In article , Bob Latham
wrote:

I don't have either an inductance or a capacitance meter but my Fluke
DMM shows nothing significant in resistance terms about the cables. One
cable is a figure of 8 construction (QED XTUBE XT350) and the other is
simply lightly twisted (Chord Odyssey).

Unfortunately, a simple d.c. resistance check may not tell us much about
the impedances of the cables across the audio band. Anyone have
measurements for the two cables you mention?

I have not examined either cable myself, so at this point could only
speculate. The XTUBE has, I beleive, a large effective outer diameter for
each of its conductor bundles compared with their center spacing. This
implies low inductance/length and high capacitance per length. If so, I'd
expect them to have a lower series impedance at HF than many cables. If so,
this may reduce the speaker interactions at HF. This is only speculation in
the absence of measured data, though.


My amplifier has not blown up in the last 6 months (probably will now)
that I've been doing this and I prefer the sound. I don't really care
why or how. If I enjoy the sound more then that's it. It doesn't really
matter if its in my head, an unknown effect or a particular combination
of RCL. My HiFi is for music enjoyment, not a science paper.

It should not blow up at all, though! :-)

If I was going to buy a speaker I would listen and buy what I liked
would I not? So why should I not do the same with cables, provided they
don't destroy the amp even if they do have high resistance or something?

Well, a high resistance cable is not likely to damage your amp, but may
alter the sound - whereas, say, a high capacitance cable *might* blow up
your amp, depending upon the design. Hence if you know about these things,
it may help improve you the sound whilst ensuring reliable operation.

In itself, listening is fine. However it may be more useful in the long run
to try and find out more about things like the impedance properties of the
cables, etc.

I for one do not believe science knows everything there is to know about
anything. Science is just the tested best theory of the day, it is not a
truth.

Science is not really a 'tested theory'. It is a *method*. In effect, it is
a verb, not a noun. :-)

It allows us to build up a set of theories or models that help us to
understand the world. but those theories are just the working results
which form the basis for further work, and are useful for specific
purposes. This means that the 'scientific method' can be used to modify
and improve our understanding ('theories') provided we apply it
appropriately. Again, this means more than listening. It also means making
appropriate tests and measurements to try and understand why any effect
may apparently be occuring.

'Truth' is something I prefer to leave to theologians and philosophers.
;- So far as science and engineering are concerned, I'd tend to focus on
the results of testable/falsifiable observations carried out in a
well-defined and repeatable manner.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html