Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#71

Post by ssl-3 »

amluto wrote: post #59
ssl-3 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A difference that long cables make can be heard in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SorO-QpqYRU . Therein, audio from a microphone is sent through progressively-longer cables until the length reaches ~6 miles. It gets pretty muffled-sounding... eventually. (The longest pair of wires I've sent analog audio through was in the realm of 37 miles, stretching across the countryside. AMA, I guess.)

Hah, that AM-receiving cable was at a theater and only a couple hundred feet long. In general, with low-level analog audio and non-ridiculous lengths, additive noise effects are likely to become audible long before attenuation or especially frequency-dependent attenuation. As a decent heuristic, as long as the DC resistance is small compared to load impedance, the cable impedance is unlikely to be a problem. For the…

I used to have a fairly nice Rotel preamp that would receive CB radio transmissions sometimes. Whatever it was that was behaving as an AM detector must have been near the output of it because the intensity was unaffected by the volume control.

That was almost certainly the result of illegal transmitters, but it was annoying. One time I heard a man shouting through the stereo and the signal was hot enough in RF land that it made my X10-controlled lights flash on and off.

Later, I got DirecTV and it became differently-annoying: The noise of the satellite receiver switching bias voltage to select between different LNB polarities was sufficient to make a loud pop through the speakers (again, unaffected by the volume control). This made channel surfing very noisy. I was able to reduce it rather substantially with some very deliberate choices in audio cabling construction.

But with better gear (and with the differential[1] signalling that every avenue of pro audio seeks to use by default), this kind of stuff is usually a complete non-issue.

[1]: We popularly call this kind of connection "balanced," but we're wrong about that since there's usually hardly any concern about impedance matching. But it's definitely consistently differential, so I find this less-popular nomenclature to have the right amount of specificity to ~fit reality.

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#72

Post by yial »

bayindirh wrote: post #66
toast0 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't mains cable make good speaker wire? Probably much larger diameter than needed for audio and therefore more expensive if fairly priced, but if you've got to wire speakers and that's what you've got, should be fine. About the only things you could do wrong would be using wire that's too small to carry the load, is frayed/broken/severely corroded, or is coiled in a way that inductance becomes a real issue.…

In the past, there was no special speaker wire. It was all mains wire, because all was 100% copper. Today, finding 100% copper cable having the cross-section stamped on it is pretty rare. Electronics being more efficient hence drawing less power allows manufacturers to run 3-4 copper clad aluminum strands as mains cable in some cases. Today, I'd still use "mains wire" if I can find it in a 100% copper form with the c…

Wouldn’t SOOW (or THHN/THWN-2 )in 14 or 16 gauge be appropriate for this?

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#73

Post by bayindirh »

yial wrote: post #72
bayindirh wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past, there was no special speaker wire. It was all mains wire, because all was 100% copper. Today, finding 100% copper cable having the cross-section stamped on it is pretty rare. Electronics being more efficient hence drawing less power allows manufacturers to run 3-4 copper clad aluminum strands as mains cable in some cases. Today, I'd still use "mains wire" if I can find it in a 100% copper form with the c…

Wouldn’t SOOW (or THHN/THWN-2 )in 14 or 16 gauge be appropriate for this?

My speaker's manual says the following:

> Please always use a good quality loudspeaker connection cable from an audio dealer. To prevent impairment of sound quality, we recommend cables with cross-sections of at least 2.5 mm² for lengths up to 3 m and at least 4 mm² for lengths above 3 m.

Interestingly, the table present in the printed manual is not present in the one on the internet. IIRC, recommendation for 100W up to 3m was 3mm² or 4mm² at minimum.

From what I looked at, 14AWG is ~2mm² and 16AWG is 1.3mm². Way too skinny for what the manufacturer says.

Unless you're running speaker cables parallel to some power cables, shielding is not a requirement from my experience. The cable I use is at [0]. I have a roll like this. Mine is thicker than 2.5mm² though.

[0]: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71Jr0vhSTsL._AC_UF1000,1...

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#74

Post by stonogo »

bayindirh wrote: post #66
toast0 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't mains cable make good speaker wire? Probably much larger diameter than needed for audio and therefore more expensive if fairly priced, but if you've got to wire speakers and that's what you've got, should be fine. About the only things you could do wrong would be using wire that's too small to carry the load, is frayed/broken/severely corroded, or is coiled in a way that inductance becomes a real issue.…

In the past, there was no special speaker wire. It was all mains wire, because all was 100% copper. Today, finding 100% copper cable having the cross-section stamped on it is pretty rare. Electronics being more efficient hence drawing less power allows manufacturers to run 3-4 copper clad aluminum strands as mains cable in some cases. Today, I'd still use "mains wire" if I can find it in a 100% copper form with the c…

Does aluminum not conduct electricity?

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#75

Post by vladvasiliu »

Youden wrote: post #54
crims0n wrote: post #26

Probably going to make some people mad... but I went down the Audiophile rabbit hole last year before ultimately coming to the conclusion that it just isn't worth it. I understand the appeal, especially someone who values a nice piece of hardware. There is so much to choose from... DACs, DAPs, amps, fancy looking balanced cables in quality braiding, headphones with solid wood accents, IEMs that look straight outa sci…

1) I wouldn't 100% agree with this. It's not that speakers sound "better" than headphones, it's that speakers don't require any tuning to match a person's specific physiology (e.g. shape of their ears, ear canal) but the other things do. When you use headphones, you still use your whole ear canal but the sound is distorted by how the headphones interact with your ears, particularly the pinna. When you use IEMs, you o…

> it's that speakers don't require any tuning to match a person's specific physiology

But they do interact with the environment. Having walls which reflect the sound can mess with the sound. Changing speakers won't help. Changing headphones can help.

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#76

Post by bayindirh »

stonogo wrote: post #74
bayindirh wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past, there was no special speaker wire. It was all mains wire, because all was 100% copper. Today, finding 100% copper cable having the cross-section stamped on it is pretty rare. Electronics being more efficient hence drawing less power allows manufacturers to run 3-4 copper clad aluminum strands as mains cable in some cases. Today, I'd still use "mains wire" if I can find it in a 100% copper form with the c…

Does aluminum not conduct electricity?

Yes. Around 60% of copper. You need much thicker cables to carry the same power.

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#77

Post by ssl-3 »

bayindirh wrote: post #14
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the (unstated) point of the article is that if banana/mud can’t be differentiated from copper wire then the audiophile/fool level cable is also nonsense, for example: https://www.audiotherapyuk.com/product/oephi-reference-inter...

I have always said and will always say the same thing: Up to a point, there's an easily distinguishable sound and detail difference between cheaper and more expensive gear, given that you don't cheat (i.e. put cheaper gear in expensive enclosure), but that difference indistinguishable well before these "true audiophile" level stuff. For example: I run a pair of Heco Celan GT302s. They are not something exotic. 100W p…

Like the Synergistic Audio network router that is quite clearly even labeled as a Mikrotik Routerboard Hex S -- inside of a nice box with a (fancy, admittedly) power supply, and some light pipes glued on so the status LEDs shine differently?

I mean, I like Mikrotik products just fine. I happen to have a Mikrotik Hex S on my desk in front of me as I write this.

But scroll down and zoom in on the money shot here: https://hifi.nl/artikel/32753/Review-Synergistic-Research-Ne...

And then, for comparison: https://openwrt.org/_media/media/mikrotik/rb760igs/pcb_top.j...

The difference in price between the Mikrotik box and the Synergistic box with the board is north of $2,500.

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#78

Post by tcoff91 »

AngryData wrote: post #45

The biggest problem with audio hardware businesses is 95% of what they say about their products is marketing bullshit. It doesn't take a lot of money to get really good gear, if you put in the research, but its very easy to get ripped off if you don't, spending multiple times more than you need to get a worse result. Just look at the boxes for half this stuff, quoting peak power for speakers instead of RMS, which is…

What are some affordable speakers that sound great?

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#79

Post by magicalhippo »

lich_king wrote: post #50

It's fashionable to dunk on audiophiles because many of their beliefs are silly and there are businesses that prey on them selling them "oxygen-free" cables and stuff like that. And some of their beliefs are auto-suggestion. But here's another way to look at it: some audio setups will sound better than others in your living room , because of a million variables you can't really control for. Maybe one manufacturer com…

> some audio setups will sound better than others in your living room, because of a million variables you can't really control for

Erin over at Erin's Audio Corner did a really nice video[1] recently which focuses on room treatment, but dives into some of these variables which gives a good insight in why something that works well for you might be horrible in my living room.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTshtgikT7Q

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#80

Post by amluto »

bayindirh wrote: post #66
toast0 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't mains cable make good speaker wire? Probably much larger diameter than needed for audio and therefore more expensive if fairly priced, but if you've got to wire speakers and that's what you've got, should be fine. About the only things you could do wrong would be using wire that's too small to carry the load, is frayed/broken/severely corroded, or is coiled in a way that inductance becomes a real issue.…

In the past, there was no special speaker wire. It was all mains wire, because all was 100% copper. Today, finding 100% copper cable having the cross-section stamped on it is pretty rare. Electronics being more efficient hence drawing less power allows manufacturers to run 3-4 copper clad aluminum strands as mains cable in some cases. Today, I'd still use "mains wire" if I can find it in a 100% copper form with the c…

Where do you live? In the US, there a lot of widely available brands of UL-listed (or equivalent) wire with clearly marked specs and the cross section in ridiculous units of AWG. If it says it’s copper and it’s not an outrageous counterfeit, it’s copper. (And it will have a resistance that is in spec, because this is important for code-compliant electrical installations, and it won’t corrode when terminated properly.)

And the UL-listed stuff is fantastic, because UL cares about the insulation and jacket. There is plenty of “speaker” wire with crappy insulation that degrades after a few years, but I’ve never seen an actual CL2 or CM or CL3 (or their R or P variants) or THWN(2), TC(-ER) etc, cable, from the last 30 years, with any such issues.

16AWG CL2 cable is fantastic speaker wire, and it’s cheap and you can buy it at any store that sells electrical supplies. TC-ER is great if you need something bigger than 16AWG (the longer the run, the thicker the cable you need to keep resistance below 1 ohm or so), but it’s a bit harder to find.

The thing that can be genuinely hard to find is nice twisted-pair or shielded twisted-pair cable in any format other than category (Ethernet) cable, and that tends to max out at 22-23AWG and may have the wrong number of conductors for whatever you’re doing with it. For making up an RCA cable, this is completely unnecessary — use RG59 or RG6 cable if you need particularly good shielding. But for long runs of balanced audio cable, you want actual twisted pairs, 23 AWG is plenty, but you may need those pairs shielded from each other to minimize crosstalk. So you end up with commercial snake cables, and those are not cheap. Some people use digital stage boxes these days, because an effectively transparent ADC and all the electronics needed to make it work can be cheaper than the fancy cables.

Post reply on HN