Speaker cable test w measurements , recordings and listening

[frednork]

Havent seen this mentioned here previously and I am a sucker for people trying to correlate listening impressions with measurements. They have even included recordings of the different cables so you can listen to them yourself. 

 

I wouldnt call what they did "blind testing" as there wasnt any testing done which has a right or wrong answer which could be "tested". More like unsighted listening observations.  Probably a smart move on their part.

 

See/hear it all here

 

https://alpha-audio.net/review/megatest-speaker-cables-real-measurements-samples-and-blind-test/

 

[Grizaudio]

It would have been nice to see some more affordable alternatives in the test. 

Not everyone has $2000 USD to drop on a single pair of speaker cables.

I feel there would have been decent interest and value including a few pro cables like, star quad/helix wound cable - I.e. Canare, Mogami Neglex), or even coaxial variants like Mogami W3082. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Grizaudio

[tripitaka]

Seems to me the hardware store DIY wire performed fairly typically (middle of the spread/range) on these tests (within the human hearing range at least).  There seemed no consensus or correlation as to what type of divergence from the typical would produce results the listeners could agree on as being better.  The only thing rammed home was that nobody liked the DIY wire so the tentative conclusion might be the reviewers liked something to be done to the signal, except that individuals differ as to exactly what.

 

But my question, if they were serious about comparing to plain wire then why they choose a lousy 0.75mm cross section for the Hardware cable (I use 8.0mm, for example). I remain a skepic.

 

 

[Grizaudio]

19 minutes ago, tripitaka said:

But my question, if they were serious about comparing to plain wire then why they choose a lousy 0.75mm cross section for the Hardware cable (I use 8.0mm, for example). I remain a skepic.

100%, they should have tested with a decent pro speaker cable, as I pointed out. At least then data could be more meaningful. 

 

 

[March Audio]

mmmmmmm.............these guys yet again demonstrate they have no idea how to conduct a blind test.  I only watched a small portion of the video but the subjects were talking to each other about their findings.  Epic fail. This is guaranteed to bias the outcome. The cables being used were also in plain sight.

 

Regarding the technical tests, the square wave tests arent really indicative of anything.  the impacts on the wave edges are at much higher frequencies than 20kHz.  We are talking about 100s of kHz into the MHz, which you cant hear.  Not to mention that speaker cables arent impedance matched transmission lines (and have no need to be at audio frequencies), which they would need to be to convey this square wave properly. 

 

speaker cables can have an impact on sound.  Their objective is to obstensively be electrically "not there".  Of course in the real world this is not possible.  All cables have resistance, inductance and capacitance. 

 

with real world cable parameters, inductance will have more of an impact than capacitance on the frequency response.  Thicker cables will have lower resistance which is good, but this will tend to increase inductance.  Quad geometries reduce inductance, which allows you to use larger CSA cable of lower resistance.  

 

Again there is no magic in this.  Simple electrical theory which has been understood for many, many decades.

 

In simple terms, look at the impedance plot of these cables and the one that has the least drop at 20kHz is going to be the most neutral.  Of course that may not be what you are after..........but personally I wouldn't be trying use a cable to fix a problem with the sound of a system.

 

Its also disappointing that they used 0.75mm mains cable as an "example" of something ordinary.  It was a pretty loaded example IMO.  Why not use a simple speaker "zip" cable of reasonable quality copper and CSA (say 14 guage / 2mm) as a real world example to compare the esoteric ones?

Edited April 20, 2023 by March Audio

[MLXXX]

On the plus side, the review does provide downloadable audio recordings.   So, if we assume these recordings were done in a proper and consistent manner, we can listen for ourselves!

 

I compared only two of the recordings:

• Audioquest Type 9 - DBS - Toto - Africa.flac
• Chord Epic XL - Toto - Africa.flac

These recordings measured differently (particularly at higher audio frequencies) and for my ears sounded different (more different than I had expected).

 

I couldn't see any description of how the recordings were performed. I found I needed to delay the second recording above by 141 samples at 48kHz to get time alignment.  (I found I had to boost the gain of the first file by 0.154dB to achieve an approximate  level match for frequencies below 1kHz. Without any low pass filter, the first file needed to be boosted by 0.074dB to achieve matching peak levels. ) 

 

I did a [successful] foobar ABX comparison with time-aligned versions of the two files. (The files were  not adjusted in any other way.) 

 

I applaud the making available of audio recordings. I'd have appreciated though a description of how they were performed.

 

Edit:   How the recordings were done is explained at the beginning of this sample video:  

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by MLXXX

[March Audio]

8 hours ago, MLXXX said:

On the plus side, the review does provide downloadable audio recordings.   So, if we assume these recordings were done in a proper and consistent manner, we can listen for ourselves!

 

I compared only two of the recordings:

• Audioquest Type 9 - DBS - Toto - Africa.flac
• Chord Epic XL - Toto - Africa.flac

These recordings measured differently (particularly at higher audio frequencies) and for my ears sounded different (more different than I had expected).

 

I couldn't see any description of how the recordings were performed. I found I needed to delay the second recording above by 141 samples at 48kHz to get time alignment.  (I found I had to boost the gain of the first file by 0.154dB to achieve an approximate  level match for frequencies below 1kHz. Without any low pass filter, the first file needed to be boosted by 0.074dB to achieve matching peak levels. ) 

 

I did a [successful] foobar ABX comparison with time-aligned versions of the two files. (The files were  not adjusted in any other way.) 

 

I applaud the making available of audio recordings. I'd have appreciated though a description of how they were performed.

 

Edit:   How the recordings were done is explained at the beginning of this sample video:  

 

 

 

Again this is a bad method for making the recordings.  The mics and room will introduce many variables and it will be an insensitive test.

 

Why didnt they just make an electrical connection at the speaker posts?

[Grizaudio]

25 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

Again this is a bad method for making the recordings.  The mics and room will introduce many variables and it will be an insensitive test.

 

Why didnt they just make an electrical connection at the speaker posts?

 

Not being silly, maybe you should offer them some advice for their next tests.  

 

[March Audio]

9 minutes ago, Grizaudio said:

 

Not being silly, maybe you should offer them some advice for their next tests.  

 

I have seen in their forum other people trying to explain to them why their tests arent blind  and flawed(specifically regarding their ethernet switch tests).  Unfortunately they were unwilling to listen and were adamant they were using sound methods.

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, March Audio said:

 

Again this is a bad method for making the recordings.  The mics and room will introduce many variables and it will be an insensitive test.

 

Why didnt they just make an electrical connection at the speaker posts?

 

I found the sound  surprisingly good. However I wholeheartedly agree that a direct connection at the speaker cabinet terminals could have avoided a number of unnecessary variables (for example the variability of high frequency attenuation of air, as a function of humidity).

 

I hope there wasn't any disturbance in the microphone positioning. I was surprised at the extent to which the apparent sound quality differed as between the two recordings I compared.