Question for users of bare wire ends speaker cable

Ehider, you are touching on MANY of the subjects that Jon is trying to cover over at AA in the cable forum. I do NOT attribute all of the differences amongst cables strictly to "skin effect". Then again, if what we were hearing was merely a matter of simplistic electrical equations taking place, we could "duplicate" the sonics of a cable by lumping electrical components together ( resistors, capacitors, inductors, etc...) and duplicating the end impedance via Thevenin's Theory. If you have ever tried doing such an "experiment", such AIN'T the case. There are obviously other things that we aren't measuring that obviously DO affect the interaction between components and various cables.

Outside of all of the "bickering" that goes on here, some of you might want to check out this post. It has TONS of references in it regarding wires and cables, etc... Sean
>

http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/40899.html

Just for the record: I don't prescribe to the notion that a cables' sound can be characterized by electrical equations. You are very right that you CANNOT do an experiment with resistors, capacitors and inductors to mimic a cable. One major reason is because the electrical wave propagation characteristic through these passive devices are much different than through any sort of cable. Anybody on this forum that has taken 4 or more years of high level calculus, should be able to tell you that the math involved to understand electrical wave propagation is extremely complex. This is what I was referring to when I wrote the words "calculations".

BTW: Sean you may think there is "bickering" going on here, but I think people are trying to open your mind to new ideas and concepts. Every post should be treated as a measure of learning and only a personal attack only when people don't back up their comments, or make malicious, demeaning statements about you. I've read many of your posts, and you make some extremely good comments, helpful suggestions and provide a great overview on many topics. But please try to learn from others also. This is what I think myself, Karls, bomarc and Bishopwill have been trying to do with our comments regarding your statements. We are not "bickering", we are expanding on your ideas, hypothesizes and assumptions.

Anytime there is an "exchange of ideas", there is "bickering" taking place. Each party is "arguing" or "presenting" their side of the story. This is NOT to say that understanding or learning can't come out of a "heated discussion".

With that in mind, i do try to learn as much as possible. I try to better understand where various points of view are coming from so that i can more easily pick them apart : )

As such, i probably do come across as "confrontational" in some / many of the posts that i make. This probably limits the amount of input that specific threads would receive, so i probably need to shut up a LOT more often than i do. I'll keep this in mind. I know that you didn't say that, but i'm sure that it is true.

As to your comments about velocity of propagation and the waveshaping that takes place in various components, etc... i agree wholeheartedly. Those are the things that are measurable ( with the right equipment ), so i have a hard time understanding why it hasn't already been done. Sean
>

Sean: It's good to see that you're trying to understand people's views and learn from them. I guess I just interpreted your threads as being very defensive. Perhaps a statement saying something like : "good point, I never thought about it that way" is something we all need to say more.

In regard to your statement of "velocity of propagation", that is only ONE factor of wave propagation, and a simple one at that. I think you are not realizing that to do a complete wave propagation analysis of a wire, it cannot be a static measurement, but a time slice based series of measurements. This, in conjunction with the varying phase vector of the load, it's various characteristic interactions, the associated every changing signal (both in amplitude, frequency and time) all add up to some unbelievable complex calculations (we are talking about having to use a Cray computer here).

To elaborate: since there is not a definitive point in time or reference signal or load (recorded music is the opposite of a static single frequency, or time and amplitude), you then need to capture every millisecond of data, and chart it against the next millisecond. This plot would then have to be repeated for a whole series of loads with associated phase vectors, along with a whole series of dynamic signals, which compose a plethora of frequencies and amplitudes. When you add up all the permutations, you end up with over 100,000,000,000,000 measurement possibilities (and I'm being very conservative with my calculations!). This is why a measurement is so hard, because it isn't just one measurement. The world we live in is dynamic not static, this one of the reasons why Calculus was developed: to have the ability to describe non-linear functions at a specific slice in time.

Many things will be able to be measured and quantified in audio components and wires within 25 years. By then, the world should have access to computers that have processors that can do trillions of calculations per second. With the harnessing or this processing power, many things in dynamic environments will be able to be broken down and analyzed, with an excellent understanding of what is the cause and effect, regarding design iterations of electron carrying and transfer devices.