Cables more hype than value?

I am in agreement with a lot of Irv's comments about the Analysis Plus papers, shown here and here. However, I would rate the quality, intelligence, and technical persuasiveness of those presentations MUCH higher than that of the vast majority of cable-related marketing literature I have seen, which in many other cases drives my BS meter to full scale or beyond.

One major reason for that, among several, is that the factors they discuss are generally presented in a QUANTITATIVE manner, as opposed to just describing an effect and saying that they have found it to make a significant difference. (Irv, with respect to your question about the frequency of the square waves shown in Figures 5 and 6 of the first reference, the number "10" shown above the figures is presumably microseconds per division, so they are 20 kHz square waves. The figure at the bottom of page 2 of the second reference, the pdf document, appears to confirm that interpretation).

Regarding the resistance figure shown for 100 feet of 12 gauge wire, 200 milliohms (0.2 ohms) is in the right ballpark. It is actually about 0.16 ohms according to this wire gauge table.

More generally, I would make the following points about the resistance rise at high frequencies which they depict as resulting from "current bunching" and skin effect.

1)Although they indicate that all of their cables are designed based on similar philosophies, that resistance rise has no relevance to analog interconnect cables, for which cable resistance is utterly insignificant with respect to the load impedance. And in most cases it will also be insignificant in relation to the output impedance of the component driving the cable (to which it adds, since the two impedances are in series).

2)For speaker cables, I suppose it is conceivable that a rise from 0.2 ohms per 100 feet to 0.5 ohms per 100 feet at 20 kHz, which their cable avoids, when extrapolated down to more typical lengths might make a VERY slight difference in the upper treble region in some systems, especially if speaker impedance is low at high frequencies (as in the case of many electrostatics). The impedance of dynamic speakers, on the other hand, generally rises significantly in the upper treble region and beyond, and in those cases I can't see how a rise of 0.3 ohms per 100 feet at 20 kHz would make the slightest difference.

3)It should be kept in mind that resistance, and therefore the significance of a given percent variation of that resistance as a function of frequency, can be reduced by simply going to a heavier wire gauge.

4)It should be kept in mind that the effects resistance might have in a speaker cable or analog interconnect cable, if any, will be directly proportional to the length of the cable. The shorter the cable the lower the resistance, at 20 kHz and other frequencies as well as at DC.

All of that said, as I indicated earlier in this post I do give their papers excellent marks compared to those of most or all of their competition, and if I personally were shopping for cables in their price range (which I'm not) I would certainly put them at the top of my list of candidates.

Mapman, thanks for the kind comment in one of your recent posts.

Regards,
-- Al

No doubt high end audio vendors do love to make mountains out of mole hills sometimes.

I remember the days when we just sold customers buying good systems 12 gauge speaker wire and called it a day. Then came "Monster" cables. Scary! Then the floodgates opened.

Al, you are a knowledgeable and unbiased breath of fresh air and always welcome. I share your opinions regarded wires and such pretty much without exception.

Where are you at pops?disclose your experience with cables!

Where are you at pops?disclose your experience with cables!

Thanks, Al. I missed that "10", and if those are 20KHz square waves, that's yet another example of presenting what is tantamount to nearly worthless information and representing it as relevant.

For those who don't understand square waves, their reproduction a particularly difficult test of bandwidth, because to get one to be really square, with nice flats tops and right-angle rises and falls, you need a very high degree of linearity at multiple harmonics around the fundamental frequency. So when Al posits that those are 20KHz square waves, that means that whatever is being tested needs to have great linearity in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on harmonics. The second harmonic of a 20KHz fundamental is 40KHz. See what I mean? For audio performance a 2KHz square wave test would tell you so much more, but the problem is that the 12 gauge stranded Cu wire would probably look just awesome in such a test too, so they're probably not going to show you the results at 2KHz.

Even with the bogus skin depth calculations, and they appear to be using the right formulae, they aren't telling you that their calculation applies only to solid core conductors. The stranded wire case is more complex, and tends to reduce skin effect even further, which, as I pointed out, is largely irrelevant even for a solid conductor.

So while I agree with Al that Analysis Plus is at least using recognized criteria in their arguments, I just can't give them much credit for it, because they're misusing the information to mislead people, and that's inexcusable, IMHO. How would you like it if your plumber did that? Or your dentist? Or perhaps your accountant?

There are cable vendors around who accurately present information and produce high quality products. These products are worth paying for, and I do it. I use Blue Jeans Cables because I like their quality and service. BJC products aren't the cheapest alternatives available by any means; I like good-looking, high quality products that feel good just as much as anyone else. If people want luxury cables that look and feel like fire hose jewelry, cool. Even pure silver, if that's what rings their bell. What I can't understand is why anyone would want to tolerate a vendor of anything that openly tries to mislead them.