In other words, as long as long as the speaker wire is relatively pure stranded copper at a fairly large gauge, you're fine.
The same thing applies for interconnects, but you also need gold-plated plugs that have a tight fit.
The size of the difference in the index is somewhat irrelevant because I was contrasting it relative to monometallic couples, which by definition cannot constitue a galvanic 'cell' because electronegativity of the species is homogenous throughout. No inherent potential difference means no cell. No cell means no GALVANIC corrosion, yes?
"Electroplating" is of course not the only thing that can happen to cause problems with dissimilar metals in direct proximity. Cu will diffuse into Au if in contact with it. This is thoroughly undesirable if you wish to disconnect them at a point in the future. In addition, Au with Cu mixed in can corrode. Hence, Cu-Au couplings in industry almost invariably have an intermediate plate layer.
QuoteAlso, Gold does not naturally oxidise, whereas Nickel doesYup, hence it's (Au) always going to be cathodic in any bimetallic 'cell'.
Also, Gold does not naturally oxidise, whereas Nickel does
The reasons for gold plated interconnects are purely physical - Gold's a (very) good conductor, (~3.5x less resistant than nickel, although at this thickness the difference is truly negligable) and neutral.
Could someone post the equivalence between AVG and mm2 ? I've got 4 and 12 mm2 cable. How much gauge is this ? I remember that the 12mm2 must be below 10.
Should I drop the cash and get more expensive/better wire?
Now, whilst the listener may not instantly perceive a quality difference between £10 and £80 interconnects, in a situation where lots of power cables and other strong signals are present, the difference would be very noticeable.
Or is it all in the shielding? Is "enough" shielding really that much more expensive than "not enough" shielding?
Once you've got the right gauge, and solid shielding is achieved, what else is there?
Is "enough" shielding really that much more expensive than "not enough" shielding?
I *do* see references to "conductivity" quite often, but what would an example of conductive variance between different quality cables be? And, again, does poor conductivity mean fewer electrons being sent at once? Are electrons transferred in parallel or in series. If it's the latter, then there is no "at once". So it would then be a matter of only speed for determining conductivity?
there is more to cable than simple electric (in terms of pure Ohm) resistance ... besides inductivity and capacity ... there are some other effects like e.g. the "skin-effect" (high frequency currents are pushed towards the surface of the cable, reducing effective conduction diameter) which can make cables sound "lower"
I also agree with you guys that most people are not able to seriously ABX a difference between normal cables and overpriced so-called High-End-stuff
what these magazines state is that you can influence certain characteristics of a stereo system in a marginal way that might be determined if listened very closely and concentrated.
... good-old mechanical properties are too often regarded as negligible...
Not most people, but *any*. There's a pool from several years at the rec.audio.* groups of a few thousand dollars for anyone that can tell any competent inexpensive cable from an expensive, competent one (note that there are some incompetent expensive cables too, they color the sound on purpose) under blind conditions. So far nobody has even tried.
even if there were audible problems in this respect in any strange case, the solution is inexpensive too: just run several inexpensive thinner cables, instead of a thick one.
That's why some people use solid copper wire (like the one used for electrical installations) for loudspeaker connections ... to make their speakers sound with less treble...
Perhaps we should also be aware that most HiFi magazines test any piece of equipment under circumstances that are totally "unreal" for the normal home listener
... as an example, the german mag "AUDIO" uses a specially-designed, resonance-free (or low-resonating) listening room that looks like ... erm ... not worth living in it ... with no or negligible disturbing resonances, differences between components will interfere with room resonances less severe and thus may be easier to determine ...
As I explained, I don't think skin effect can be audible in most situations, if any. Some measurements would be good to test the actual relevance of this effect.If that is true, how relevant are their reviews for home listener? Why don't they try an ABX test?What about a good pair of headphones?
they claim that only a resonance-free listening environment will create equal conditions for e.g. every loudspeaker tested because some models suffer more from resonances than others ... from their point of view, this would not be a "fair" test ...
and ABX is not a mean to determine sound quality (what hifi magazines claim to do), but pure differences in sound.