*WHITE PAPER* The Sound of Music - How & Why the Speaker Cable Matters

3. I have tried to explain it, but some are not happy. Is it just coincidence that the traces track characteristic impedance quite closely?

No, you basically started with a conclusion and then attempted to make the data match without correlating, or compensating for other variables. Keep in mind you have presented no mathematical correlation.

Zo = sqrt (L/C) .... of course impedance is going to have a relation to inductance, that value you continually ignore.

1. Has anyone heard a difference between speaker cables?

You are now appealing to audiophile emotions which is just wrong when you present what purports to be a scientific paper. This has nothing to do with whether people hear a difference between cables or not. It has to do with the fact that your paper is error filled and draws a conclusion without proving direct correlation, while investigating no correlating variables.


And still even though I have pointed out numerous errors in your paper, you have not addressed them, or retracted until you could fix them. Instead you are blaming others here. We did not write the paper.


Keep in mind, you are not just presenting an error filled paper, this is also meant to market your product.

Many people more knowledgeable about transmission lines and electricity have pointed out all the issues with this "white paper". No change has been made. That says a lot.

Exactly, what errors? Please clarify.

Have you duplicated the test?

We are doing a Zoom session 6 PM GMT 5 Dec, and we will show you the test with the same cables.

Is it just coincidence that the traces track characteristic impedance quite closely?

Characteristic impedance always depends on inductance but taking false conclusions and writing papers on it is pretty bad.  I'm sure your cables sound wonderful, but please stop this "scientific" nonsense.

US spending on science, space and technology has 99.79% correlation with suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Exactly what errors? Really. Now that just comes across as insincere attempt at deflection. I have very clearly my posts highlighted what 5+ errors

- Speaker electrical model does not match impedance curve shown.

- I will add that as well this is I believe, as there really is not a full standard model, an electroacoustic model, but transmission lines don’t care about mechanical effects

- your model does not include parasitic capacitance or inductance in your elements and transmission lines do care about those

- no scales on oscilloscope plots

- your method that YOU used of measuring characteristic impedance is wrong, and at audio frequencies grossly wrong. You can’t use a transmitted square wave to measure characteristic impedance at audio frequencies

- your simulation is wrong. You have not simulated characteristic impedance at all in your simulation nor transmission line effects. You would need a complex model of transmission line characteristics across audio frequencies and you must include bulk capacitance and inductance and resistance and even skin effects

- you ignored skin effects though this is likely <=1db of error

- Your table of wires and their characteristic values does not correlate to the graph and confuses readers.

- you only showed a rough correlation to impedance not an actual mathematical correlation. Standard line, correlation does NOT equal causation

- you have ignored other relevant variables, namely inductance

- you called a graph the frequency response of the cable when it is clearly not. It is the cable voltage drop versus frequency which is lot the same thing

- you don’t explain or correct for the 2db measurement drop at high frequencies which without knowing why puts unbounded error on the measurements at high frequencies

- the scale of the spectrum graph is not listed, only db and this is a near meaningless term without the required scale.

- the settings for the spectrum analyzer are not listed so we don’t know if it is average, RMS average, peak, etc

I could go on but what would be the point. You fail to acknowledge the obvious and substantial flaws.