What annoys me today in marketing and media that too often today then talking on hi-fi, science is replaced by bizarre belief structures and marketing fluff, leading to a decades-long stagnation of the audiophile domain. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Hi-fi world is filled by pseudoscience, dogma and fruitloopery to the extent that it resembles a fundamentalist religion. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
Business for Engineers: Marketers Lie article points tout that marketing tells lies — falsehoods — things that serve to convey a false impression. Marketing’s purpose is to determining how the product will be branded, positioned, and sold. It seems that there too many snake oil rubbish products marketed in the name of hifi. It is irritating to watch the stupid people in the world be fooled.
In EEVblog #29 – Audiophile Audiophoolery video David L. Jones (from EEVBlog) cuts loose on the Golden Ear Audiophiles and all their Audiophoolery snake oil rubbish. The information presented in Dave’s unique non-scripted overly enthusiastic style! He’s an enthusiastic chap, but couldn’t agree more with many of the opinions he expressed: Directional cables, thousand dollar IEC power cables, and all that rubbish. Monster Cable gets mostered. Note what he says right at the end: “If you pay ridiculous money for these cable you will hear a difference, but don’t expect your friends to”. If you want to believe, you will.
My points on hifi-nonsense:
One of the tenets of audiophile systems is that they are assembled from components, allegedly so that the user can “choose” the best combination. This is pretty largely a myth. The main advantage of component systems is that the dealer can sell ridiculously expensive cables, hand-knitted by Peruvian virgins and soaked in snake oil, to connect it all up. Say goodbye to the noughties: Yesterday’s hi-fi biz is BUSTED, bro article asks are the days of floorstanders and separates numbered? If traditional two-channel audio does have a future, then it could be as the preserve of high resolution audio. Sony has taken the industry lead in High-Res Audio.
HIFI Cable Humbug and Snake oil etc. blog posting rightly points out that there is too much emphasis placed on spending huge sums of money on HIFI cables. Most of what is written about this subject is complete tripe. HIFI magazines promote myths about the benefits of all sorts of equipment. I am as amazed as the writer that that so called audiophiles and HIFI journalists can be fooled into thinking that very expensive speaker cables etc. improve performance. I generally agree – most of this expensive interconnect cable stuff is just plain overpriced.
I can agree that in analogue interconnect cables there are few cases where better cables can really result in cleaner sound, but usually getting any noticeable difference needs that the one you compare with was very bad yo start with (clearly too thin speaker wires with resistance, interconnect that picks interference etc..) or the equipment in the systems are so that they are overly-sensitive to cable characteristics (generally bad equipment designs can make for example cable capacitance affect 100 times or more than it should). Definitely too much snake oil. Good solid engineering is all that is required (like keep LCR low, Teflon or other good insulation, shielding if required, proper gauge for application and the distance traveled). Geometry is a factor but not in the same sense these yahoos preach and deceive.
In digital interconnect cables story is different than on those analogue interconnect cables. Generally in digital interconnect cables the communication either works, does not work or sometimes work unreliably. The digital cable either gets the bits to the other end or not, it does not magically alter the sound that goes through the cable. You need to have active electronics like digital signal processor to change the tone of the audio signal traveling on the digital cable, cable will just not do that.
But this digital interconnect cables characteristics has not stopped hifi marketers to make very expensive cable products that are marketed with unbelievable claims. Ethernet has come to audio world, so there are hifi Ethernet cables. How about 500 dollar Ethernet cable? That’s ridiculous. And it’s only 1.5 meters. Then how about $10,000 audiophile ethernet cable? Bias your dielectrics with the Dielectric-Bias ethernet cable from AudioQuest: “When insulation is unbiased, it slows down parts of the signal differently, a big problem for very time-sensitive multi-octave audio.” I see this as complete marketing crap speak. It seems that they’re made for gullible idiots. No professional would EVER waste money on those cables. Audioquest even produces iPhone sync cables in similar price ranges.
HIFI Cable insulators/supports (expensive blocks that keep cables few centimeters off the floor) are a product category I don’t get. They typically claim to offer incredible performance as well as appealing appearance. Conventional cable isolation theory holds that optimal cable performance can be achieved by elevating cables from the floor in an attempt to control vibrations and manage static fields. Typical cable elevators are made from electrically insulating materials such as wood, glass, plastic or ceramics. Most of these products claim superior performance based upon the materials or methods of elevation. I don’t get those claims.
Along with green magic markers on CDs and audio bricks is another item called the wire conditioner. The claim is that unused wires do not sound the same as wires that have been used for a period of time. I don’t get this product category. And I don’t believe claims in the line like “Natural Quartz crystals along with proprietary materials cause a molecular restructuring of the media, which reduces stress, and significantly improves its mechanical, acoustic, electric, and optical characteristics.” All sounds like just pure marketing with no real benefits.
CD no evil, hear no evil. But the key thing about the CD was that it represented an obvious leap from earlier recording media that simply weren’t good enough for delivery of post-produced material to the consumer to one that was. Once you have made that leap, there is no requirement to go further. The 16 bits of CD were effectively extended to 18 bits by the development of noise shaping, which allows over 100dB signal to noise ratio. That falls a bit short of the 140dB maximum range of human hearing, but that has never been a real goal. If you improve the digital media, the sound quality limiting problem became the transducers; the headphones and the speakers.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article says that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. I can agree with this. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article makes good points on design, DSPs and the debunking of traditional hi-fi. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Legacy loudspeakers are omni-directional at low frequencies, but as frequency rises, the radiation becomes more directional until at the highest frequencies the sound only emerges directly forwards. Thus to enjoy the full frequency range, the listener has to sit in the so-called sweet spot. As a result legacy loudspeakers with sweet spots need extensive room treatment to soak up the deficient off-axis sound. New tools that can change speaker system designs in the future are omni-directional speakers and DSP-based room correction. It’s a scenario ripe for “disruption”.
Computers have become an integrated part of many audio setups. Back in the day integrated audio solutions in PCs had trouble earning respect. Ode To Sound Blaster: Are Discrete Audio Cards Still Worth the Investment? posting tells that it’s been 25 years since the first Sound Blaster card was introduced (a pretty remarkable feat considering the diminished reliance on discrete audio in PCs) and many enthusiasts still consider a sound card an essential piece to the PC building puzzle. It seems that in general onboard sound is finally “Good Enough”, and has been “Good Enough” for a long time now. For most users it is hard to justify the high price of special sound card on PC anymore. There are still some PCs with bad sound hardware on motherboard and buttload of cheap USB adapters with very poor performance. However, what if you want the best sound possible, the lowest noise possible, and don’t really game or use the various audio enhancements? You just want a plain-vanilla sound card, but with the highest quality audio (products typically made for music makers). You can find some really good USB solutions that will blow on-board audio out of the water for about $100 or so.
Although solid-state technology overwhelmingly dominates today’s world of electronics, vacuum tubes are holding out in two small but vibrant areas. Some people like the sound of tubes. The Cool Sound of Tubes article says that a commercially viable number of people find that they prefer the sound produced by tubed equipment in three areas: musical-instrument (MI) amplifiers (mainly guitar amps), some processing devices used in recording studios, and a small but growing percentage of high-fidelity equipment at the high end of the audiophile market. Keep those filaments lit, Design your own Vacuum Tube Audio Equipment article claims that vacuum tubes do sound better than transistors (before you hate in the comments check out this scholarly article on the topic). The difficulty is cost; tube gear is very expensive because it uses lots of copper, iron, often point-to-point wired by hand, and requires a heavy metal chassis to support all of these parts. With this high cost and relative simplicity of circuitry (compared to modern electronics) comes good justification for building your own gear. Maybe this is one of the last frontiers of do-it-yourself that is actually worth doing.
1,598 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
> In order to show a visible difference in cable performance, I had to raise the z out and lower the z in. I raised the z out by running the test signal (pink noise) in series with a passive P-bass pickup, and I lowered the z in by putting a 1 Meg resistor in parallel with the input. This also shows an exaggerated view of the type of tone changes that can be heard with a passive guitar. Here is the new analysis of the same ten cables:
To have readable results, the guy had to raise the output impedance to 10Kohm vs a input impedance of 500 Kohm
As a comparison, an amp might have a impedance of 0.0something ohms vs speakers at 2 to 8 ohms. A microphone can have an impedance of ~100 ohms vs an imput impedance of a mixer around 10kohm
So yeah, no, in the real world there’s no such thing as cable frequency response
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://hackaday.com/2024/02/23/op-amp-drag-race-turns-out-poorly-for-741/
Tomi Engdahl says:
The safety standard EN60950 is describing headphone outlets with a normal load of 32 ohms. Most acoustic safety standards are written for this impedance. That is why all bundled headphones are 32 ohms, but you can buy 16 ohms if you want loudness and a risk of damaging your ears. 1200 ohms will sound around -16dB softer than your 32 ohm headphones.
Tomi Engdahl says:
High impedance headphones of such an high Z as 1,2k allowed to get rid of the output transformer in vacuum tube amplifier, which was considerable advantage in mobile equipment.
you won’t cause any harm puttingvthem across a standard output. They wont be very loud, but won’t be designed to be anyway!
There’s no point in adapting the impedance using a resistor in parallel. Test it first. If the sound level is too low you have two options. The most authentic is to connect it via a suitable impedance transformer. The other option is to replace the internals with modern headset speakers.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The most important element in high end audio cables by far would be the marketing of the cables.
Tomi Engdahl says:
I call B.S. – I’ve never met anyone who truly understood the science of audio reproduction and has practical experience in the field ever transition from truly believing every cable’s performance is defined by its electrical characteristics (LCR) and the circuit in which it is placed transition to being diehard followers of the mystical “cable magic” nonsense that plagues this hobby and infects the weak minded. However, I know a TON of people who without any proper research, learning, or experience who’ve been brainwashed into absolute faith in the outrageous claims of esoteric cable makers and fellow believers who’ve decided to create fake testimonies of their difficult journeys from non-believing to spending 80% of their gear budgets on rare and unproven cable technology.
I think this person is lying or is so out of touch with the universe they convinced themselves the joy they get from the fun hobby of pretending to appreciate cable A from cable B as it relates to the stock factory cable – such fun – is really based on reality.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/VoNp4CaJQP5y8CCr/
Tomi Engdahl says:
And to not understand anything of anything. rubes are wire charlatans best customers
Tomi Engdahl says:
Mittaa jokaisen elementin puhekela et onko ehjiä. Diskantit palaa helpoiten, muut kestää paremmin vahvistimen säröytymistä. Tarkista samalla vaivalla että vastukset ovat ehjät. Lähinnä diskantin 4.7 ohm on ainoa mikä vaikuttaa dramaattisesti ääneen jos on rikki, silloin diskantti on mykkä, muilla vastuksilla on vähäisempi (mutta usein havaittavissa oleva) vaikutus.
On ihan normaalia että puhekelan tasavirtavastus (yleismittarilla mitaten) on yleensä hieman pienempi kuin mikä on elementin nimellisimpedanssi. 8 ohm elementillä usein jotain päälle 6 ohm. Tärkeintä on että olisivat samat parin molemmissa elementeissä.
Niinku Tony mainitsi niin elkojen vaihto riittänee. Basson haarassa olevat konkat sietää äänellisistä syistä olla bipolaareja, keskiäänellä ja diskantilla itse käyttäisin muovisia. Noiden ero kuuluu yleensä lähinnä >>1 kHz alueella.
Jos on ferriittikeloja (tai teräsrunkoisia) diskantilla (tai keskiäänellä), niin sitten ilmasydämisellä saattaa olla havaittavissa olevia äänellisiä eroja. Ilmasydänkeloissa on yleensä huomattavan paljon isompi resistanssi kuin niissä joissa on sydän, ellei käytä reilumman paksuista lankaa (kalliimpi hinta). Mutta mikään kela ei kyllä ikäänny eikä sen takia kannata vaihtaa.
Jos sielä on bipolaarikonkkia niin vaihtaisin, joo. Muuten aika turha koskea.
Ne elementitkin voi mätiä. Ja jos sielä on bipolaarikonkkia niin ne uusiks. Mieluiten muovikonkkia tilalle. 22uF on kyl muoviks jo aika iso mut..
Ja vastukset ja kelathan tuskin menee mikskään.
Voi olla ihan juotoksissakin vikaa. Yksi elementti kolmesta poissa pelistä niin varmasti kuulostaa eriltä kuin toinen kaiutin.
Mittaa jokaisen elementin puhekela et onko ehjiä. Diskantit palaa helpoiten, muut kestää paremmin vahvistimen säröytymistä. Tarkista samalla vaivalla että vastukset ovat ehjät. Lähinnä diskantin 4.7 ohm on ainoa mikä vaikuttaa dramaattisesti ääneen jos on rikki, silloin diskantti on mykkä, muilla vastuksilla on vähäisempi (mutta usein havaittavissa oleva) vaikutus.
On ihan normaalia että puhekelan tasavirtavastus (yleismittarilla mitaten) on yleensä hieman pienempi kuin mikä on elementin nimellisimpedanssi. 8 ohm elementillä usein jotain päälle 6 ohm. Tärkeintä on että olisivat samat parin molemmissa elementeissä.
Niinku Tony mainitsi niin elkojen vaihto riittänee. Basson haarassa olevat konkat sietää äänellisistä syistä olla bipolaareja, keskiäänellä ja diskantilla itse käyttäisin muovisia. Noiden ero kuuluu yleensä lähinnä >>1 kHz alueella.
Jos on ferriittikeloja (tai teräsrunkoisia) diskantilla (tai keskiäänellä), niin sitten ilmasydämisellä saattaa olla havaittavissa olevia äänellisiä eroja. Ilmasydänkeloissa on yleensä huomattavan paljon isompi resistanssi kuin niissä joissa on sydän, ellei käytä reilumman paksuista lankaa (kalliimpi hinta). Mutta mikään kela ei kyllä ikäänny eikä sen takia kannata vaihtaa.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Are Dirt Cheap RCA Cables Any Good?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=qkJGh8b7k4SZ8eaq&fbclid=IwAR1nJw2TmqCzsmGSLkN-oLAzmJ4jC2Tc1sh-y3g8rmeOxFCkgYKyv54p6MY&v=bHw_Te6IbUI&feature=youtu.be
Tomi Engdahl says:
Snake oil cable lifter
https://www.audioquest.com/accessories/audio-enhancements/fog-lifters?fbclid=IwAR2ftKCGgst19-FAG_XZiC4YeABnxRss7UkNjqEQSmXsZH1SOwzFvr5nNVA
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Audio_woo?fbclid=IwAR3TSuQxyF7VeVCIdN9BWtqY6cr7XkKzh0nkj1ZaW0Tcs9nbGBDlBeaxGpI
Audio woo
Jump to navigationJump to search
A classic example of the species.
Style over substance
Pseudoscience
Icon pseudoscience.svg
Popular pseudosciences
Alternative medicine
Creationism
Racialism
Pseudopsychology
Random examples
Quantum Stirwand
Pseudolinguistics
Crust displacement
JPANDS
HHO gas
Science woo
God helmet
Mommy instinct
Chemophobia
v – t – e
Audio woo consists of various vague and unsupported claims for devices or methods for getting better sound quality from systems that reproduce recorded music. Such claims are made by manufacturers, hobbyists, and writers in the field.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.reddit.com/r/livesound/comments/14a05tg/ok_lets_be_real_do_different_xlr_cable_brand/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/02/audiophile-grade-headphones-ruined-newbie-favorite-music/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Graphic demonstration of cable frequency response:
https://www.ovnilab.com/articles/cables.shtml
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://learningmodular.com/choosing-patch-cables/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Lossless Audio Does Not Sound Better Than MP3
Audiophiles swear lossless music sounds richer than MP3, but most people don’t hear a difference at all
https://gizmodo.com/lossless-audio-does-not-sound-better-than-mp3-1851341155
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.moon-audio.com/audiophile-terms-guide
Tomi Engdahl says:
IS YOUR AUDIO SYSTEM REALLY READY FOR LOSSLESS SOUND?
Recently, a lossless music streaming provider offered a quick online test to let you check if you and your equipment were ready to hear losslessly compressed music. There was just one problem.
The test didn’t answer the question.1 2
https://abx.digitalfeed.net/?fbclid=IwAR3WxbomiXfl8qEu-28DPCt_kW7rUICt1VR7QRRkX2SpqslJpSJrpwJ4rY8
Tomi Engdahl says:
Yall see this?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=a9Ebms7tQ778ECSi&v=8wVnURAckLI&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR11NAejCXqlVcLA4APaUYbKOQYAqMTj1lvr-5lx9vsWVe_jW5RFwRNyA4M
Yeah, right…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWt3kANA3Q
Tomi Engdahl says:
This guy makes perfect sense. What an audiophool “hears” is so subjective and probably more related to what he had for lunch than by actual listening. And if he (she?) paid a hefty price for a cable, it MUST sound better, right? Confirmation bias to the nth degree. After all, would he admit he had been screwed? Of course not.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/GfMY1Gi1FmReQd9c/
Let’s kill this myth.
As a practitioner I have been into the minutiae of this well-debated subject a hundred times. I have lived with a song from its inception to its release into the world.
The original mix, either on tape or digital, gets mastered before we the public get to hear it. This is CRUCIAL to the process. In the eighties when CDs first appeared they were often mastered from poor sources – usually ancient production masters, frequently second or third generation. They sounded quiet, muddy and flat.
As we became a CD consuming global market things improved. CDs were mastered with greater care and consumers began demanding higher quality for their money, often starting at £14.99 (!).
Then the LOUDNESS WARS began in the mid-nineties. Mastering engineers began brick-walling mixes (making the CDs louder at the expense of definition and dynamic range). This meant compression and lots of it, making prolonged listening a slog and rather tiring after ten minutes.
Since then mastering has gotten pretty good.
I’ve forensically analysed my own finished CDs and vinyl. To the point of madness. Vinyl is a great experience, largely due to size of the artwork and the ritual freeing the vinyl from its sleeve and placing it on a turntable. From that point on its a disappointment.
Unless you’ve spent a lot of money on your hardware the vinyl is never going to sound as good as the CD – even on an entry-level system.
Vinyl is a LOSS format.
As for MP3s/streaming, well that’s the way most people are going to hear the music. All streaming services have their own algorithms and the music sounds perfectly serviceable even to my professional ears.
I fell in love with music listening to vinyl and cassettes in the 70s – usually played through cheap systems and Walkman headphones. MP3s sound a lot better.
So there!
Should you be interested, my music is available in high-quality at ianmcnabb.bandcamp.com
You can chose your format.
IX
Tomi Engdahl says:
Qualitywise, vinyl is terrible, but it does have the advantage that if you don’t have a stereo, you can listen to it by sharpening a pin, sticking it onto a ruler with blue tack, balancing the ruler properly and rotating the disk by hand. No other format allows play without some kind of electrics.
Tomi Engdahl says:
vinyl does not have a naturally higher dynamic range than a CD. Nor does a CD require more compression and limiting than a vinyl record. The opposite it true in both cases.
Shitty brick-walled mastering in the early 2000s for CDs was a choice, not a requirement.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/RnVB3XZbvdHK1pjQ/
https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/hifi-bs-part-2/?fbclid=IwAR3ynIYT6jt5QvNsMntJ3EknRDChGYgnCz41T_w85UZtlpYrEqOX9z3rj0A
“Further complicating the issue is the fact that just because you don’t hear a difference on your system, in your room, playing (or even measuring with) your choice of source material, doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s no difference. ” ….well I did need a good laugh first thing this morning , thanks.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Further complicating the issue: the fact that just because you think uou hear a difference on your system, in your room, playing (or even measuring with) your choice of source material, doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s actually a real difference.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Scientific Method is lost on these fools
Tomi Engdahl says:
Scientific method takes out a lot of fun from audiophoolness. Using scientific method is usually dull with repeated formally defined tests and can prove your first impression was actually just imagination.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Interview Mark Levinson – About the new C Wave Technology
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DPEzu3V3Ets&t=914s
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cables make a difference – and we measured it! Alpha Audio Huge Cable Test
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8wVnURAckLI
umm he tests outside of the auditory range. MHZ – common
Just more regurgitated bullcrap. He heard “a lot” of differences between interconnect cables. What bollocks. He probably has hallucinations about being chased by a rogue electrolytic capacitor!
more likely he was afraid of loosing too much adds on the website. Cables, highest profit, so highest add density. Just an example of keeping your customers satisfied and keep the add money coming.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The funny thing is that measuring is an art, and there are lots of pitfalls resulting in erroneous results, the old age question is relevant even more today, “Are you measuring what you think you are measuring, or something else.
This is so easy to prove. Of course cables matter. If you don’t have a cable, then you can’t hear the sound.
This is what happens when Journalism majors get a hold of test equipment; they suddenly imagine they’re qualified Electrical Engineering
Analog, yes.
Digital, is the audio cutting off? No? Then you’re good.
Tomi Engdahl says:
All the strands of a stranded wire are short-circuited together and act as a single wire.
Induction cookers use stranded coils (Litz wire) to reduce heating of the coil itself due to skin effect, but those wires are have strands insulated from each other.
Tomi Engdahl says:
If repeated bending or flexing is not required, solid core all copper wire of the equivalent gauge with equivalent dielectric will sound & perform better than the stranded. Solid has a lower DCR & offers one continual path.
Always configure the geometry for lowest impedance, which helps to reduce both incoming & outgoing RFI / EMI while broadening linear bandwidth. That is, UNLESS YOU SPECIFICALLY WANT TO INCREASE IMPEDANCE using the cabling as a “current buffer”.
Tomi Engdahl says:
For audio frequency you use solid core when you want to bend it to a shape and have the shape held, and stranded core when you want flexibility.
Tomi Engdahl says:
A good reason to use stupidly expensive multistrand, oxygen-free, “unidirectional”, single-crystal copper cable is to impress guillible audiophiles.
Friends have used solid wire. It works fine, but can be a hassle if you like to move things around and connect different components as it is so stiff. As others said, if you keep bending it, it will eventually crack. Of course that happens near the end and you can just cut off a few inches and keep going.
Friends have used solid wire. It works fine, but can be a hassle if you like to move things around and connect different components as it is so stiff. As others said, if you keep bending it, it will eventually crack. Of course that happens near the end and you can just cut off a few inches and keep going.
Tomi Engdahl says:
A lot depends on flexibility, solid wire is prone to metal fatigue, multi strand can withstand more flex.
For permanent installations solid core is fine, and you can shape it nicely too.
For mobile rigs, multistrand is indispensible.
But if you claim to hear the difference then I would say that’s a steaming pile of BS.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The complete wire’s general direction is at an angle to the direction of the individual strands.
So, if all the strands were isolated from each other, for instance by an oxide outer skin, the resistance of the wire would be greater than if all the strands were welded together.
A current thru the wire would tend to force the strands to cling a little closer to each other, making the resistance a little inversely dependent on the current. This is a non-linearity, which will necessarily cause distortion.
How much? Not a lot, no, but in principle it is non-linearity.
It CAN be measured!
Try an extra flexible wire made up of about a hundred strands, and choose a length which will make the resistance about 3-10 ohms.
Measure resistance at different currents from enough to produce a few millivolts over the full length to 10 Amps or so, and measure the voltage and current accurately
- was claimed on Facebook
Tomi Engdahl says:
Stranded wire is more flexible. Some puritans will tell you that surfoce effect will have án effect ón the High frequency is the same as in RF bút the frequencys are to los fór mesurable effect.if you have solid wire its ok to use that.
All the strands of a normal stranded wire are short-circuited together and act as a single wire.
Induction cookers use stranded coils (Litz wire) to reduce heating of the coil itself due to skin effect, but those wires are have strands insulated from each other.
Tomi Engdahl says:
can you please give us one scientific reason to substantiate that?.. You many not be aware of this so I will give you the inside information,, Many amplifiers on their output use a Zobel network..Now the secret bit,, There is a coil of wire wrapped around a resistor , That coil of wire is NOT multistrand,, Another bit of info for you Many people use passive xovers .. You have heard of them? One of the components is called an inductor, for reasons unknown to some African tribes they are not made from multistrand wire but solid everyday copper,, Hope that has been a help top your education on electronics..
Tomi Engdahl says:
Yep, for speaker wire, your only concerns are keeping the series resistance down to a reasonable level (ie 10-12AWG being the sweet spot), keeping reactance (inductance/capacitance) down to reasonable levels and opting for good mechanical characteristics such as high strand count for flexibility (for convenience sake and helps with contact area in connectors), good quality jacketing that won’t embrittle with time (so no Chinese dollar store stuff) and, well, that’s actually the claimed wire gauge (see prior parenthetical). What meets these requirements is your typical low cost zip cord speaker wire that most any audio shop sells for relatively inexpensive prices. Example: https://www.parts-express.com/Audtek-SKRL-12-50-12-AWG-OFC-Speaker-Wire-50-ft.-100-024
Tomi Engdahl says:
Depends on the application of the cable. You can spend a ridiculous amount of money on cables, I’m sure I would if I could, but you don’t have to. Some of the expensive ones do look cool though.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The high-end cable market is rife with nonsense, but anyone who has taken the time to compare zip wire to a decent dedicated speaker cable will not say that alll wire, or all copper wire, sounds the same. Is the cheapest one just as “accurate?” Maybe, but not the same. premise of this joke is flawed, and as silly as believing the high-end hype.
please explain how a ‘dedicated speaker cable’ is superior to 12AWG zipcord.
I can see that it will have blacker blacks, since the sonic excellence is under the woven exterior, it’s really, really black. One of sonic hits for 2024. Highly recommended by Absolute Dumbshit hi fi…
Tomi Engdahl says:
Typically it’s not an issue below 20kHz. I didn’t say it makes sense but it’s the reason many people use
Really for speakers the main reason to use stranded wire is because it’s more flexible. As I said, everywhere else solid wire is fine and easier to deal with
If there’s a demand for it somebody will make and sell it – some people think it’s okay to use in amplifiers. If anyone tells you it’s better, or even acceptable, ask them what field their background is in.
John Widder I just learned that skin effect happens even at lower frequencies, and it’s different for different metals. So, as far as I understood, for copper, at 20kHz, the wire would have to be thicker than 4mm in order for those frequencies to stop “using” the core of the wire. Check Wikipedia for skin effect, in the examples section there is a graph. Interesting stuff.
Tomi Engdahl says:
McKelvin Amplifiers can you please give us one scientific reason to substantiate that?.. You many not be aware of this so I will give you the inside information,, Many amplifiers on their output use a Zobel network..Now the secret bit,, There is a coil of wire wrapped around a resistor , That coil of wire is NOT multistrand,, Another bit of info for you Many people use passive xovers .. You have heard of them? One of the components is called an inductor, for reasons unknown to some African tribes they are not made from multistrand wire but solid everyday copper,, Hope that has been a help top your education on electronics..
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audiophile or Audio-Fooled? How Good Are Your Ears?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=vkqA-SbgAy1TlskY&fbclid=IwAR3oR7NeMe0fd9QNEFxkJhq8SJHCkULpJPOOaA7afH-ZiX7ldABwdFR0I_g&v=YgEjI5PZa78&feature=youtu.be
Tomi Engdahl says:
Some people like vinyl because the art is bigger
Tomi Engdahl says:
Wow.. the blurb is .. something.. haha
https://hificentre.com/collections/music-servers/products/aurender-mc20-master-clock
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.electroprep.com/blog/pvc-vs-teflon-insulated-wire/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/hifi-bs-part-2/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.petervis.com/Education/741_Pin_Compatible_Equivalent_Op_Amps/741_Pin_Compatible_Equivalent_Op_Amps.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://execleadercoach.com/2013/09/25/resistance-futile/