"Double inverted helix technology?"

Twisted strands of copper wire. Now there is an innovation.
Or maybe its DNA helix has been put into e. coli.

I consider myself as quite a skeptic when it comes to boutique HIFI components and scoff at $10,000.00 speaker cables etc but I do have to concede that there is a difference between amplifiers.
My original amp was a Pro Series 1 as described in EA in the early nineties.
It worked 1st time and has been 100% reliable with ample output.
I have been very happy with it over the years until I bought a class A stereo amp that came along at a price I couldn't resist.
For those interested it is a Monarchy SM70 Pro made in San Fransisco.
I wanted to see what all the fuss was about and curiosity got the better of me.
Well there sure is a difference.
Music seemed to come alive compared to the Pro Series amp.
You can play things loud without without it appearing loud and there is just so much more harmonic richness to the music.
Music is far more dynamic and the bass has so much more punch. (Starting to sound like a HIFI critic, sorry).
All I know is what I can hear and in this case there was a huge difference so there is an ounce of truth out there but it is buried amongst all the other BS.

Well there sure is a difference.

Yes, there is a difference and, given the same listening room, it comes down objectively to specifications and subjectively to personal taste. It's a given that there is a difference between consumer and professional equipment. Beyond that marketers then play to snobbery because they well know that a fool and his money are soon parted.

Quote: "Someone wanting good sound will probably want to spend some money on the speakers because this is where quality can differ. Not $30,000 plus though."

I like Electrostat spkrs and rigged up a panel of cheap ones bought used.
(had to rig my own transformers and used small B&W TV for 6kv HV-supply.)
Big advantage of Electrostat is they are both "massless" and push-pull (lower distortion.)
Peter Walker demonstrated his ESL-63 could acoustically reproduce a square-wave!
And how did they measure that? With a condensor (electrostatic) microphone

short clip of my rig running: youtube.com/watch?v=AtXT-wzK_f4

It is a given that the amplifier is the part of the system that's closest to perfect.

So how does one explain the audible differences on listening tests, assuming they were assessed on a double blind basis?

Dynamic output impedance. An amplifier's ability to drive a simple resistive load accurately says nothing about how it behaves with a speaker. Consider the enclosure's loading on the back of the cone at low frequencies. As the air compresses, the instantaneous load the voice coil must drive becomes non-linear.

A typical valve amplifier might have a dynamic output impedance at low frequencies of a few ohms. The non-linear load, with this impedance in series, results in non-linear movement of the speaker cone, hence distortion. Consider the complex intermodulation distortion that results from this.

A modern solid state amplifier without a transformer, on the other hand, can have a dynamic output impedance of typically 0.1 ohms or less. It can drive a speaker with non-linear cone loading (most speakers, especially non-vented types) much more accurately.

You can see from this the importance of low resistance speaker cables too. Expensive (read "thick") speaker cables will sound better than the same length of light duty figure 8 flex you often see used. But, 30 amp electrical cable will work just as well as "audiophool" cables. It's all in the cross-sectional area of the conductors.

It also explains why your favourite speakers sound rubbish when you use long cables to move them outside for a party!

And it also explains why the same amplifier can sound good on one set of speakers and horrible on another.

Some solid state amplifiers use Darlington output-driver stages and some - the better ones - use emitter-follower topology, which actually sounds better! (there is a paper out there on this.)

The expensive, but failed, Koss model-2 electrostatic speaker (1974) had three transformers which was an unacceptable load so they sneakingly put a low value100w power resistor in series with the transformers! (a lot of good it would be using $13k speaker cables with these!) I used their transformers on my rig without any series resistors and my Onkyo amplifier's protection occasionally trips off! There is no tech data on the Koss-2 so I traced out their schematic and posted here: diyaudio.com/forums/planars-and-exotics/79853-koss-model-2-stats.html

a lot of good it would be using $13k speaker cables

$13K speaker cables would be bad enough, but my original link is to $13K mains power cables (i.e. glorified IEC cables).

The photo has a gold plated Euro plug making me suspect they don't have one in stock (will only an Aussie version order after customer prepays?)

"Double inverted helix technology?"


Looks like the way the shield braid is done on coax cables.

"D-housing with NSC® technology inside" ferrite beads?

"Highly flexible DIHC® technology wire with heavy duty carbon colour sleeving"

Is that just rubber or PVC insulation on the wires?

"Powerful center conductor that provides the best possible ground connection for your components."


Looks like 50 ohm coax cable (which has a thicker center conductor than CATV cable), except they must be using the center conductor for the ground, and the shield for the signal?

"Coil technology that very efficiently suppresses electrical noise"


Not sure what this is, maybe they wrapped the coax cable around a non conducting plastic rope? This would help reduce radio frequency interference from getting into the audio amp.

-----------------------

In any event, I use heavy duty power (mains) cord for speakers. In the walls I use Romex house wire (this should pass muster with inspectors, as it's the same stuff used for electricity). The only factor that matters is the resistance. Unless you're the phone company having to pipe audio over kilometers of wire, in which case capacitance starts to matter.

I wonder how running the cable (where practical) through that conduit for data cables would go?

I managed to inspect the wiring in the new house & changes were made to reduce any interference between TV cable & mains, before it was built in. Plus get rid of some spectacular fails. Actually running the kitchen bench mains power cable through the sewer pipe was a fascinating achievement.

If I had $13000 to spend on enhancing my audio experience, I would first invest in a new pair or ears, or at least a thorough renovation. Anyone old enough to have that kind of spending money has already lost a significant percentage of their hearing frequency range and response. On the other hand, age and experience can clarify the mind as to what is worth listening too. Doof, doof, psst, psst no longer appeals.

Personal taste is everything & not the same for everyone. If I listen to audio from the computer, amplified jam tins do not cut it: Two of the computes feed into the separate inputs of a 90's vintage Tandy MSS-10 fitted with real speakers. These are reasonable sound reproducers which are actually Realistic. Because the studio has foam lined walls & roof plus a 12 ft long rack down the centre, echo is not possible.

RF could only be an issue in input leads, and that was always entertaining in Church (and has happened) if there is a dry joint & it picks up a passing Taxi. I have seen RF in plenty of OP tubes, sometimes I think it makes them run better, but some will use it to destabilise a set. I don't see too many speakers reproducing RF, albeit running long cables near mains cables, or a switch mode PSU is asking for trouble

Then there is defining what one actually considers to be "Music". Modern Jazz is not to me music, its improvisation manifesting as an uncoordinated jingle jangle. Of course there is "Rap": Clearly a spelling issue where the first letter "C" was left off.

Hmmm! Loud distinctive crumpling noise outside......... Looks like 3/4 of a ton of wood to clean up tomorrow, if its not raining (was today) & there's only 1.75 litres of fuel for the ancient chainsaw. Cows will not be pleased: That was the limb they used to scratch on.