I am trying to think of the easiest way to route cable in a house we are
looking to buy. When we move in, there will be no carpet on the floors -
and the bare chipboard under-flooring will be exposed. Can I route a
channel about 1cm wide and about .5cm deep in this to lay speaker cable
? Skirting boards will also be missing, making it easy to fit banana
posts on wall plates in the desired speaker locations (easy to poke the
cable from the channels and up behind the plasterboard). 'Normal'
routing is difficult behind the plasterboards as I dont want to have to
re-decorate, feeding cable through using rods is also very difficult due
to doorways getting in the way.

We will be laying underlay then laminate over the chipboards. I could
try and put the cable ontop of the chipboards and under the underlay (ie
not cut a channel). Would 'flat' speaker cable allow this without
causing problems for the laminate ?

Help and advise much appreciated....

In article , NC
writes
I am trying to think of the easiest way to route cable in a house we are
looking to buy. When we move in, there will be no carpet on the floors -
and the bare chipboard under-flooring will be exposed. Can I route a
channel about 1cm wide and about .5cm deep in this to lay speaker cable
? Skirting boards will also be missing, making it easy to fit banana
posts on wall plates in the desired speaker locations (easy to poke the
cable from the channels and up behind the plasterboard). 'Normal'
routing is difficult behind the plasterboards as I dont want to have to
re-decorate, feeding cable through using rods is also very difficult due
to doorways getting in the way.

We will be laying underlay then laminate over the chipboards. I could
try and put the cable ontop of the chipboards and under the underlay (ie
not cut a channel). Would 'flat' speaker cable allow this without
causing problems for the laminate ?

Just cut a small grove the thickness of the cable...

Help and advise much appreciated....

Seems fine to me, but don't post this over on uk.rec.audio unless you
want a 1000 plus posting on how the cables need laying after soaking in
snake oil, and must only be laid when the planets Venus and Uranus are
in conjunction, and all must be done by a high priestess of hi-fi whilst
sacrificing two virgins to the god of audio etc,,etc,,etc.....
--
Tony Sayer

NC wrote:
I am trying to think of the easiest way to route cable in a house we
are looking to buy. When we move in, there will be no carpet on the
floors - and the bare chipboard under-flooring will be exposed. Can I
route a channel about 1cm wide and about .5cm deep in this to lay
speaker cable ? Skirting boards will also be missing, making it easy
to fit banana posts on wall plates in the desired speaker locations
(easy to poke the cable from the channels and up behind the
plasterboard). 'Normal' routing is difficult behind the plasterboards
as I dont want to have to re-decorate, feeding cable through using
rods is also very difficult due to doorways getting in the way.

We will be laying underlay then laminate over the chipboards. I could
try and put the cable ontop of the chipboards and under the underlay
(ie not cut a channel). Would 'flat' speaker cable allow this without
causing problems for the laminate ?

Help and advise much appreciated....

The speaker cable is normally flat anyway and will cause no discrepencies
under the laminate, in fact you could trail it around the perimeter of the
laminate, the gap your supposed to leave for flexing/expansion of the
laminate.

The speaker cable is normally flat anyway and will cause no discrepencies
under the laminate, in fact you could trail it around the perimeter of the
laminate, the gap your supposed to leave for flexing/expansion of the
laminate.

Good plan. Should be easy to go across the living room / kitchen doorway
too - using the expansion gap between laminate and tile; and around the
fireplace too.

"NC" wrote in message
...
I am trying to think of the easiest way to route cable in a house we are
looking to buy. When we move in, there will be no carpet on the floors -
and the bare chipboard under-flooring will be exposed. Can I route a
channel about 1cm wide and about .5cm deep in this to lay speaker cable ?
Skirting boards will also be missing, making it easy to fit banana posts on
wall plates in the desired speaker locations (easy to poke the cable from
the channels and up behind the plasterboard). 'Normal' routing is difficult
behind the plasterboards as I dont want to have to re-decorate, feeding
cable through using rods is also very difficult due to doorways getting in
the way.

We will be laying underlay then laminate over the chipboards. I could try
and put the cable ontop of the chipboards and under the underlay (ie not
cut a channel). Would 'flat' speaker cable allow this without causing
problems for the laminate ?

Help and advise much appreciated....


Make sure you are not contravening "part P"
;0)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:21:33 +0000 (UTC), NC wrote:

chipboard under-flooring will be exposed. Can I route a channel
about 1cm wide and about .5cm deep in this to lay speaker cable
? Skirting boards will also be missing,

I wouldn't mess with the flooring boards, their strength relies to a
certain extent on a dense "skin" on the faces the cores are not so
strong. A groove will break this skin...

As the skirtings are off why not construct cable ducting with that,
either routed grooves in the rear face but dificult to fit as the
cable will drop out or battens and a thin cover to allow access at a
later date for network, AV, RF etc cables.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

NC wrote:
I am trying to think of the easiest way to route cable in a house we are
looking to buy. When we move in, there will be no carpet on the floors -
and the bare chipboard under-flooring will be exposed. Can I route a
channel about 1cm wide and about .5cm deep in this to lay speaker cable

Probably a bad idea - unless you do it directly over the joists.
If it's 18mm ply, you've only got 13mm left, which is very significantly
weaker.
If you have to do this, use a snaking line going back and forward 3" or
so every 12". This will be much stronger.

"Flat" speaker cable, (I use 0.1" IDC cable*50) routed in 1mm deep wouldn't
make a significant difference.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:21:33 +0000 (UTC),it is alleged that NC
spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:

I am trying to think of the easiest way to route cable in a house we are
looking to buy. When we move in, there will be no carpet on the floors -
and the bare chipboard under-flooring will be exposed. Can I route a
channel about 1cm wide and about .5cm deep in this to lay speaker cable
? Skirting boards will also be missing, making it easy to fit banana
posts on wall plates in the desired speaker locations (easy to poke the
cable from the channels and up behind the plasterboard). 'Normal'
routing is difficult behind the plasterboards as I dont want to have to
re-decorate, feeding cable through using rods is also very difficult due
to doorways getting in the way.

We will be laying underlay then laminate over the chipboards. I could
try and put the cable ontop of the chipboards and under the underlay (ie
not cut a channel). Would 'flat' speaker cable allow this without
causing problems for the laminate ?

Help and advise much appreciated....

My suggestion which audiophiles would kill me for is much the same as
Ian Stirling's. 0.1" pitch ribbon cable would be ideal for this,
depending on the thickness of the underlay beneath the laminate you
may even be able to get away without routing the floor at all.

Another possibility would be 25mmx16mm minitrunking under the level of
the baseboards (which you say are being temporarily removed). It's
roughly the same depth as skirting board, and then that would just
leave you doors to cross, which you may be able to do on a join in the
floor boarding, where weakening it wouldn't be so bad. If you can and
do do this, make sure you put something over the cable to protect it
from when they fit the thresholds and make the installers aware it's
there.

--
The follies which a man regrets most in his life are those
which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity.
- Helen Rowland

NC wrote:
I am trying to think of the easiest way to route cable in a house we are
looking to buy. When we move in, there will be no carpet on the floors -
and the bare chipboard under-flooring will be exposed. Can I route a
channel about 1cm wide and about .5cm deep in this to lay speaker cable
? Skirting boards will also be missing, making it easy to fit banana
posts on wall plates in the desired speaker locations (easy to poke the
cable from the channels and up behind the plasterboard). 'Normal'
routing is difficult behind the plasterboards as I dont want to have to
re-decorate, feeding cable through using rods is also very difficult due
to doorways getting in the way.

We will be laying underlay then laminate over the chipboards. I could
try and put the cable ontop of the chipboards and under the underlay (ie
not cut a channel). Would 'flat' speaker cable allow this without
causing problems for the laminate ?

Help and advise much appreciated....


Everyones making life difficult here. The solution is enamelled copper
wire. It has almost no insulation, the 2 cores will need to be laid not
touching. You can lay it behind or under skirting, or on top of the
chip when you cover it, and wont need any grooving. Great stuff. Also
very cheap.

BTW never try to refit and reuse it, its a fit once only item.


NT

NC wrote:
I am trying to think of the easiest way to route cable in a house we are
looking to buy. When we move in, there will be no carpet on the floors -
and the bare chipboard under-flooring will be exposed. Can I route a
channel about 1cm wide and about .5cm deep in this to lay speaker cable
? Skirting boards will also be missing, making it easy to fit banana
posts on wall plates in the desired speaker locations (easy to poke the
cable from the channels and up behind the plasterboard). 'Normal'
routing is difficult behind the plasterboards as I dont want to have to
re-decorate, feeding cable through using rods is also very difficult due
to doorways getting in the way.

We will be laying underlay then laminate over the chipboards. I could
try and put the cable ontop of the chipboards and under the underlay (ie
not cut a channel). Would 'flat' speaker cable allow this without
causing problems for the laminate ?

Help and advise much appreciated....

Along with all the other suggestions to date...

Why not use those fibre-board mats, in place of the underlay (basically,
around 3' square, and about 5-8mm thick, some dense fibre type material,
as an underlay to the laminate (it is sold as such).

Then, just leave a gap between the boards to allow whatever cable runs
you need.

wrote:

NC wrote:

I am trying to think of the easiest way to route cable in a house we are
looking to buy. When we move in, there will be no carpet on the floors -
and the bare chipboard under-flooring will be exposed. Can I route a
channel about 1cm wide and about .5cm deep in this to lay speaker cable
? Skirting boards will also be missing, making it easy to fit banana
posts on wall plates in the desired speaker locations (easy to poke the
cable from the channels and up behind the plasterboard). 'Normal'
routing is difficult behind the plasterboards as I dont want to have to
re-decorate, feeding cable through using rods is also very difficult due
to doorways getting in the way.

We will be laying underlay then laminate over the chipboards. I could
try and put the cable ontop of the chipboards and under the underlay (ie
not cut a channel). Would 'flat' speaker cable allow this without
causing problems for the laminate ?

Help and advise much appreciated....



Everyones making life difficult here. The solution is enamelled copper
wire. It has almost no insulation, the 2 cores will need to be laid not
touching. You can lay it behind or under skirting, or on top of the
chip when you cover it, and wont need any grooving. Great stuff. Also
very cheap.

BTW never try to refit and reuse it, its a fit once only item.


NT

Trouble is, for decent resistance it has to be quite thick and
stiff...its useable though..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
NC wrote:

I am trying to think of the easiest way to route cable in a house we are
looking to buy.

? Skirting boards will also be missing, making it easy to fit banana
posts on wall plates in the desired speaker locations


Everyones making life difficult here. The solution is enamelled copper
wire. It has almost no insulation, the 2 cores will need to be laid not
touching. You can lay it behind or under skirting, or on top of the
chip when you cover it, and wont need any grooving. Great stuff. Also
very cheap.

BTW never try to refit and reuse it, its a fit once only item.


Trouble is, for decent resistance it has to be quite thick and
stiff...its useable though..


I'm assuming it would be treated like cable rather than flex. Speaker
use doesnt need anything particularly big.

Enamelled is no use if you want to use it like flex tho.


NT

On 19 Jul 2005 11:13:30 -0700, wrote:

Speaker use doesnt need anything particularly big.

IMHO anything with less than 2.5mm^2 CSA is to small.

20W into 4 ohms is over 2A... but it's not just the abilty to carry
the required current. The extra resistance reduces the damping on the
loudspeaker affecting the LF response.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article . com,
wrote:


I'm assuming it would be treated like cable rather than flex. Speaker
use doesnt need anything particularly big.

Au contraire. The more copper you can get in line, the better. Too little
and the bass goes all wooly.


--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

Chip wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:21:33 +0000 (UTC),it is alleged that NC
spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:
My suggestion which audiophiles would kill me for is much the same as
Ian Stirling's. 0.1" pitch ribbon cable would be ideal for this,
depending on the thickness of the underlay beneath the laminate you
may even be able to get away without routing the floor at all.


Thirded. Ribbon cables are very very flat, and easy to get in many widths
(or run several strips!).

Each conductor in typical 0.1" cable is capable of carrying 2A and since the
cores all have good heat dissipation this doesn't really go down much with
number of conductors, as a round cable would.

Just pick a size you can get cheaply and bundle together as many conductors
as you want for each side of the speaker connection.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On 19 Jul 2005 11:13:30 -0700, wrote:


Speaker use doesnt need anything particularly big.


IMHO anything with less than 2.5mm^2 CSA is to small.

20W into 4 ohms is over 2A... but it's not just the abilty to carry
the required current. The extra resistance reduces the damping on the
loudspeaker affecting the LF response.

Yes. I laid some cheap car loudspeaker (pretty fat stuff) into a chased
channel in concrete floor.

Its good - beter than T & G.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 19 Jul 2005 11:13:30 -0700, wrote:

Speaker use doesnt need anything particularly big.

IMHO anything with less than 2.5mm^2 CSA is to small.

20W into 4 ohms is over 2A... but it's not just the abilty to carry
the required current. The extra resistance reduces the damping on the
loudspeaker affecting the LF response.


Lets see.

Typical 8 ohm speaker, voice coil R typically 6 ohms.
5 meters of 2 core 1.29mm dia cu wire, tot 10m, 0.0128 ohm/metre, total
R 0.128 ohms.

Cable's R increase as a percentage of total speaker R: 2%.
Ie a non issue.


NT

In article . com,
writes
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 19 Jul 2005 11:13:30 -0700, wrote:

Speaker use doesnt need anything particularly big.

IMHO anything with less than 2.5mm^2 CSA is to small.

20W into 4 ohms is over 2A... but it's not just the abilty to carry
the required current. The extra resistance reduces the damping on the
loudspeaker affecting the LF response.


Lets see.

Typical 8 ohm speaker, voice coil R typically 6 ohms.
5 meters of 2 core 1.29mm dia cu wire, tot 10m, 0.0128 ohm/metre, total
R 0.128 ohms.

Cable's R increase as a percentage of total speaker R: 2%.
Ie a non issue.


NT


Its not as simple as that. Take into account the effects of the
crossover unit in most all speakers and then post that to uk.rec.audio
and wait for the 1000 odd posts.

They won't be long 'a coming....
--
Tony Sayer

PC Paul wrote:

Chip wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:21:33 +0000 (UTC),it is alleged that NC
spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:
My suggestion which audiophiles would kill me for is much the same as
Ian Stirling's. 0.1" pitch ribbon cable would be ideal for this,
depending on the thickness of the underlay beneath the laminate you
may even be able to get away without routing the floor at all.



Thirded. Ribbon cables are very very flat, and easy to get in many widths
(or run several strips!).

Each conductor in typical 0.1" cable is capable of carrying 2A and since the
cores all have good heat dissipation this doesn't really go down much with
number of conductors, as a round cable would.

Just pick a size you can get cheaply and bundle together as many conductors
as you want for each side of the speaker connection.


Current carrying capacity is not the issue: It's resistance. You will
get a very woolly bass sound from ribbon cable of that dimension.
Lousdpeakers rely on a low presented impedance to damp out cone and
enclosure resonances at low frequencies. The amplifier manufacturers go
to extreme lengths to get this well below 50 millohms: ruining all their
good work with high resistance cable will not get the best out of the kit.

wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On 19 Jul 2005 11:13:30 -0700, wrote:


Speaker use doesnt need anything particularly big.


IMHO anything with less than 2.5mm^2 CSA is to small.

20W into 4 ohms is over 2A... but it's not just the abilty to carry
the required current. The extra resistance reduces the damping on the
loudspeaker affecting the LF response.



Lets see.

Typical 8 ohm speaker, voice coil R typically 6 ohms.
5 meters of 2 core 1.29mm dia cu wire, tot 10m, 0.0128 ohm/metre, total
R 0.128 ohms.

Cable's R increase as a percentage of total speaker R: 2%.
Ie a non issue.


Cable R as a percentage of amplifier output impedance (say .05ohms)

250%

A little knowledge is a dengerous thing.

Normal ampplifiers would have a damping factor (ratio of loudspeaker to
effective amplifier impedance) of 50:1 or better. Your 1/8 ohm has
limited that to at best 32 on a 4ohms system.


NT

tony sayer wrote:

In article . com,
writes

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On 19 Jul 2005 11:13:30 -0700, wrote:

Speaker use doesnt need anything particularly big.

IMHO anything with less than 2.5mm^2 CSA is to small.

20W into 4 ohms is over 2A... but it's not just the abilty to carry
the required current. The extra resistance reduces the damping on the
loudspeaker affecting the LF response.


Lets see.

Typical 8 ohm speaker, voice coil R typically 6 ohms.
5 meters of 2 core 1.29mm dia cu wire, tot 10m, 0.0128 ohm/metre, total
R 0.128 ohms.

Cable's R increase as a percentage of total speaker R: 2%.
Ie a non issue.


NT



Its not as simple as that. Take into account the effects of the
crossover unit in most all speakers and then post that to uk.rec.audio
and wait for the 1000 odd posts.


Crossover won't be hugely affected. Some nonlinearity of frequency
response but not maarked. The area of concern is the bass resonance -
particularly with bass reflex cabinets.

You could easily get a 6db difference at some frequencies.

Of course if its a bunch of ****e suround sound system with a separate
subwoofer, then fine. You can be less critical on the higher frequency
stuff...

They won't be long 'a coming....

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
PC Paul wrote:

Chip wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:21:33 +0000 (UTC),it is alleged that NC
spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:
My suggestion which audiophiles would kill me for is much the same
as Ian Stirling's. 0.1" pitch ribbon cable would be ideal for this,
depending on the thickness of the underlay beneath the laminate you
may even be able to get away without routing the floor at all.



Thirded. Ribbon cables are very very flat, and easy to get in many
widths (or run several strips!).

Each conductor in typical 0.1" cable is capable of carrying 2A and
since the cores all have good heat dissipation this doesn't really
go down much with number of conductors, as a round cable would.

Just pick a size you can get cheaply and bundle together as many
conductors as you want for each side of the speaker connection.


Current carrying capacity is not the issue: It's resistance. You will
get a very woolly bass sound from ribbon cable of that dimension.
Lousdpeakers rely on a low presented impedance to damp out cone and
enclosure resonances at low frequencies. The amplifier manufacturers
go to extreme lengths to get this well below 50 millohms: ruining all
their good work with high resistance cable will not get the best out
of the kit.

OK so for a typical 28AWG strand of ribbon you have ~240ohms/km max
resistance. That's 2.4 ohms for a 10m length.

Now take a typical 20 strand ribbon split to 10 strands for each side of the
connection - 10 strands of 2.4ohms in parallel gives you a resistance of
0.24 ohms.

This is approx the same as 10m of 0.75mm2 round cable. Not that bad, really.
Not good, but adequate.

If you want audiophile quality then yes, you do need much bigger (and
shorter) cables, but for normal home music or surround speakers that's fine.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:


IMHO anything with less than 2.5mm^2 CSA is to small.

20W into 4 ohms is over 2A... but it's not just the abilty to carry
the required current. The extra resistance reduces the damping on the
loudspeaker affecting the LF response.


Lets see.

Typical 8 ohm speaker, voice coil R typically 6 ohms.
5 meters of 2 core 1.29mm dia cu wire, tot 10m, 0.0128 ohm/metre, total
R 0.128 ohms.

Cable's R increase as a percentage of total speaker R: 2%.
Ie a non issue.


Cable R as a percentage of amplifier output impedance (say .05ohms)

250%

this is immaterial. The voice coil R of around 6 ohms limits the amp's
ability to apply damping. It limits it by making the R of the damping
circuit 6 ohms in fact.

Picture the voice coil as an ideal driver with 6 ohms in series.


A little knowledge is a dengerous thing.

sometimes. Not in this case, not unless youre playing with 1930s kit
anyway. A 2kohm speaker connected direct to B+ can be.


Normal ampplifiers would have a damping factor (ratio of loudspeaker to
effective amplifier impedance) of 50:1 or better.

But this is meaningless. Its a tech spec used for marketing, not
something that cna actually be applied to the speaker IRL.

Secondly speakers are not normally designed to be fully damped,
resonance is deliberately used to extend the bass freq response a
little lower.


NT

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:33:10 GMT, PC Paul wrote:

This is approx the same as 10m of 0.75mm2 round cable. Not that bad,
really. Not good, but adequate.

Apart from the fact that .75mm2 I don't consider anything like big
enough for speaker cable all those paralleled up cores will have
significantly more capacitance and with a nice big inductance on the
end...


--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On 21 Jul 2005 00:35:06 -0700, wrote:

IMHO anything with less than 2.5mm^2 CSA is to small.

20W into 4 ohms is over 2A... but it's not just the abilty to carry
the required current. The extra resistance reduces the damping on
the loudspeaker affecting the LF response.

Lets see.

Typical 8 ohm speaker, voice coil R typically 6 ohms.
5 meters of 2 core 1.29mm dia cu wire, tot 10m, 0.0128 ohm/metre,
total R 0.128 ohms.

Cable's R increase as a percentage of total speaker R: 2%.
Ie a non issue.

All I can say is that changing speaker cables from .75mm2 to 2.5mm2
made a very noticeable difference to the LF, it became tighter and
less "woffly". These cables where only about 8' long as well.

And I mean a real noticeable difference, not a "green pen" difference.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:36:58 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:33:10 GMT, PC Paul wrote:

This is approx the same as 10m of 0.75mm2 round cable. Not that bad,
really. Not good, but adequate.

Apart from the fact that .75mm2 I don't consider anything like big
enough for speaker cable all those paralleled up cores will have
significantly more capacitance and with a nice big inductance on the
end...


Under the right conditions and depending on filters in the speaker and
amplifier design, this setup can pick up short wave nicely.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:



IMHO anything with less than 2.5mm^2 CSA is to small.

20W into 4 ohms is over 2A... but it's not just the abilty to carry
the required current. The extra resistance reduces the damping on the
loudspeaker affecting the LF response.



Lets see.

Typical 8 ohm speaker, voice coil R typically 6 ohms.
5 meters of 2 core 1.29mm dia cu wire, tot 10m, 0.0128 ohm/metre, total
R 0.128 ohms.

Cable's R increase as a percentage of total speaker R: 2%.
Ie a non issue.



Cable R as a percentage of amplifier output impedance (say .05ohms)

250%


this is immaterial. The voice coil R of around 6 ohms limits the amp's
ability to apply damping. It limits it by making the R of the damping
circuit 6 ohms in fact.

Picture the voice coil as an ideal driver with 6 ohms in series.



A little knowledge is a dengerous thing.


sometimes. Not in this case, not unless youre playing with 1930s kit
anyway. A 2kohm speaker connected direct to B+ can be.



Normal ampplifiers would have a damping factor (ratio of loudspeaker to
effective amplifier impedance) of 50:1 or better.


But this is meaningless. Its a tech spec used for marketing, not
something that cna actually be applied to the speaker IRL.

Secondly speakers are not normally designed to be fully damped,
resonance is deliberately used to extend the bass freq response a
little lower.


NT


Your understanding is incorrect, but I can't be arsed to pursue this
further.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

All I can say is that changing speaker cables from .75mm2 to 2.5mm2
made a very noticeable difference to the LF, it became tighter and
less "woffly". These cables where only about 8' long as well.

And I mean a real noticeable difference, not a "green pen" difference.

double blind or uncontrolled? Theres a lot of history on all this, its
well studied and documented.


NT

On 22 Jul 2005 15:52:47 -0700, wrote:

And I mean a real noticeable difference, not a "green pen"
difference.

double blind or uncontrolled?

Uncontrolled, listened to some stuff, changed the cables listened to
the same stuff, easyly detectable difference. Hence my use of "not a
"green pen" difference" but no doubt as it wasn't double blind you'll
call me liar, so FOAD.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 15:52:47 -0700, wrote:


And I mean a real noticeable difference, not a "green pen"
difference.

double blind or uncontrolled?


Uncontrolled, listened to some stuff, changed the cables listened to
the same stuff, easyly detectable difference. Hence my use of "not a
"green pen" difference" but no doubt as it wasn't double blind you'll
call me liar, so FOAD.


Definitely.

It's even theoretically predictable.


I've done tests with a variable output impedance power amplifier coupled
to open backed loudspeakers for guitar use, and boy can you tell the
difference between current drive and voltage drive...

Admittedly this is an extreme case, but even small differences are
distinctly audible.

It's a long time ago, but IIRC it sounds most notceable on bass reflex,
open backed or labyrinth type speakers. Its not so bad on infinite
baffle sealed enclosures.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 15:52:47 -0700, wrote:

And I mean a real noticeable difference, not a "green pen"
difference.

double blind or uncontrolled?

Uncontrolled, listened to some stuff, changed the cables listened to
the same stuff, easyly detectable difference. Hence my use of "not a
"green pen" difference" but no doubt as it wasn't double blind you'll
call me liar,

why would i do that?

so FOAD.

I'm charmed. If you read up about it... no, I said that before.


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 15:52:47 -0700, wrote:


And I mean a real noticeable difference, not a "green pen"
difference.

double blind or uncontrolled?

Uncontrolled,

Definitely.

It's even theoretically predictable.

I'm all ears


I've done tests with a variable output impedance power amplifier coupled
to open backed loudspeakers for guitar use, and boy can you tell the
difference between current drive and voltage drive...

of course, theyre very different. In another ball park entirely to
minimal change in drive R.


Admittedly this is an extreme case, but even small differences are
distinctly audible.

It's a long time ago, but IIRC it sounds most notceable on bass reflex,
open backed or labyrinth type speakers. Its not so bad on infinite
baffle sealed enclosures.


I'm qualified in electronics, have designed amps, admittedly a while
ago now, read up about the problems with such uncontrolled tests,
designed some novel amp technology, and read some of the articles on
the questions you raise.

From Dave's insistence that a 1 off uncontrolled study of a 2% R change
is significant I am led to think he lacks awareness of the issues with
such tests. Your earlier claim that cable R is effectively in series
with the voice coil R is incorrect does not reassure either.
But I await with interest the maths that shows that a 2% R delta has a
detectable effect.

I fully accept you think a and I think b, its no big deal for me, but
I'm not at all convinced by whats been said. I'll be quite happy to be
shown wrong. It wouldnt be the first time.


NT