John Larkin wrote:

Phaedeaux wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

The impedance graphs and text on the cited web page are made-up lies.
But I suppose the wilder the lies, the more audiophools will pay.

Audio doesn't really matter anyhow.

Didn't one of the electronics magazines once publish a series of A/B
comparisons of various ultra-expensive speaker cables against zero-guage
welding cable? As I recall, the 0 AWG pair performed better in both the
instrumental and listening tests than any of the audiosnob brands. Of
course, the expensive-is-always-better crowd countered that the cables
must be matched to the combination of amp, speaker and listening room.
One day, I'd like to see how a panel of audiosnobs would rate a _live_
performance heard through an opaque (but acoustically transparent)
curtain.

About the only thing a speaker cable can do is add resistance (lowers
volume and can change speaker damping) or add inductance (attenuates
highs slightly, not generally audibly). Widely spaced pairs have more
inductance; an agressively bad design can hit something like 20
uH/meter.

Which is why I rejected sucha pattern recently for an install. I assume it
had been made that way just to suit audiophool tastes.


12/2 Romex is about as good as anything.

See my other post !


Insane amounts of capacitance could make a bad amp oscillate, I
suppose.

And they DID in some cases. One amp maker went as far as to delete the usual
output inductor and rely on the cable ! They fried nicely with such cable.


The live performance test sounds funny. Since people are used to
ultra-processed, compressed, stereo-enhanced, uber-equalized and
multiply-mixed sound, they probably wouldn't like it.

Also possibly true. The all too common over-processing of sound these days is
the bete noire of the serious recordist.

Graham