Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!bblue
From: bblue@crash.CTS.COM (Bill Blue)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,sci.physics,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Mercury Filled Speaker Wire
Message-ID: <1709@crash.CTS.COM>
Date: Mon, 14-Sep-87 12:06:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: crash.1709
Posted: Mon Sep 14 12:06:58 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Sep-87 02:46:20 EDT
References: <3816@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> <578@uthub.toronto.edu> <1700@crash.CTS.COM> <1854@ucbcad.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: bblue@crash.CTS.COM (Bill Blue)
Distribution: rec
Organization: Crash TS, El Cajon, CA
Lines: 83
Xref: mnetor rec.audio:3232 sci.physics:2166 sci.electronics:1297

In article <1854@ucbcad.berkeley.edu> max@eros.UUCP (Max Hauser) writes:
>In article <1700@crash.CTS.COM> bblue@crash.CTS.COM (Bill Blue) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>> And from Dick Olsher:
>> 
>> "[Mention of skin effect causing freq-dependent resistance and
>> inductance in wires] ...  With increasing frequency, a current wave
>> moves into a conductor less and less, the depth of penetration being
>> only about .5mm at 20khz ...  -- the speed of the propagation of the
>> highs [becomes] faster than that of the lows."
>> 
>> This is a key point.  When modeling signal transfer in audio cables, it
>> is not only necessary to take into account the variable AC resistance of
>> the cable, but its variable inductance as well...
>
>All of which, of course, constitutes eloquent argument against mercury 
>cables, with their much-higher-than-copper resistivity and consequent 
>exaggerated impedance effects, as was obvious at the outset to the
>technical people on this group (who are now coming in for the usual
>knee-jerk criticisms). Since skin depth varies as the square root of
>bulk resistivity [1], but resistance is proportional to resistivity
>divided by skin depth, the net resistance of the wire increases as the
>square root of resistivity when skin-depth effects are considered.
>Also, for large wires and audio frequencies, AC inductance also
>rises as the square root of resistivity [2]. In other words, higher-
>resistivity materials like mercury are bad in every respect, both
>simple and subtle effects.
>
>Let us not deceive ourselves: wires have audible differences, but at
>the same time one can still go to the hardware store, buy some good
>heavy stranded wire, maybe connect several in parallel for good
>measure, and come up with cables that will meet the most rigorous
>analysis (mine, Olsher's, or anyone's) and sound beautiful, for a few
>bucks, without resorting to precious metals, single crystals, or
>mercury (this all begins to seem even alchemical at times).
>There is no need to contribute *hundreds* of dollars to flaky 
>fad-mongering pseudotechnical garage manufacturers who turn out
>products named after themselves, as though they were Renaissence
>painters, primarily to suit their egos and incidentally to make a
>fast buck -- yours.

While I certainly agree that there are cable companies out there
producing stuff that is far worse than what could be realized from
any reasonably thick multi-strand copper electrical wire (10-12 guage),
I think it's reaching a little too far to say that such cables will 
meet the most rigorous analysis.  Maybe yours, but certainly not
mine, Dick Olshers and a lot of other audiophiles.

In my view, the big culprit that kills the 'hardware store' variety
cables is the varying time of arrival of different frequencies at the
other end of the cable due to skin effect propagation and other factors.
This simply can not be made up for, or controlled by simply paralleling
average cables together.  While they'll have a low DC resistance, and
will allow good control (damping) of the speakers (assuming the amp has
good control in the first place), they will also have a very confused
representation of inner detail.  They most certainly will not pass the
test on any aware audiophile's ears.

I make these statements from personal experience with all sorts of
cables.  Take *any* heavy, stranded, copper cable -- anything from 12/2
or 10/2 electrical cable to the 12 guage (standard) Monster cable
(reasonably cheap at ~$.50/foot) and you'll get a similar sound.  The
number of strands and thickness of each will provide subtle differences,
but all in all they're about the same.  You don't really get into high
definition (the ability to preserve inner detail to the limit of what is
there in the first place) until you get to cables that try to maintain
equal time propagation of various frequency bands through that cable.

But you have to take all this in degrees.  There are many many people,
including quite a few self-proclaimed audiophiles, who have simply never
heard these differences.  It could be for any number of reasons, to
over-regarded equipment to not believing that wire could make any
difference so they never have tried it.  So naturally, if such a person
did replace their cable with multi-strand heavy gauge copper cable from
the 'hardware store' it would probably be an eye-opening experience for
them and theyll begin singing the praises of this discovery -- not yet
realizing that there is still a whole other world of further
improvements they are not yet aware of.  And of course, the better your
equipment (not always measured in dollar value) and the keener your
awareness, the important such differences become.

--Bill