Why on earth do speaker wires sound different?

[KipperKid]

Or, as Julie Walters put it so memorably in the film Personal Services ......... BCSD

Had no idea your Volvo was one of those huge 4X4s

[jayne lee wilson]

Pity the sceptics always effortlessly assume the high moral, or cognitive ground. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries were doubtless preceded by someone saying, stop speculating on such nonsense, etc.

No question we can do more than our conscious senses allow us to think we can... (ABX comparisons belittle our unconscious and cognitive abilities to LEARN).

Late at night I settle down to listen. My cat settles too, with a sigh - (head on floor between paws, OK, THIS will take some time...) - at some point, her head goes up, ears too, towards the hall and kitchen. I haven't heard anything. She's infallibly right - usually a neighbour's rogue b/w cat has tried to come in through the flap to steal her food. Or the milk arrived.
As these occasions increased, I realised that, some of the time, I HAD in fact heard the sound too. But it was only when Mizzy reacted that I realised I had.
Think of the implications for listening, hifi etc. Often you're uneasy, or seduced, tense or relaxed, but can't really say why. You FEEL it, but could you measure it? I simply don't know, but mentions of measurable-but-inaudible 0.2 db gains don't prove a thing, and water in your ears would render the demerits of cheap cables as imperceptible as the benefits of costly ones.

Phileas - a dealer visits you. PLays you a new active system, using a Haydn Minuet you 're familiar with. It sounds a bit better to you in all the ways that matter. The dealer says, that's it, 5 minutes, time's up, d'you want them or not? Would you buy them - or would you want a while longer to make up your mind? How long? Why? How long can an ABX take? Where, in home auditions, does the X come in to it?

[Phileas]

Jayne

I wouldn't particularly advocate an ABX test in the situation you describe, although it might be useful. I don't think anyone doubts that different speakers sound very different.

ABX tests are required when there's reason to doubt that apparent differences really exist.

[jayne lee wilson]

Jayne

I wouldn't particularly advocate an ABX test in the situation you describe, although it might be useful. I don't think anyone doubts that different speakers sound very different.

ABX tests are required when there's reason to doubt that apparent differences really exist.

"Are required"...? That's exactly the problem - by what law, what pre-ordained/obtained proof? Was it peer-reviewed? The ear and the brain will always do better given time to attend to one set of perceptions before being offered another.
It's "studies have shown that" again... but there we stand, don't want to rake the same flower-bed TOO often .

(Anyone not yet read it, seek out John Atkinson in Stereophile, "Blind Tests and Bus Stops").

[An_Inspector_Calls]

. . . mentions of measurable-but-inaudible 0.2 db gains don't prove a thing, . . .

Here are white noise samples showing differences of 3, 1 and 0.3 dB.

http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/dB.htm#soundfiles

You might be right, we can hear differences of 0.3 dB, even if they only apply to part of the frequency spectrum. But it's a bit like trying to hear a bat fart at a thousand yards (he said, avoiding the hugh moral ground).

[Phileas]

An article by Tom Nousaine on why long-term listening is less effective and more unreliable than rapid switching in distinguishing audible differences (PDF):

http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Flying%20Blind.pdf

[Dave2002]

Interconnects:
Balanced or unbalanced? The only advantage to using balanced leads is to avoid common mode noise, usually case voltage disparities (50 Hz) between the two connected units. This will be heard as mains hum. Now this rarely occurs simply because we connect all our hi-fi units to the same voltage source with short mains leads. So there's no need for this. Except: perhaps in the case of connecting a very low output moving coil cartridge to a phono stage. That's why SME turntable/arm systems and the Chord phono stage allow for balanced connection between the two. (but having said that, making that connection unbalanced in my set up creates no significant mains hum).
As for anything else, why bother? A typical interconnect will be driven by a voltage source with an output impedance of less than 1,000 ohms (good hi fi will be 500 ohms) into an input stage with an impedance of 50 k ohms. A run-of-the-mill 1 metre interconnect will usually have a capacitance of 100 pF, so the 3 dB point is 32 kHz and will be a smooth 6 dB/octave roll-off at higher frequencies. I'd say that was quite inaudible.

I, like you, am often sceptical. However, I am not sceptical about all interconnect cables, as I have heard significant differences between them. Doesn't mean I'm going to go for the full moon high priced woo stuff though, but if there's a relatively cheap cable which can give better results I'll buy it. Certainly some of the grotty ones which sometimes come with kit should either be thrown away, or stored just in case one ever really is that desperate.

The effect of using better/different cables on that Mozart opera CD I mentioned earlier was such as to convert what I previously thought was a poor or dull recording into a much better one, and more in accordance with the reviews which gave it several stars.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I was assuming that one had at least passed GO and got hold of interconnects with gold connectors. Perhaps all you'd done to be converted was to throw away old connectors, partly corroded and thus giving a poor connection?

Edit: actually, if you have heard significant differences with different interconnects then I'd say, a priori, there must also be an obvious, measurable difference between them. In that case, there's no debate. But here we are, debating . . .

[Dave2002]

I was assuming that one had at least passed GO and got hold of interconnects with gold connectors. Perhaps all you'd done to be converted was to throw away old connectors, partly corroded and thus giving a poor connection?

Edit: actually, if you have heard significant differences with different interconnects then I'd say, a priori, there must also be an obvious, measurable difference between them. In that case, there's no debate. But here we are, debating . . .

Sorry, I missed the point about measurable differences. Of course in practice many of us can't actually measure anything, and there are issues about whether you'd do static measurements - resistance, capacitance etc., or something more dynamic, such as a sweep test. Many people just buy with some sort of trust, or perhaps based on their own hearing, or they can be persuaded by pushy salesmen etc.

Corrosion and poor quality most certainly wasn't the reason why I noticed a difference. I was swapping one set of "good' connectors for another, and I did notice a difference.

Re the gold connectors - I'm not sure that's such a big deal, and indeed I think they're often used as a marketing ploy. It's certainly a good idea to have the same metal for the connector as for the thing being connected to - and gold is a good choice generally because of its resistance to tarnishing.

[jayne lee wilson]

An article by Tom Nousaine on why long-term listening is less effective and more unreliable than rapid switching in distinguishing audible differences (PDF):
http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Flying%20Blind.pdf

He's set up his experiment quite well, but the fatal flaw is using just one piece of music - A pop song, voice-dominated, which has a small range of instrumental colour and a narrow dynamic range. Probably a lot of studio processing too. Not the best material for listening tests.
I wonder what would have happened with a piece for string orchestra, uncompressed, with 2.5% distortion? Rapid ABX can establish "differences", but it remains almost the opposite experience of listening to, and living with a hifi system. ESPECIALLY when listening to extended classical composition. It can't account for the experience of auditioning and buying something, only to find that, a few weeks or months later, it doesn't satisfy your musical needs, doesn't make you want to "go on listening". (This type of long-term perception isn't anything like an animal's rapid response to threat or stimuli, nothing like Mizzy's ears pricking up when she hears the catflap! More like seeing more in Picasso's Guernica the more you look at it.)

Again, you are not usually listening for distortion per se when auditioning equipment. Note that Nousaine does acknowledge that "training", i.e experience, can improve perception of soundstaging etc., which may be more relevant to a classical listener's choices. Interesting article though, thanks. Set it alongside the John Atkinson one and reflect...

***A-I-C - with XLR, don't forget that some equipment is set up to sound best that way, irrespective of theory and GENERAL measurement. The Krell 300CD, when used as a standalone CD player, was a miserable, grey, undynamic thing feeding the pre with rca. With XLR the room came alive! The ATC preamp sounds smaller-scale, less present and less dynamic - well, just boringly "correct", really - feeding the matching power amp on rca. Both have very low output impedance...

[Dave2002]

He's set up his experiment quite well, but the fatal flaw is using just one piece of music - A pop song, voice-dominated, which has a small range of instrumental colour and a narrow dynamic range. Probably a lot of studio processing too. Not the best material for listening tests.

Absolutely. I'm with you there.

Sometimes that technique can be useful, as, for example in the use of the song Tom's Diner sung by Suzanne Vega during the development of the MP3 compression system. In that example, its use probably helped to make some aspects of relatively low bit rate MP3 less horrible than they would otherwise have been. It clearly appears to have helped regarding stereo imaging, and also tonally.

However, here we are mostly interested in high quality audio, not trying to make the best of an imperfect job. Some other trials of compression system seemingly satisfied some of the requirements of that article - use of expert listeners, appropriate testing formats, but they mostly fell down over the kind of music which was used for the testing/experimentation. Most of the time in classical music, particularly if it's "simple" in some way, a single voice or instrument, such as a guitar, compression or other manipulation processes may have minimal audible effect on the sound. Where classical music gets interesting is that in a long piece, say a Mahler symphony (could also be Rachmaninov or Sibelius, or possibly Strauss as in the Four Last Songs) there can be a few passages where quality differences in the audio system can have a very big effect on subjective appreciation. This can be as simple as overload distortion - we can listen out for the part where the system gets overloaded repeatedly, or may be some other clarity or spatial resolution effect. The point is that in a one hour long piece (or CD or download etc. of such pieces) there might only be a few seconds where some sort of tingle factor kicks in. A good audio system should be able to handle those passages well, merely adequate ones will "do their best", which might not be very good at all.

There are of course objective tests where equipment is measured. I don't have a problem with these, as a tool for guidance, but I think they don't give the whole picture. Another form of "objective" test is where groups of people, are asked to evaluate equipment, and the tests and results are somehow processed to form an apparently more objective result. This is the kind of test which often gives the sort of result that shows that CDs and MP3s are indistinguishable - or at least "virtually indistinguishable". In a sense the test results are correct, because 99.9% of the time this may be correct, but for the remaining 0.1% of the time they are not, and that small fraction may have a big impact on the overall response to the music. This is how those with an agenda, such as those promoting digital radio/DAB justify what they are doing. What they do is not completely wrong, and indeed in terms of value for money it may be valid. The result is a system which more or less satisfies most people for the lowest cost. Commercially it makes sense.

The approach which offers some overall "good" product or service as a mass commodity compared with offering the "best" (which may differ from person to person) is similar to offering conductor X (unnamed) with orchestra Y (similarly unnamed) performing Mahler, Mozart, whatever, compared with offering Rattle with the BPO, Oramo or Vamska with the CBSO or the Lahti Orchestra, Levine with the Boston SO, in works which they do particularly well, and pretending that X plus Y will do the same job. Most classical music lovers expect to get a better result from the named conductors compared with X+Y, and that is why they are prepared to pay more for tickets by concerts by appropriately matched performers, and to buy their recorded interpretations.

[Resurrection Man]

I wonder why ?
Apart from the obvious need for hefty cable
the rest is pure homeopathic woo

Bizarre though it may be, I agree with you !

[Phileas]

He's set up his experiment quite well, but the fatal flaw is using just one piece of music - A pop song,

LOL. Ok, but in principle, if a number of similar kinds of experiments had been carried out, using the right kind of music, would you be prepared to accept the method as probably the best way of determining whether audible differences exist?

And do you also reject the earlier experiment (by Clark and Greenhill) mentioned in the first part of the article?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

JLW
I haven't experienced either the Krell or the ATC pre amplifiers, I'd expect the output impedance to be low, but that parameter is irrelevant when considering the effects of connecting a CD player to the pre-amplifier and only be of interest in the connection to a power amplifier. But if their circuitry is designed specifically round balanced inputs then they'd best be used that way. But in connecting to a CD player, where the signal levels are going to be several hundred millivolts, I don't see the point: there's unlikely to be a common-mode noise issue.

Dave
Gold connectors don't corrode - that's all.

The difference you're describing with a 'better' interconnect is large and so I'd expect simple measurement would reveal what was the cause of the change. Reading reviews for the Chord Chameleon Silver we get stuff like

While Russ Andrews' Crystal Cu majors in agility, the Chameleon is more powerful and muscular in the lower frequencies.

They hit you with a real sense of gusto. It's a musical, natural-sounding interconnect, and it manages to dig layer after layer of detail out of the music.

The same observation applies: for such a marked change in performance there will/must be something in the measurements. For example, just lifting the frequency response of a device by 1 dB in the mid range can completely alter the sound.

And there's perhaps something inconsistent in your view when, in reply to my observation that ATC's slr technology cut the mid range driver distortion from ~1 % to 0.1 % (a cut of 20 dB) you dismissed that as saying that at those levels you doubted we hear the difference!

And the reverse way of thinking about this still applies when examining just where an interconnect might cause problems. Resistance cannot be it because the input, impedances are far too high. Same goes for inductance given the possible sizes of any series inductance in a cable. The only difficulty is capacitance, and there provided the cable conductors are sensibly sized, a reasonable dielectric is used, and the cable is not too long, that should also not be a problem.

[Nevalti]

Response to #69: see my #68!!
We can also be fooled by illusions. Mirrors, lenses, mirages, colour TV and printing are classic examples.

Indeed. We are 'fooled' every time we watch a film or TV. It appears to most of us that the image is moving and not a sequence of images. Perhaps it is difficult to fool someone that a sound is live because of the subtle small sounds that are thrown away as 'noise' during recording and processing or the sounds which are beyond the range of the equipment.