Those who own Audioquest cable...what do you think?

[semente]

Nordost telesales

 

Lars says:

 

"And I could say oo oo oo

As if everybody knows what I'm talking about

As if everybody would know exactly what I was talking about"

 

 

 

 

and this time it's Bjorn..."you with me?"

 

[video=youtube;NdND5c-VNl8]

 

R

[semente]

Agreed.

Cables are easy to change and can easily go undetected by wives...

 

As for cables that "do deliver differences", my guess is that most of those will be working like filters and not as conductors; they're intentionally made to change sound.

And their purchase is much more fulfilling (that's what shopping does to your brain) than fiddling with tone controls or graphic equalizers.

 

R

[semente]

I think I read once that Ray Kimber discovered the beneficial effects of the way he weaves speaker cables when he was doing a professional sound installation and found that much to his surprise the cables sounded different when they we twisted. I think he believes the twisted cable is better at rejecting RFI.

 

This might be down to the fact that some Kimber cables have abnormally (perhaps even dangerously) high capacitance:

 

Kimber 8VS - 291.0 pF / meter

 

Kimber 8TC - 346.0 pF / meter

 

Kimber MONOCLE XL - 1,199.0 pF / meter

 

R

[semente]

The speaker/amplifier interface can be a very complex one. Definitely speaker cables can be a part of that interface, and their characteristics can dictate how the pair interact with each-other and therefore how they sound. Not always, though. Some speaker/amp combinations completely ignore cables and as long as the cable is of sufficient girth to cary the required current, it doesn't matter what one uses.

 

You may have read this before but if not here's some interesting writing on speaker wire and amplifiers:

 

Cables 1 - Ohm Improvements

 

Cables 2 - Ohm and Away

 

Taking the Lead

 

R

[semente]

Maybe you guys need to slow down a bit a define exactly what "fancy and expensive" cables are. Can a cable be fancy and cheap? Plain and expensive? What limits?

 

I am sure we can all agree that speaker cables costing $30,000/meter are expensive, and I think most would agree or not dispute that they are probably fancy snake oil.

 

Just as certainly, most would also agree, or at least not dispute, that a $10 Belkin Gold USB cable is both plain and inexpensive.

 

The area of dispute lies within the two extremes of course. Is a $50 Optical TOSLink cable expensive? Fancy? Worth the cost?

 

How about a $150 USB cable?

 

Is expensive and/or plain/fancy relative here? Compared to what?

 

Yep it is less exciting to try and deal with facts than to mudsling. But at least we might all learn something or gain some new insight if we start with facts and agree what each term really means.

 

I don't think that one can answer that question because unfortunately there is no real relation between price and performance.

 

In my view and experience all elements from equipment to accessories to supports to cables to electronic components affect the performance of a system (the accuracy with which the signal is read, amplified and transduced); what changes is the magnitude of these effects - each has a different significance.

And the way I see it, whether a cable is expensive or not is related to it's cost when compared to the total money invested in the rest of the system; it also depends on the cable's absolute performance when compared to the competition, the uniqueness of it's qualities so to say.

 

If/since the conductive performance of a cable depends on it's topology and the materials used there's a fair chance that one won't need to look too far for a manufacturer offering adequate performance at a reasonable price (when compared to the price of say an amplifier or a pair of speakers).

 

I try to look at what makes an optical TOSlink or a USB a good performer and then find out how much I need need to pay to get that performance/conductivity.

But this will be limited by the cost of the cable in relation to rest of the system (which should be proportional to how much it interferes with the signal and influences the final result).

 

R

[semente]

Whilst I give as much importance to measurements as I do to listening evaluation, I agree that all manufacturers should provide specifications and measurements as good practice (a reasonably comprehensive set such as the technical evaluation of digital sources, amplification and speakers that we can find in magazines such as Stereophile, Hi-Fi News or Soundstage).

In this case - cables - a simple set of LCR specs would probably suffice.

 

I find measurements important in that they provide important information that can be used to correlate with my impressions and hopefully hint at possible causes for equipment shortcomings that came out of the listening assessment.

 

R

[semente]

Whilst I give as much importance to measurements as I do to listening evaluation, I agree that all manufacturers should provide specifications and measurements as good practice (a reasonably comprehensive set such as the technical evaluation of digital sources, amplification and speakers that we can find in magazines such as Stereophile, Hi-Fi News or Soundstage).

In this case - cables - a simple set of LCR specs would probably suffice.

 

I find measurements important in that they provide important information that can be used to correlate with my impressions and hopefully hint at possible causes for equipment shortcomings that came out of the listening assessment.

 

R

 

What I'd like to know is what kind of measurements these cable manufacturers should provide. The things we know how to measure in cable don't tell us anything at all about the "sound" of cables, and those things that might tell us about how a cable will probably sound, we don't know how to measure.

 

I am with you there.

 

I don't follow the cable scene much but I get the impression that most manufacturers don't invest that much on research.

I remember that QED brought out a "paper" called the Genesis Report a while back but other manufacturers' sites provide conflicting information; most just list a bunch of sonic qualities and try to hit the prospective buyer with as many buzzwords as possible (6N, long-grain, OFC, PTFE, Cryo, burn-in, silver-plated, the lot).

It's not helpful.

 

R

[semente]

And if we assume they don't sound different there is no conflict with theory or measurement in how cables carry a signal.

 

On the other hand, our ability to analise natural phenomena is limited by the current state of technology.

 

R

[semente]

I would start by taking a coffee break and reading the RANE notes on this. The shield on balanced wires is because ground is 0 voltage and all the noise can be shunted there without any effect on the -/+ pairs.

 

SE connections work and they can work well. They are not optimal technically speaking.

 

But isn't the signal path much simpler with SE connections?

 

R

[semente]

This thread has been very interesting and so far it's remained quite civilized for a cable topic.

 

 

Different manufacturers defend their own theories about what could be the best "compromise"...

 

What other factors affect audio signal conductivity besides cable topology (coaxial, parallel, braided, spacing), screening (friend or foe), covering material (dielectric properties), construction (solid core, multistrand, ribbon), joint (crimping, soldering)?

 

Are some of those factors or their combination producing audible "distortions" that we have not yet found out how to measure?

 

It seems to me that LCR would probably just affect frequency response, either by filtering the signal or interacting with amplifier or speakers...

 

Could we be reliving the age when transistor amplifiers sounded bad and yet some rejected this possibility because measurements used at the time did not characterize the problem (TIM)?

 

R

[semente]

I'm not asking about simple cables. You, apparently emphatically, agree that capacitors et al. have sonic signatures. What is the basis for those? LRC ... certainly not C because that's the value of the cap itself, so it's R or L? Do those solely determine the signature of the cap?

 

 

Since I am simply posing questions they can't be right or wrong -- they are questions. Is the sonic signature 100% dependent on LRC?

 

It happens to be relevant to the discussion if you will pause and answer the questions if you can.

 

I don't know how a capacitor works but wouldn't it be possible for capacitors of different physical composition/structure to release stored energy back into the circuit in different fashion, or to lose some of that energy instead of storing it?

Would they still have the same value (let's ignore the tolerance range)?

 

R

[semente]

I think someone who is looking for a particular "sound" would look for specific components rather than wires.

 

Even when one's goal is "transparency" (or accuracy) it makes sense to look for specific equipment, or if you're a designer for specific components.

But if the best cables can affect the signal it would be interesting to have access to a set of measurements that could characterize their performance.

 

A turntable designer once compared his design approach to the fine tuning of a formula 1 where a very small adjustment can chop a few 1/100 second off a lap's time and be enough for pole position.

 

The chain is only as strong as it's weakest link and even the least significant links play a part in the overall performance.

 

R

[semente]

The car turns the corner to come up my street. Even from here several hundred feet away I hear the bass. Passing in front of my house each low note serves up a wallop that rattles the windows in my front door. Ask the owner of the car and he will confirm he has great bass, just great. The music he listens to is even recorded, mixed and processed to sound right in a system with bass like his. Me? I think his bass is wildly overblown and underdamped.

 

Some people prefer wall to wall imaging and then some. Yet imaging very much outside your speakers is a result of some phase anomaly in the system or the recording.

 

Many like front to back sound stage depth. Not cardboard cutout soundstaging. Yet in a system with the appropriate depth you can increase it with a properly placed minor dip in response. A small bit of compression can enhance it as well. Even order distortion that varies considerably with signal level contributes a bit more. Is more always better? Each person will stop at some point where these other mechanisms interfere in other ways unwelcome.

 

All of these can be measured. What the listener will make of them will vary from person to person. Background, experience, type of music most enjoyed all will interact to give a variable subjective assessment of SQ for any given system. That is why measurements can be a good guide to fidelity. Everyone thinks fidelity is what they want, and probably most prefer some artificial enhancement. So one can't get an overall SQ rating for some component for this reason. This isn't being dismissive. Or trivial.

 

Improved sound quality isn't directly transferable past very low minimum levels between people.

 

Now Harman has done research on speakers (and headphones) showing in general on average there are certain characteristics judged to be of best quality by almost all people. Despite that I have heard way too many high end systems where someone pursued their favorite quality of sound. The result is often entertaining, and also often obviously skewed though the owner doesn't think so.

 

Now I don't believe fidelity should be a straight jacket. It is a good base from which to work. I like a very slightly enhanced bass myself. I also like depth rather than a flat 2D portrayal of sound. I like enough power to have a relaxed presentation of music unless of course the music is not meant to be smooth, calm and relaxing. So find fidelity and you can flavor to your taste.

 

I agree that we don't measure sound quality, only performance or the accurate "handling" of the recorded signal.

Besides, each measurement only caracterizes one specific parameter but there tends to be a correlation between measured results and listening impressions.

 

The problem in my view is when we move from evaluating performance through listening to evaluating sound quality.

Here we enter the subjective realms of taste and culture.

 

But since so many people say that cables affect sound quality, I believe that some effort should be made to create measurements that might help determine what differences in performance are responsible for those effects.

 

R

[semente]

The weakest link is by far, by a huge margin, by at least a couple orders of magnitude the speakers and room. Stop looking for cables that can alter the sound. Other than speaker cables and phono cables from a cartridge they don't have an effect on sound. And the effect those exceptions have are.......yes................LCR effects and nothing exotic. If they somehow have an effect unaccounted for it will be of such supremely minor size as to be beyond trivial compared to anything else you can do like move yourself or your speaker a 1/4 inch.

 

I agree with all that.

I've bought 3 interconnects and 5 speaker cables of different topology in 25 years, and none of them cost more than a couple of CDs.

If anything I could be looking for cables that can't alter sound.

For now I am only interested in understanding why according to many people competent cables affect sound but none of the existing measurements is able to describe why...

 

R

[semente]

I am generally very sceptic, though hardly as much as you are, and didn't really expect to hear any differences in Mario's format comparison files and despite this, and much to my surprise, I was able to nail down what distinguished the 16/44.1 from 16/96 and 24/44.1 from 24/96.

 

It's because I find listening evaluations a strenuous, tedious activity that some measurements would be helpful in the case of cables; I think they'd help me to choose one topology over another.

Cables are not a priority for my system, though, and even when the time comes the slice of budget to be allocated will always be tiny.

 

R

[semente]

While critical listening to evaluate SQ of cables or other gear may wll be a strenuous, tedious activity, measurements don't tell the whole story and will never be a substitute. The best equipment designers use measurements, of course, but virtually all of them make final design decisions, e.g. choice of components, etc., based on listening.

 

I have found that some measurements have a rough but informative correlation with my listening impressions and use them for shortlisting purposes but they will not supersede listening; for the two are complementary tools for assessing performance (I tend to focus on sound when listening critically, which is one of the reason why I find it boring).

 

R

[semente]

Hi Jud

Some of the better Capacitor Manufacturers even specify the Slew Rate of their larger capacitors for use in the main filter capacitor area of the PSU. The choice of electrolyte and other construction measures also influences the actual sound. Many series of capacitors from the various manufacturers

have a "House" sound, and they can even design in desirable properties such as a little added warmth in the mid range .

The Elna Starget capacitors, as an example, even when using a value as low as 100uF near a voltage regulator I.C, add a little extra warmth. Alex C continues to supply special capacitors from back in his Hovland days that have a well earned reputation for their sonic qualities. Ask Alex C for further info if you are interested in this subject.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

Jean Hiraga wrote a few articles for L'Audiophile about the influence of electronic components in sound:

 

Les composants passifs : leur influence sur le son.

 

R

[semente]

I also find listening evaluations a strenuous, tedious activity. I hate comparing stuff with a purple passion, however I'm not willing to give up enjoying the music I love because of it.

 

When I find it necessary to add something new to my audio/video system, I listen long-term, at least several weeks, using lots of different kinds of music. Once I decide I like or dislike whatever the change is I can go back to listening for enjoyment. This is one reason I generally don’t replace anything audio related until it dies or becomes too expensive to repair. I almost never replace something I like, thus I will likely keep all my cables until I die.

 

My philosophy is not too far from yours although I do try do improve the performance of the system from time to time, usually as budget allows, but only if I can determine what is wrong with the current equipment and I am reasonably confident that the replacement will be an improvement.

 

But I have moved abroad about 18 months ago and the only thing I brought with me was the amplifier and some wire that I use as cable.

I was forced to sell a pair of speakers that I liked and to rip all my CD while leaving them back with a very good CD player.

It was a difficult new start: new room, new source (a temporary budget D/AC), new speakers.

 

The first pair was speakers was a mistake but my current pair is really quite good, and managed to improve on some of the shortcomings of the speakers that I had before moving whilst performing worse in some other aspects which are perhaps in the current room not as taxing.

I intend to upgrade them in the future but I can enjoy my music despite the limitations; I am quite demanding by my audiophile cravings don't

 

Since the evolution of my current file transport system has reached a reasonably high plateau of performance the next logical step is to replace the D/AC.

For the past 8 years I have been using a very high performance custom-made amplifier and a modified and much improved CD player (the price/performance ratio for both items is unbeatable).

I have listened to the filterless PCM-only D/AC designed and built by the same craftsman and will soon listen to his Sabre DSD-able prototype.

The performance and listening impressions will determine which one I will keep, although I am currently torn between the getting the more affordable PCM-only or stretching the budget a bit further and get the DSD-able model.

 

From what I have read here and according to Miska's opinion it looks as though I can get better performance and sound from converting my Redbook music library to DSD during playback...

 

 

As for cables, I will only improve on what I'm currently using if I see evidence that there are better construction/topology architectures; and only if they can be had cheap from retailers or, even better, DIY-able.

Audio cables are the least of my worries (I don't care about power cables at all).

 

R

[semente]

I don't think this was the case. They performed with no problem at all (and continue to do so) everywhere else I've had them in my system; it was on that basis I decided to try them with my newly purchased turntable.

 

 

 

The ones with which I experienced a ground hum are an older version of these:

 

Clearview Ultrathin Digital Ribbon Interconnect with PLUS Upgrade-shop.mapleshadestore.com

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24445[/ATTACH]

 

Hi Jud,

 

My knowledge is limited but I have the impression that if the live and ground conductors are not at a constant distance throat the length of the conductor you will get a ground loop...

 

Could this be the cause of that hum?

 

 

The ones I replaced those with are much older (~25 years), from Omega Mikro, the higher end cable side of Mapleshade. Their construction uses a hair thin center conductor inside a thin metal tube shield. From an old review:

 

 

 

Here's a photo showing them in a system (not mine) - sorry the photo is rather small:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24446[/ATTACH]

 

 

I have trouble accepting that the condutor is only 56-gauge/0.01249mm thick... Are you sure of this?

That's very thin.

 

My curent DIY IC is made of Ø=0.40mm single solid core copper, PTFE insulated, wires with 10mm spacing between them that came from an Ethernet cable.

Only one of the conductors has a ground wire (the grounds of the sockets are soldered together), so in total I have 3 wires in my IC.

 

R

[semente]

That response was meant to be directed at only the person I quoted. If you re read his entire statement, his whole process doesn't allow for success. He doesn't like to critically listen, so he looks for specs that won't help him, so he ends up buying cheap stuff based on guesses and not reality. Given that, my comment was literal. If every aspect is approached from a point of negativity, audio ceases to become an enjoyable hobby. Its just not for everyone.

 

If he were to say something like, I'm confused and I'm not sure if I can hear differences between cables, so I'm going to hold off buying anything expensive until that changes, that's another matter. We've all been there and its completely reasonable to not buy something if you don't see the value.

 

You are wrong.

For one, I don't look for specs but measurements - some of them actually correlate with sound.

And I do listening evaluations whenever is possible...but I don't enjoy it.

I buy according to my budget, and according to how much a particular part of the chain (equipment or accessory) will affect the signal.

I also try to understand what technical causes are responsible for differences in sound or shortcomings in performance.

 

R

[semente]

It seems, though, from this conversation that we don't yet know what 'properly designed' means in relation to cables... At least not everyone agrees that it's all down to LCR.

 

R

[semente]

George

Why do you keep bashing the LCR aspect in what comes across as an effort to prove that people are hearing something imaginary, while only paying lip service to the far more important RF/EMI rejection aspect, and the interaction of the cable with the source's output stage especially ?

 

Has any research been made about the importance of RF/EMI rejection in a 20 or 50cm interconnect?

 

I'm not overly confident of my assessments with cables but when comparing shielded vs. unshielded I preferred the latter.

 

My current ICs are just three parallel conductors floating in space...

 

R

[semente]

R, Where did you come up with that idea? OMG your killing me..

 

The idea came from DNM.

Can't get any simpler...too simple?

 

R

[semente]

Prove that the difference you hear in your cables is an improvement (more accurate, not just sounds better).

 

For me, "sounding better" is usually related with tonal balance and generally I prefer not to refer to deviations from flat frequency response as distortions.

 

All the rest tends to be accuracy, or lack of (some form of distortion).

 

R

[semente]

While interference is a possible culprit, it would also mean that cables would behave very differently in different systems and in some systems, even the most expensive cables would have no sound at all (because there are no sources of interference). Has anyone reported this to be the case? Secondly, the best shielded cables would sound best, and balanced interconnects would have no sound because interference is common-mode and balanced cancels common-mode. Yet, I've never heard anyone say that true, balanced interconnects are immune to "cable sound". Again, has anyone reported this phenomenon?

 

I think it unlikely. We need to keep looking for a cause.

 

Could there be any relation between high capacitance (for instance in amplifier circuits ) and inability to listen to differences between cables?