Are there any constants in speaker wire designs?

09-05-10: Kijanki
I don't know how to measure focus or soundstage depth or width but it exists and is affected by something. Can this something be simply measured by relation between R, L and C.
Can we say that all speaker cables that have exactly same RLC will have exactly same sound (focus, soundstaging, etc.)? What about R,L or C vs frequency - it might be complex relationship?

"focus" and "soundstage depth" are subjective evaluations - you can't measure that kind of stuff. but you can measure electrical characteristics that have relevance in cable performance. the measure that i would generally think to be of significance is resistance, maybe measured at different frequencies. this could give an indication of how transparent a cable is across the audio frequency spectrum.

for interconnect cable, there could be capacitance in the dielectric material between the core and the screen; you can measure that. even if they just report the data and don't tell you how to interpret it, at least then you could find that kind of stuff out and then you have data that you can use to evaluate the cables. it would be useful for reviews to provide information about the magnitude and phase response of cables.

i'm not saying that there is no role for subjective evaluations, but it would be useful to see whether objective data supports the subjective claims. a non-audiophile like me would be inclined to use the information to cut down the number of candidates that i might consider.

Kijanki, when talking about cables, I have also came across this: do two cables (branded, and a copy of it) which have identical L R C spec. will sound the same? I do not reject the idea that this only speculiation between these numbers, and their relationship between the system components AND the listener. All cables have different LRC, some manufactures give those numbers in their websites, so if someone just could make a copy of lets say Nordost Frey and compare them, that could make a significant step forward in this topic.

But when you overthink this again, then logic tells that there might be all variables involved - think about... shielding.. would be there a difference between two IC cables with same LRC BUT 0% and 95% shielding? And the list goes on..

>>Can this something be simply measured by relation >>between R, L and C.

Kij,
That's the way I've been leaning. RLC is a pretty gross description. Doing RLC measures at frequency than doing some kind of complex 3d charting....Maybe some derivation of a Smith Chart may eventually show a pattern worthy of some conclusion. But perhaps only after sufficient data is collected.
Just talkin' out loud, here.

Magfan,

Yes, RLC is just gross description. There might be even variables that we don't know yet. They claimed in 70's that new SS amps have to sound better than tube amps because they have wider bandwidth and much lower THD and IMD. They just didn't know about transient intermodulation (TIM) that was discovered in 70's. I know that wire is just a wire but shielding for instance (as I mentioned before) can be extremely complicated.

Mjordans,

I had a few AQ ICs and can say that Viper has better low frequency extension that Ruby. I cannot imagine how RLC can be used to describe this. Not likely placebo effect since I could tell easily which cable was installed and did not read any opinions/reviews. In addition there are many IC cables reviews where they mention bass extension. Midbass was about the same but Viper had better bass definition. How we can posssibly explain tighter bass in RLC? Capacitance or inductance values are completely irrelevant at these frequencies. My current IC has about 7pF/30nH - not significant at any audio frequency. What makes this cable to sound different from other cables of similar, not significant RLC. Shielding with non-magnetic shield works against EMI, as I described before, because of skin effect. But this is only if cable is very symmetrical (equivalent field inside is zero) and only at higher frequencies. There will be some frequencies at which skin depth will be too deep to contain induced interference to shield alone while cable will be long enough to be some antenna. Antenna works effectively at 1/4 wavelength and stops working perhaps below 1/10 but there will be still some pickup even at shorter cables. Single MHz frequencies can perhaps do that (bypass the shielding and be induced). Maybe they tend to do something to modulate output driver and that's why cables might be so system dependent.

I think that one explainable technical factor, which seems to be rarely discussed and rarely specified but could account for some subjectively perceived differences between unbalanced interconnect cables, is the resistance of the shield (or other return conductor).

Although there may be others, as far as I am aware Kimber is the only manufacturer providing information relating to that specification, and even in their case it is not an explicit specification. Their specs include "loop resistance," which presumably encompasses the round-trip resistance of both the center conductor and the shield, for a given length of cable.

Low shield resistance would minimize potential differences between component chassis, thereby reducing extraneous ground loop related inter-chassis currents, including those at 60Hz and 120 Hz hum frequencies, and also at much higher noise frequencies.

With unbalanced interfaces, those currents cannot be distinguished by the receiving component from signal currents, and conceivably could intermodulate with the audio to produce all kinds of unpredictable (and system-dependent!) sonic effects.

Best regards,
-- Al