Re: Your all-capped proposition

Posted by Bruce from DC (B) on November 12, 2002 at 13:19:06

In Reply to: Some questions on double blind testing. posted by Phil Tower on November 12, 2002 at 03:10:40:

I think a lot of folks aren't even interested in the answer. It's a "been there, done that" proposition. My own epiphany after 30 years of messing about with this stuff came when, just for grins, I swapped a pair of "coaxial" style interconnects with a pair of Goertz Micropurl interconnects that connect my CD player to my integrated amp. I had bought the Micropurls new for my phono setup (they're not expensive) and I thought, just for the hell of it, let's swap these in for the equally non-expensive DH Labs interconnects I've been using with the CD player. BOOM! Immediate and obvious difference. Stereo image much more "focused" high frequency transients (cymbals on a drum kit) much less "spitty" and more cleanly rendered. I did this over three successive evenings, with differente CDs. Always the same result. Scientifically valid? No, no DBT. Am I satisfied there's a difference? Absolutely. Did I hear differences between my Rat Shack interconnects and the DH Labs (of similar design) when I bought the DH Labs? Nope, not that I could be sure of.

From reading your post and the many others that, in varying degrees advance the "wire is wire is wire" point of view (and advocate increased use of DBT's to "prove" it), it seems that where everyone starts to go off track is that their knowledge of electricity is limited to what they learned in junior high school science class when we studied direct current electricity. The relevant properties were voltage, amperage and resistance; and we learned that a thicker wire carried more amperage than a thin one.

You can recognize these people around here: they're the ones that talk about the "gauge" of the wire and the length as the relevant factors -- since those relate to total DC resistance and amperage.

Unfortunately, audio is AC, so there are other wire properties that are relevant: inductance and capacitance. These are not a function of gauge, but a function of the cable's design, insulating materials and so on. So, the short answer is that two cables of the same length and gauge can have vastly different capacitances and inductances; so, for purposes of passing AC, they are not the same.

In my example, the DH Labs cable is probably fairly high inductance and low capacitance. (Since were talking interconnects with miniscule currents; differences in gauge aren't relevant.) By constrast, the Goertz cable is made of two thin ribbons twisted together and separated by a thin insulator. It is relatively high capacitance and very low inductance. So, in a relevant sense, it is very different from the DH labs cable, even though if all you were doing was passing a 100 milliamp current of 1 volt DC, the two interconnects would be "the same."

Of course, the input and output circuits of components are not of similar design. So when you combine those differences with the differences among interconnects in terms of relevant electrical properties (not just DC resistance), it should come as no surprise that they sound different. Notice I have not said a word about more esoteric concepts like "skin effect," "self-inductance," "time delay" and so on.

The big question is: can a particular set of cable parameters be identified as consistently sounding better across a variety of components? The Goertz people claim that a low "characteristic impedence" is it; but "characteristic impedence" is an AC property that is always expressed at a particular frequency; and the Goertz people don't tell us what frequency it is at which characteristic impedence should be low. In practice, what that translates to, in their cables, is cables that are low inductance and high capacitance. Another cable with a similar configuration (obviously designed not to infringe on Goertz's patents) is the Analysis Plus oval cable. I don't think AP is quite as forthcoming with their characteristic impedence specs; but I could be mistaken.

Whether or not that low characteristic impedence is the holy grail of cables is the secret of cable makers, including our "own" Mr. Crump. . . .

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Some questions on double blind testing. - Phil Tower 03:10:40 11/12/02 (46)

Um, err... - jj 17:53:15 11/14/02 (1)

Re: Um, err... - Rod M 18:34:59 11/14/02 (0)

Umm - RGA 20:02:04 11/13/02 (8)

Total stuff and nonsense! - jj 18:27:40 11/15/02 (1)

Re: Total stuff and nonsense! - RGA 14:21:54 11/16/02 (0)

Re: Umm - Phil Tower 07:05:13 11/14/02 (5)

Sorry, Phil, but the article above yours in the thread - jj 18:30:08 11/15/02 (4)

Re: Sorry, Phil, but the article above yours in the thread - Phil Tower 06:32:03 11/16/02 (3)

I mean RGA's post that you responded to. - jj 13:37:23 11/16/02 (2)

Re: I mean RGA's post that you responded to. - RGA 14:40:53 11/16/02 (1)

Um ... - jj 16:59:07 11/16/02 (0)

Some of my answers.... - Monstrous Mike 09:18:06 11/13/02 (0)

What do you conclude if DBT results show even a big random sample hears no difference? - Norm 08:04:25 11/13/02 (1)

Re: What do you conclude if DBT results show even a big random sample hears no difference? - Phil Tower 08:28:22 11/13/02 (0)

Re: Your all-capped proposition - Bruce from DC 13:19:06 11/12/02 (3)

Re: Your all-capped proposition - Phil Tower 15:50:45 11/12/02 (2)

Re: You've lost me here, Phil - Bruce from DC 07:43:44 11/13/02 (1)

Re: You've lost me here, Phil - Phil Tower 08:06:22 11/13/02 (0)

I wish you had numbered your points...... - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:50:10 11/12/02 (0)

OK I will give it a shot - Robert Hamel 07:45:51 11/12/02 (0)

Reminds me of a Methods class I took about thirty- - rcrump 04:13:27 11/12/02 (25)

One more thing, while I'm at it. - Phil Tower 05:09:58 11/12/02 (23)

Re: One more thing, while I'm at it. - rcrump 06:39:23 11/12/02 (22)

Re: One more thing, while I'm at it. - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:59:06 11/12/02 (8)

Re: One more thing, while I'm at it. - Ubiquitous Skittercat ;,,,~ 19:32:49 11/12/02 (7)

Re: One more thing, while I'm at it. - Dan Banquer 09:40:55 11/14/02 (0)

Re: One more thing, while I'm at it. - Jitter_by_Coffee 20:44:15 11/13/02 (0)

I believe it is the tests that are flawed, not the equipment - E-Stat 14:47:59 11/13/02 (4)

Re: I believe it is the tests that are flawed, not the equipment - Jitter_by_Coffee 20:38:26 11/13/02 (3)

Therein lies the challenge - E-Stat 03:50:55 11/14/02 (2)

Re: Therein lies the challenge - Jitter_by_Coffee 08:58:01 11/14/02 (1)

We certainly agree here - E-Stat 13:44:27 11/14/02 (0)

Re: One more thing, while I'm at it. - Phil Tower 06:55:38 11/12/02 (12)

That is the problem, too much - rcrump 07:10:59 11/12/02 (11)

Re: That is the problem, too much - Phil Tower 07:51:01 11/12/02 (10)

I think I'll start my own camp Phil... - rcrump 08:11:38 11/12/02 (9)

I've already formed my own camp of one.... - Phil Tower 08:25:19 11/12/02 (8)

Re: I've already formed my own camp of one.... - rcrump 09:54:17 11/12/02 (7)

I have a suggestion... - Jitter_by_Coffee 15:39:09 11/12/02 (6)

Re: I have a suggestion... - Rod M 08:38:47 11/14/02 (3)

Re: I have a suggestion... - Jitter_by_Coffee 08:54:31 11/14/02 (2)

Re: I have a suggestion... - Rod M 11:25:17 11/14/02 (1)

Re: I have a suggestion... - Jitter_by_Coffee 09:20:21 11/15/02 (0)

Perhaps you need to select a panel of real scientists to ascertain - rcrump 16:42:27 11/12/02 (1)

Re: Perhaps you need to select a panel of real scientists to ascertain - Jitter_by_Coffee 20:26:17 11/13/02 (0)

Re: Reminds me of a Methods class I took about thirty- - Phil Tower 05:05:00 11/12/02 (0)

Follow Ups

Re: Your all-capped proposition - Bruce from DC 13:19:06 11/12/02 (3)

Re: Your all-capped proposition - Phil Tower 15:50:45 11/12/02 (2)

Re: You've lost me here, Phil - Bruce from DC 07:43:44 11/13/02 (1)

Re: You've lost me here, Phil - Phil Tower 08:06:22 11/13/02 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.