Power cables (for amp)
Discussion
S6PNJ said:
I'd suggest that whatever you use for the last 2-3 ft connection to your amp is as good as the 20-30 ft (or more) of wiring you have from your socket back plate to your consumer unit, so probably 2.5mm T+E. If you are going to upgrade your amp power cable, why stop there and why not do the rest of the distance to your CU?
That is the plan so the AMP will have its own power cable from the supply. The cable is not add anything but can take it away, so if you have got low quality connectors and thin cable then the supplied cable can be changing things. It will also depend on a lot on the system. The main point is if you don't think it matters then just don't spend the money. For me I gave it go as you could see the cable and the new one looked a lot better. There was not expectation for sound improvement, but there was.
996owner said:
Why not get the local electric company to run a fresh cable into your house too, via dedicated underground cables direct from the grid with your own sub station?
Mains cable makes ZERO difference.
Any amp will take mains in, drop it down to a usable level, turn it into DC and then smooth it out with capacitors. The power supply in the amp is most critical section with regards to sound quality. a cheaper alternative for you would be to get a mains isolating transformer or UPS if you with to "clean " the mains supply.
each to their own thou
Have a google of UPS for HiFi and you will see why that would not work. But yes you can get system to clean up the mains.Mains cable makes ZERO difference.
Any amp will take mains in, drop it down to a usable level, turn it into DC and then smooth it out with capacitors. The power supply in the amp is most critical section with regards to sound quality. a cheaper alternative for you would be to get a mains isolating transformer or UPS if you with to "clean " the mains supply.
each to their own thou
So a question for you, have you got a high end system and if so have you tried swapping out the power cable?
For me I have and yes there was a clear difference. As I have said you don't think there is then good for you enjoy your HiFi and the cash you have saved. For any one that has and found it did make a difference please tell me about your lead.
TonyRPH said:
Finally, if you can hear a difference it has to be measurable as there is nothing magical about audio engineering.
When the BBC LS3/5a where put tougher they where looking for a flat response. The microphone showed this but the expert ears said there was something wrong at the cross over frequency between the two drivers. The "bump" was introduced to fix this (ear over testing). There is a lot going on and so testing is the clear way forwards. For me like the BBC engineers I can hear the difference between the cable that came with the amp and my new one.
Crackie said:
It's misleading to say a speaker can measure flat whilst having phase anomalies. There has to be a caveat added to say "the response would still have measured flat but at one specific microphone position. " If a speaker measure flat but has phase errors then the moment the microphone, or listener, moves anywhere from the exact position where it measures flat the measurement will cease to be flat. There is a direct correlation between phase and amplitude measurements.
It is very easy to get a speaker to measure perfectly flat if all you are trying to achieve is a flat response, on axis, at 1m away. There are plenty of crap speakers out there that do just that.
The late, and very great, John Dunlavy said " If a speaker measures well and sounds bad.........you're measuring the wrong things"
Regarding whether or not cables ( Speaker, interconnect, mains ) make an audible difference, here are the thoughts of someone who knows his onions. The competent credentials Dunlavy modestly refers to are the fact he invented the log period antenna whilst working for the US Air force and Cavity Backed Spiral antenna whilst working for NASA; it enabled NASA to listen to track and communicate with Gemini and Saturn space programmes. Apologies for the length of the quote but for anyone interested in the subject of cables, it makes sense to read what Dunlavy had to say; particularly in respect of well meaning, open minded listeners and the placebo effect.
To summarise for those who don't want to read the whole article...……..all competently designed cables sound just the same. Some cables, very occasionally, can and do have a sonic signature but they don't fit into the competently designed i.e neutral category. The differences these cables introduce are flaws not improvements. It may, in certain cases, be possible for certain flawed cables to rectify similar but opposite flaws elsewhere in a system. It doesn't make them better cables though...….they just might be complementary to a certain system, under a very specific set circumstances or a certain listeners preferences. These are very rare cases though...….in the vast majority of cases any perceived differences in sound are imaginary and don't hold up to any form of scrutiny.
"Subject: Cable Nonsense
Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.
To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophileapplications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.
The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.
Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).
While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) — Caveat Emptor!
For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.
Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier – not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect – which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe – if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company’s staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens – if we wish to be honest!
Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best – even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist – if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc.
Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!)
So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve – in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize.
Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm’s, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.
I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.
Best regards,
John Dunlavy
https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163/index.h...
Thank you for posting this and a very good read. It is very easy to get a speaker to measure perfectly flat if all you are trying to achieve is a flat response, on axis, at 1m away. There are plenty of crap speakers out there that do just that.
The late, and very great, John Dunlavy said " If a speaker measures well and sounds bad.........you're measuring the wrong things"
Regarding whether or not cables ( Speaker, interconnect, mains ) make an audible difference, here are the thoughts of someone who knows his onions. The competent credentials Dunlavy modestly refers to are the fact he invented the log period antenna whilst working for the US Air force and Cavity Backed Spiral antenna whilst working for NASA; it enabled NASA to listen to track and communicate with Gemini and Saturn space programmes. Apologies for the length of the quote but for anyone interested in the subject of cables, it makes sense to read what Dunlavy had to say; particularly in respect of well meaning, open minded listeners and the placebo effect.
To summarise for those who don't want to read the whole article...……..all competently designed cables sound just the same. Some cables, very occasionally, can and do have a sonic signature but they don't fit into the competently designed i.e neutral category. The differences these cables introduce are flaws not improvements. It may, in certain cases, be possible for certain flawed cables to rectify similar but opposite flaws elsewhere in a system. It doesn't make them better cables though...….they just might be complementary to a certain system, under a very specific set circumstances or a certain listeners preferences. These are very rare cases though...….in the vast majority of cases any perceived differences in sound are imaginary and don't hold up to any form of scrutiny.
"Subject: Cable Nonsense
Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.
To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophileapplications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.
The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.
Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).
While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) — Caveat Emptor!
For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.
Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier – not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect – which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe – if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company’s staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens – if we wish to be honest!
Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best – even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist – if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc.
Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!)
So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve – in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize.
Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm’s, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.
I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.
Best regards,
John Dunlavy
https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163/index.h...
Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 4th February 10:02
For me I thing the truth lies between both. Often differences are a misinterpretation of the facts.
Often when people put new tyres on there car they are so much better then the old ones. Have you got a better tyre then last time or where the old ones just worn out? When swapping cables or even "burning in" is the sound change just an effect of oxidation?
Cost and quality are not linked leading to a lot of cable company's as said making just good looking cables, not ones that sound better.
Do I think the cable that I have upgraded to was better then the one that came in the box, yes. Do I think going for a solid silver cable will make any real difference from there no.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff