Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Interconnects (Read 44975 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Interconnects

Reply #25 –
Quote from: brigman on
Quote from: cabbagerat on

Quote from: brigman on

The total cross sectional area of the copper wire on your speaker interconnects should never exceed the cross sectional area of the copper in the live and neutral wires of your mains cable; after all, how can an amplifier deliver power that it can't draw in the first place?
A 15A mains cable in a 220V country can deliver 3.3kW. Driving an 8ohm speaker at 80W requires only about 3A.
3 Amps, and how is that relevant? It is the power rating (unit energy per unit time) that ultimately decides wether or not (all other things being equal) a particular piece of (pure) copper will be able to deliver against requirements or not.

Well, no. The losses in a cable are (assuming it's resistive, which isn't true, but will work for our purposes) P=I*I*R. The current (I), depends on the output voltage (or power) of the amplifier and the impedence of the speaker. For an 8 ohm speaker, delivering 3.3kW requires ~20A - so you need a cable which is a good deal thicker than your mains cable if you are drawing the full load. Most amplifiers, however, are only in the range of 100W (so maybe 150W input), meaning that if you use a standard mains cable it will be incredibly overspecified.

In conclusion: the losses in a cable depend on current. How much loss you can put up with depends on your application. Amplifiers contain transformers, which (in most amplifiers) turn low currents at high voltages to higher currents at low voltages. The applications are different, the current is different, so comparing the cross sectional area of the cord going into your amp to your speaker cable is pointless.

If you are concerned about damping factor, then you want to reduce the impedence of your cable as much as possible. In this case, you might want a cable with a large cross sectional area. Experiments, however, show that beyond a certain limit increasing the size of the speaker cables is a little pointless.

Quote from: brigman on
Quote from: cabbagerat on

basing the sizing on your mains cable (different voltage, different performance requirements, different current) is a bit pointless.
If that's what you think, then you didn't understand the point.

Please explain the point, then. Especially what you mean by "deliver against requirements".

Quote from: brigman on
Quote from: cabbagerat on

Quote from: brigman on

Silver, Copper and Aluminium are all excellent conductors, in decreasing order. Gold isn't quite as good as those three, but has the advantage of never oxidising, which is the only reason it is used.
In order of area, sure. In order of conductivity per mass (or per unit currency) Aluminium dominates (ask the transmissions department at your local utility if you don't believe me - transmissions cable in most countries is aluminium, with a steel core for strength and to prevent sagging). Aluminium has other disadvantages though, so copper really is the most sensible.
Nice one cabbagerat. You were quick to mention intended usage somewhere else in this post: we're all building high fidelity audio systems, not power grids. Silver has the highest conductivity using the accepted definition of the word; followed by copper.

Ok, fair enough - weight isn't an issue. Conductivity per unit currency is an issue, however, which can skew the ranking. There are plenty of other good reasons to use copper over aluminium, so I'm not going to argue. But seriously, what makes you think the physics of "high fidelity audio systems" are different from the physics of power grids? Some of the requirements are different, but most are very similar.

Quote from: brigman on
For the sake of people actually interested in the original topic, let's not be distracted: shielding is key, and all co-axial cables are very effectively shielded.

There is a lot more to accurately transmitting a high frequency digital signal over long distances than shielding. Over short distances (like interconnects) at SPDIF frequencies, you can use pretty much any old piece of coax. Over longer distances, you need the right cable with the right design. But that doesn't mean there is a correlation between "good" and "expensive" when it comes to cables for digital --- especially not in HiFi shops.

Interconnects

Reply #26 –
Quote from: brigman on
...and all co-axial cables are very effectively shielded.

Not so. Cheaper coaxial cables are sometimes relatively poorly shielded by having the outer conducting copper strands merely laid longitudinally inside the outer insulator. Decent coaxial cable usually either has the outer conductor braided, or braided and supplemented with a foil underlay.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

Interconnects

Reply #27 –
Quote from: brownianm on
Quote from: brigman on


The total cross sectional area of the copper wire on your speaker interconnects should never exceed the cross sectional area of the copper in the live and neutral wires of your mains cable; after all, how can an amplifier deliver power that it can't draw in the first place?



This is not correct.  An amplifier delivers much lower voltages to the speakers than the household current that powers it.  With a lower voltage, in order to deliver high power, you need to increase the number of amps being delivered.  Cable thickness requirement is determined more by the current (amps) that it needs to carry than the voltage.  Power, as measured in watts, is equal to voltage multiplied by amps.  So if you have a device that uses 600w and the voltage is 110 you need 5.45 amps going through the cable.  But if the voltage is say 50v, then you need 12 amps and a much higher cross section cable to carry it.

Some high power amps are capable of putting out 30 amps and more.

Have you ever seen the cables on an arc welder?  They are very thick  because the voltage they deliver is low to reduce electrocution risk but they can deliver hundreds of amps, but the mains cable supplying the arc welder is nothing like as thick because the voltage is higher.


Indeed. A small thought experiment reveals you are correct: Amperes are essentially a measure of electrons per second; a fine wire may cary few amperes at extremely high voltage, but it simply will not be able to carry extreme numbers of amperes at low voltage, despite both having the same measure of power (volts x amperes)

I'll label the previous entries where possible to save confusion.

Interconnects

Reply #28 –
The vast majority of people do not have a sound system good enough to discern the difference in cables (if there is any difference).

I use a whole hodgepodge of cables in my system.  However, I am building some pure silver interconnects.  The silver wire is inexpensive, the silver RCA plus are not.

Will it make a difference?  I've heard enough systems to believe that there is a difference, however subtle.  Will I  hear it?  I don't know, but my system is fairly high-end and certainly good enough to tell.  Will I be happy knowing that I've done the best I can?  Yes.

Interconnects

Reply #29 –
Quote from: seditious3 on
Will it make a difference?  I've heard enough systems to believe that there is a difference, however subtle.  Will I  hear it?  I don't know, but my system is fairly high-end and certainly good enough to tell.  Will I be happy knowing that I've done the best I can?  Yes.
The well documented human bias towards confirming your beliefs will probably lead to you hearing a real change in the sound of your system. There is unlikely to be any real difference, however.

Interconnects

Reply #30 –
Quote from: seditious3 on
Will it make a difference?  I've heard enough systems to believe that there is a difference, however subtle.  Will I  hear it?  I don't know, but my system is fairly high-end and certainly good enough to tell.  Will I be happy knowing that I've done the best I can?  Yes.


I know what you mean, but if you do think there is a discernible difference, how about using the recording output of your amplifier to produce recordings and see if they can be ABX'd?

Interconnects

Reply #31 –
[quote name='cabbagerat' date='Jun 19 2008, 00:28' post='571853']

[/quote]The well documented human bias towards confirming your beliefs will probably lead to you hearing a real change in the sound of your system. There is unlikely to be any real difference, however.
[/quote]

That's what I'm afraid of.  But, again, knowing that I've got the best I can do can't hurt.  I just view it as an investment for years of listening.  I think spending large $$ on interconnect or speaker wire is insane.  Then again, the silver RCA plugs are $50 pair.  I may just use them from the CD player to the preamp, and from the preamp to the amp.

Interconnects

Reply #32 –
The question that I always ask myself is "If I spent this money instead on better speakers, how much better off would I be?"

Interconnects

Reply #33 –
Quote from: pdq on
The question that I always ask myself is "If I spent this money instead on better speakers, how much better off would I be?"


Hales Transcendence 5's...can't be too much better off than that!

Interconnects

Reply #34 –
Been around the block a few times on this one! Spent a lot of good money on it too. Thank god for the high end action sites, I only lost about 1/3 of what I spent. I would suggest that the el-cheapos may get you by but for "value" a decent cable is a good investment. I am not talking about the Moster cables and other snake oil, please understand... I switched to Canare cable and connectors .(Neutrik for XLR)and have been very happy. This is the stuff used by the professional audio and video industry. $ for $ a great value. I like to add my $.02 whenever I see the age old cable discussion.

Interconnects

Reply #35 –
Yeah, that's the thing with this hobby, isn't it?  I've been trying to decide between Belden DIY (same as Canare, really), and DIY silver.  Silver is the best conductor, but everyone, including my amp manufacturer, thinks that the Belden is fine.

The silver is actually pretty inexpensive,  but the "good" Furutech connectors are $25 apiece.  So it works out to maybe $115 per pair of ICs, again mostly the RCA connectors.  That's not outrageous, especially when you consider that Belden/Canare with "good" (eg: Eichmann) connectors would be the same or more.

Spending anything more is, in my mind, crazy.  I do buy into your logic that it makes sense to use what (most of) the industry uses.  But I believe that silver is the best, for not a lot more $$$.

Interconnects

Reply #38 –
Quote from: seditious3 on
Silver is the best conductor, but everyone, including my amp manufacturer, thinks that the Belden is fine.
What leads you to believe that the difference in resistance between silver and copper will have an effect on the signal? Given that, for interconnects, a low impedence source is used to drive a very high impedence sink, it doesn't seem as though a small change in the cable impedence will have an effect on the signal.

Quote from: NappyHead on
I don't know much about the tecnical part of things, but i built some interconnectors and speaket cables based on this article and they sound pretty good. This is good to try and save some money.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/whiteli.../moonshine.html


NH

Quote
The conductors used in these cables are one of my friend Pete Riggle's recent underground discoveries. The resultant speaker cables and interconnects made from this wire have a musical balance not unlike Cardas Golden Cross. They do lots of space and positively nail the tone. Tone, tone, tone - everywhere there's intensely beautiful tone! They have lots of musically natural detail and decent PRaT too. They do nice tight bass. They actually rank right up there with some of the best interconnects and particularly speaker cables that I've heard for overall musicality.
Are these people taking the piss? Are they honestly suggesting that they can hear the difference between brands of extension lead? Leads probably made from exactly the same cable in exactly the same factory in China? Have they ever considered the possibility that this could be caused by confirmation bias? Are they not aware of the general trend towards parsimony in science?

Interconnects

Reply #39 –
Quote from: seditious3 on
Silver is the best conductor, but everyone, including my amp manufacturer, thinks that the Belden is fine.

You do know that the difference in conductivity between silver and copper is only 6%? This is equivalent to a difference in wire diameter of 3%, which is far less than the difference of one gauge size.

Interconnects

Reply #40 –
> Are these people taking the piss? Are they honestly suggesting that they
> can hear the difference between brands of extension lead?

It depends a bit by what you mean by honesty. Is reading a fairy story to someone being dishonest because it is untrue?

The reviewers of ludicrous audiophile products like clever clocks, resonating cups, magic cables and the like on web sites like 6moons, PFO, etc... often make claims that are completely ludicrous and over-the-top about the performance of the product. The style of writing is also over-the-top and reads a bit like taking the p*ss to non-audiophiles. I have tended to take this as the author making it clear to non-audiophiles that they are telling stories. Audiophiles on the other hand, want to believe and want to be told about magic and things that baffle science. Is it dishonest to tell them the stories they want to hear?

OK, slightly tongue-in-cheek, but for luxury goods it is hard to raise much of an objection when fools are separated from their money.

Interconnects

Reply #41 –
Considering the cables I made my interconnectors from cost $7 for 40 feet. I's money well spent

Interconnects

Reply #42 –
Quote from: seditious3 on
Hales Transcendence 5's...can't be too much better off than that!
Oh come on - speakers that cost more than cars - that's the thing!

Only half joking - given the "mark up" on audio goods, the individual drivers can still be measurably "better" above that price point. A $6k speaker has drivers that cost a few hundred $ in total to manufacture, at the very most.

Cheers,
David.


Quote from: honestguv on
It depends a bit by what you mean by honesty. Is reading a fairy story to someone being dishonest because it is untrue?
I think it might be more like a prostitute advertising love and passion, but selling mediocre sex.

If you believe the advert then you might imagine that you're getting more than you really are.

So the lies help you to get what you want, if only in your head.


Is this wrong? It depends on what level people buy into the fantasy. If they know the trick, maybe it's OK. However, if they buy in completely, then they have been conned - you may say "a fool and his money - so what?"

The thing is, they have been damaged in other ways. In my analogy, the result could be that they never know what love really is. In the hi-end audio world, the result could be that they will learn to disbelieve science and believe in magic, which could have catastrophic consequences if carried over into other parts of their lives.

Cheers,
David.

Interconnects

Reply #43 –
Oddly enough stereo interconnects is the only cable I've ever spent more than a few quid on. I just wanted to give it a go. I don't think I can post what I thought because of the ts and cs on here.

Speaker cable is a different matter, after looking at the quality of cable actually used in the speaker itself I decided it wasn't worth spending money on them!

Interconnects

Reply #44 –
> If you believe the advert then you might imagine that you're getting more
> than you really are. So the lies help you to get what you want, if only
> in your head.

Agreed.

> Is this wrong? It depends on what level people buy into the fantasy.
> If they know the trick, maybe it's OK.

If they know the trick then it does not work. It is more a question of what the people that know the trick think about it. Some get indignant on behalf of those being tricked and some do not.

> However, if they buy in completely, then they have been conned - you may
> say "a fool and his money - so what?"

Being conned depends on your knowledge and viewpoint. Many of those foolish audiophiles are quite happy with their magic cables and would strongly dispute that they have been conned. A cable supplier (out of earshot of audiophiles) would say they are selling a cable and an illusion that works since audiophiles do hear differences. An editor of an audiophile publication (out of earshot of audiophiles) is also likely to talk about helping to sell the illusion.

Are the only people that can see a con those that cannot see the illusion?

> The thing is, they have been damaged in other ways. In my analogy, the result
> could be that they never know what love really is. In the hi-end audio world,
> the result could be that they will learn to disbelieve science and believe in
> magic,

Disbelieving science and believing in magic (although it is not given that name) as it applies to audio is what defines audiophile. It is what distinguishes it from the older high-fidelity approach to home audio and the current "proaudio" approach to audio.

> which could have catastrophic consequences if carried over into other
> parts of their lives.

Not at all. This way of thinking has exploded over the last few decades precisely because the real world no longer bites individuals who act on such irrational reasoning in the way it would when the world was poorer.

Interconnects

Reply #45 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Not at all. This way of thinking has exploded over the last few decades precisely because the real world no longer bites individuals who act on such irrational reasoning in the way it would when the world was poorer.

On the contrary, we could probably come up with lots of examples where disbelieving the science can be harmful.

One example I can come up with is seat belts. All of the statistics show that wearing seat belts dramatically improves the odds of surviving a crash, but there are still people who heard of one example where someone survived because they were thrown clear, and because of that they refuse to wear a seat belt.

Any more examples?

Edit: If this is too far off topic then feel free to disregard.

Interconnects

Reply #46 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: honestguv on

Not at all. This way of thinking has exploded over the last few decades precisely because the real world no longer bites individuals who act on such irrational reasoning in the way it would when the world was poorer.

On the contrary, we could probably come up with lots of examples where disbelieving the science can be harmful.

One example I can come up with is seat belts. All of the statistics show that wearing seat belts dramatically improves the odds of surviving a crash, but there are still people who heard of one example where someone survived because they were thrown clear, and because of that they refuse to wear a seat belt.

Any more examples?

There are also many - though, less known - examples where "believing" in what is called "science" caused widespread myths. What you ignore in your example, is that the "error" which those "few people" make, isn't "disbelieving in science" but simply believing something regardless of available information plus inability to efficiently analyze information. Your example doesn't show the "truthfullness" of science, but simply the inefficience of being dishonest and unable/unwilling to properly analyze information.

honestguv's argument is valid. How much people can afford to lie/believe depends on how severe the consequences of them are. This is why humans have a long record of only thinking and acting honest at the last possible chance - in other words, being forced to choose between imminent honesty and imminent disaster.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #47 –
I suppose "science" includes "the scientific method": hypothesis, experiment, result, conclusion based on evidence (not belief).

Cheers,
David.

Interconnects

Reply #48 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I suppose "science" includes "the scientific method": hypothesis, experiment, result, conclusion based on evidence (not belief).

That still leaves lots of ways to cheat. There is no methodic replacement for honest intentions.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #49 –
"There are also many - though, less known - examples where "believing" in what is called "science" caused widespread myths."

Yes. Remember the one about nuclear power providing free energy: forever. Or how about BSE not being transferable to humans. Anyone convinced that GM crops will feed the world? And don't underestimate "magic". Ask any "primitive" tribe if their medicine man can cure the sick/bring rain/etc.

At the end of the day anyone with an agenda will use any means at their disposal to back up their view