Speaker Wire: Monster 1000 vs Wire Coat Hangers.

BlueWizard

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
23,763
Reaction score
4,957
Points
4,036
Location
Planet Earth
Make of this what you will -

Audiophile Deathmatch: Monster Cables vs. a Coat Hanger

The test was conducted using Martin Logan SL-3 speakers.

In five tests rounds, no one could tell the difference.

The test is reported at GIZMODE.com, though the original test was done at AUDIOHOLICS. There are links at the site above.

Monster Cable SP1000 S 10 10 ft. Studio Pro 1000 1/4" TS Male to Male Speaker Cable | Full Compass

Monster Studio Pro 1000 Speaker Cable

Monster Cable 131318 1000ft White 14AWG 2-cond Contractor Speaker

The last link is for 14ga (2.08mm²) at a length of 1,000 feet, priced at US$250 (average). Making it about $0.67/meter for raw wire.

Though as you can see from the other links, finished cable is a bit more expensive.

Make of it what you will.

Steve/bluewizard
 
You forgot to list the price of the coat hangers (19p each). That nobody could tell by the sound is as expected from the similar experience with coat hangers as interconnects, but the lack of insulation might be an issue in a real scenario.

One of the most popular demonstrations at the show was staged by British company Quad, to mark 50 years of making its world-famous hi-fi equipment. Recording engineer Tony Faulkner demonstrated Quad's latest loudspeakers. He explained how he used them to monitor the sound while making a recording of Saint-Saëns's complete works for piano and orchestra, which recently won the coveted Record of the Year award from Gramophone magazine.
As hi-fi buffs enthused over the sound, we spotted that the speakers were connected by some orange wires that looked strangely familiar.
"Yes, they would look familiar if you have a garden", Faulkner told us. "Before the show opened we went over the road to the DIY superstore and bought one of those £20 extension leads that Black & Decker sells for electric hedge-cutters. They are made from good, thick copper wire, look nice and sound good to me. The show's been running for three days and no one in the audience has noticed".

- New Scientist Magazine
 
Make of this what you will -


The last link is for 14ga (2.08mm²) at a length of 1,000 feet, priced at US$250 (average). Making it about $0.67/meter for raw wire.


Steve/bluewizard

I make it $0.82 per metre!!



$250 for 1,000 feet


= $0.25 per foot



1 foot = 12 inches


1 inch = 25.4 mm



So: 1 foot = 12 x 25.4 mm = 304.8 mm



So the cable costs $0.25 for 304.8 mm


= $0.00082 per millimetre


= $0.82 per metre




Alan
 
Your right Alan, I'm not sure how I came up with the number I did. Probably accidentally punch the wrong button on my calculator.

So, ball park, $1/meter or £0.62/meter. But keep in mind you are buying about 305 meters to get this price.

I didn't search for the cable in the UK. It might be a bit higher.

Steve/bluewizard
 
That nobody could tell by the sound is as expected from the similar experience with coat hangers as interconnects, but the lack of insulation might be an issue in a real scenario.

Unless of course you leave your clothes on them? :smashin:
 
This was done years ago as a digital cable too. Via a metal statue and a crocodile clip, IINVMM, and was bit-identical to whatever high-end cable they were using. Vive la différence!
 
I liked this one I think best:

Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests

They (Harman employees) tested:

two similarly priced high-end Harman speakers, one supposedly with different characteristics from the other
a cheap Harman speaker
a high-end competing speaker

In sighted testing the two expensive Harman speakers won easily, the high-end competitor came a way behind that, and then finally the cheap-looking Harman product trailed a distance behind that.

In sighted testing the expensive Harman products won, but by a much smaller margin, and the cheap Harman came slightly ahead (although statistically speaking basically a draw) of the expensive competitor. The gap between the best and worst was much smaller when testers no longer had the visual cue of which one was supposed to be the audiophile marvel, and which the cheap crap. It also showed that the position of the loudspeaker in blind testing is critically important (but not in sighted testing, when people are influenced by appearance, brand name, etc.).

It's very easy for people who have an interest in proving a difference between products to fail to enforce some aspect of proper testing. Proper scientific trials are much harder.

In this http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=12206&name=harman

four sets of (2.0) speakers were compared under carefully controlled conditions:

$8k three-way dynamic
$10k four-way dynamic
$11k electrostatic/dynamic
$5k four-way dynamic

The $11k product was rated 'product of the year' in some hifi mag, and the $10k was also a '5*' product

The results of the test was a strong preference for the $10k and $5k products, with the $10k slightly preferred. The $8k product came behind that, and the $11k performed extremely weakly.

"The scale consists of 11 points ranging from 0 to 10, where the magnitude of the rating indicates the degree to which the listener likes or dislikes the sound quality of a loudspeaker. The distance between two loudspeaker ratings represents the magnitude of preference: separations of 2 or more points indicate a strong preference for the higher rated loudspeaker; 1 point difference, a moderate preference; and a 0.5 point difference represents a slight preference"

The score were respectively: $10k 7.51, $5k 7.17, $8k 5.59 and $11k 3.21.

They also find that audio reviewers had the poorest ability to dscriminate between speakers, poorer than audio retailers, and much poorer than trained listeners.

In conclusion they analysed the frequency response and bass extension of each speaker and found that the highly rated speakers had a flat frequency response from what looks like 30Hz up to 20KHz. The lower rated speaker had a dip in frequency at 3KHz and a fall of of bass from 80Hz (from 92dba down to 84dba). The $11k speaker had a much more serious bass drop-off, going from 90dba down to 70dba, and also numerous colourations in the sound throughout the range.

Graph: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w5OVFV2Gs...udspeakerMeasurements+-TrainedvsUntrained.png

My conclusion: the hifi mags are a fraud. Better to buy on specs than their guff.
 
Make of it what you will.

Steve/bluewizard
What do you make of it, Steve? Any opinion?

My opinion is that this was a fun test that visibly violates audiophile norms whilst completely affirming scientific norms. Entirely as expected, of course.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom