudes of all samples to 16 bit precision in CD and so the precision that the audio is restored to is not truly EXACT it is to within that 16 bit tolerance, 1 part in 65,000.

DSD uses a different approach but if the bandwidth of the signal it is given is bandlimited it is in theory not much better at waveform following than PCM again it has a tolerance but it can be smaller if engineered properly. Because DSD Samples at a much higher rate than CD it does not need to bandlimit audio and so it will follow an unfiltered waveform better.

Will respond on other matters later, got to rush, bar’s open.

[Phileas]

Here's a good article which covers a lot of stuff about PCM digital:

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[Dave2002]

I think radials are still allowed, most lighting circuits are radial; provided they are genuine ie taken directly from the consumer unit they avoid the main source of crud which is in the rings. You can take radial spurs off a ring but no more outlets than are already on the ring. If there are earth problems a rod is always helpful - provided you don't have to bore into concrete - but again that depends on earth conductivity in the soil!!! You may have to water the earth pins - but take great care!!!

I think one of the points about legality might have related to the professional qualifications of the poster. I have done wiring myself in the past, but I am not qualified to do much other than change a light bulb under current legislation. I'm not even sure if I can legally change a switched socket these days. I have one with 2 outlets, and the switch on one socket doesn't work. I have the replacement ready to go.

[MrGongGong]

I think one of the points about legality might have related to the professional qualifications of the poster. I have done wiring myself in the past, but I am not qualified to do much other than change a light bulb under current legislation. I'm not even sure if I can legally change a switched socket these days. I have one with 2 outlets, and the switch on one socket doesn't work. I have the replacement ready to go.

I think you can do that
and put a spur on a ring main
You probably need to have it inspected if you want to sell your house though !

[Dave2002]

100% agreed but I have no idea why and I was annoyed to find that it is actually worth spending my hard earned cash on better interconnects.

OK - the reason I can be certain they do make a difference is that once I was experimenting with speaker cables, and couldn't detect much difference. I also had one or two interconnects to swap. I had borrowed Colin Davis's set of Cosi fan Tutte (I think it was that one) with Baker and others, which was much praised from the library. I had listened to it before, and didn't actually like the recording too much. At one point there is a sound which could be of a glass being knocked over or broken. [This makes me wonder if in fact it was Marriage of Figaro with the flower pot incident ... ]
I had never noticed it before, but it sounded much more realistic with some of the replacement interconnects than the ones I had installed previously. That changed my opinion of the recording considerably. Some interconnects work much better with high frequencies clearly and can significantly improve the sound of some recordings which might otherwise sound dull. Presumably the converse is also possible - some could be used to deaden or downgrade the sound. I think the capacitance and cross talk characteristics of the interconnects can have effects.

[johnb]

I don't want to divert the thread into the minefield of interconnects but, as an aside, I had never found much difference between the (decent quality) interconnects I had tried until I was loaned a pair of Chord Chorus 2 a couple years ago. Even I could hear a marked difference with the Chorus 2, especially on the brass and cellos which had an extra brilliance and 'texture'. I suspect that whatever difference various interconnects make is very system dependant.

[MrGongGong]

What is 'texture' ?

[johnb]

What is 'texture' ?

I knew that word was going to boomerang back!

I couldn't think of the right term 'rasp' or something of that ilk is better. It was a couple of years ago but those there the things that stuck in my mind.