In Reply to: OK, how about them cable risers? posted by Charles Hansen on August 4, 2003 at 20:37:29:
I learned of this tweak from Don Palmer, maker of Highwire Power Wraps. He recommended using ceramic wall tile pieces such as quarter-round and bull-nose, that would lift the cables by about half to three-quarters of an inch, as further lifting did not seem to him to add any benefit, and the pieces are available at any home improvement store for less than a dollar each.Friends of mine with wool carpets report no apparent benefit from lifting speaker cables.
My experiments with lifting from synthetic carpet over plywood by supporting the cables with the ceramic tile pieces stood on end confirm Don's advice: there does not seem to be as much benefit from lifting by several inches compared to lifting the same cables from the same carpet with the same pieces by less than an inch.
Speculation: the floor is a velocity null for sound wave air motion. Sound waves in the room will move the cables more, and possibly affect the perceived sound, if the cables are lifted further from the floor. However, the floor covering becomes part of the cable dielectric when the cables rest on the floor. If the floor covering is a poor dielectric (wood, Pergo-type laminate, or synthetic carpet), this also might affect the perceived sound by participating in the storage and release of electric field energy in the speaker cable operation. There is a compromise lifting height that minimizes the total degradation from dielectric participation and airborn vibration, and that height is closer to an inch than it is six inches.
A measurement that would reveal the effect of dielectrics in proximity to speaker cables would be a three-dimensional plot of capacitance as a function of signal level and frequency. I have no idea if instruments that could do this over the signal level range of interest exist.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Dielectric first, then vibration... - Leisure7 18:19:04 08/07/03 (14)
- Re: Dielectric first, then vibration... - Steve Eddy 21:32:27 08/07/03 (13)
- Re: Dielectric first, then vibration... - Leisure7 22:02:03 08/08/03 (12)
- Re: Dielectric first, then vibration... - Steve Eddy 22:55:12 08/08/03 (11)
- Re: Dielectric first, then vibration... - Ted Smith 23:38:19 08/08/03 (10)
- Re: Dielectric first, then vibration... - Steve Eddy 01:01:32 08/09/03 (9)
- Re: Dielectric first, then vibration... - Ted Smith 08:06:44 08/09/03 (8)
- Re: Dielectric first, then vibration... - Steve Eddy 09:56:07 08/09/03 (7)
- Reflecting boundary - Leisure7 11:29:31 08/10/03 (0)
- Steve, are you deliberately being obtuse... - Charles Hansen 10:52:41 08/09/03 (5)
- Re: Steve, are you deliberately being obtuse... - Steve Eddy 12:35:42 08/09/03 (4)
- Well, it's hard for me to believe... - Charles Hansen 13:03:28 08/09/03 (3)
- Re: Well, it's hard for me to believe... - Steve Eddy 16:43:18 08/09/03 (2)
- Re: Well, it's hard for me to believe... - Rod M 19:00:09 08/10/03 (0)
- I give up -- it's clear all you want to do is argue... - Charles Hansen 19:48:54 08/09/03 (0)