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

[Jud]

Maybe some do, but then the third point kicks in. There are also companies that will freeze whatever cables or even entire amps you send them.

 

I think I would only have an entire amp frozen if I were planning to drop it on someone.

 

I've read articles in technical materials engineering journals regarding persistent changes in electrical conductivity of copper due to cryogenic treatment. Of course from there to audio cables that sound better due to something other than being slightly louder is a long way.

[jabbr]

Don't you understand? What we have hear might be called the "reverse placebo effect" that these objectivists continually suffer from. ...

 

I hope you aren't calling me an "objectivist"... them's fighting words were I come from. I've been a card carrying and proudly American Pragmatist since that night in college...

[sdolezalek]

Ok, I admit to being a big skeptic about cryogenic treatment and many of the other claims made by cable manufacturers. I also find that what many of them say about their own product suggests they poorly understand the physics of what they are dealing with.

 

BUT, I do hear meaningful differences between cables, often unrelated to cost and usually in terms of attenuation or emphasis of particular frequency ranges.

 

So, for the "measureholics" what do you believe to be things that could validly affect sound quality? Let's leave out cable thickness for the moment, but shielding, material, material purity, stranding, flat versus round, single versus multiple strand, are all legitimate parameters. Ideally, I'd have folks point to corresponding measurements, but for sake of this discussion I'll accept opinion (assuming it is coming from those who put themselves in the measure camp, not those who "trust their ears.")

[mansr]

BUT, I do hear meaningful differences between cables, often unrelated to cost and usually in terms of attenuation or emphasis of particular frequency ranges.

 

So, for the "measureholics" what do you believe to be things that could validly affect sound quality? Let's leave out cable thickness for the moment, but shielding, material, material purity, stranding, flat versus round, single versus multiple strand, are all legitimate parameters.

 

Three letters: L, C, R

[tne]

Three letters: L, C, R

 

ok. that is a trivial and uninformative answer.

 

are you saying that two cables with the same LCR will sound identical? can you predict how the sound from a system changes when you perturb one of these parameters? how do differences in LCR (bulk and surface) translate to differences in the sound signature and sound quality, particularly in regard to "sounds better"? how does one measure and characterize properties of cables (and other things) in a way that allows for the proper evaluation and production of components for improved sound without the voodoo BS that is so common?

[gmgraves]

a] It's 3 feet to 300 feet (almost 100 meters) before you might have an audible difference.

 

OK, in this case, but the amount of attenuation/length depends on the cable itself. I picked arbitrary figures for illustrative purposes.

 

 

b] The load is 10000 Ohms, no reasonable cable has enough resistance difference to make a meaningful fraction of a dB for realistic length cables.

 

Of course unless it's designed to attenuate. I once bought a cable from Sony that was designed to pad-down the microphone input on a portable cassette recorder so that it could serve as a line-level input. It was just a cable with a mini-phone plug on each end. No external components, the cable was, apparently, designed using high-resistance wire!

 

c] Of course the cable can't generate it! This is all about the interconnect system. That's the output stage, the cable itself and the input stage. It's about the audio signal, the noise & interference picked up along the way. It's about the ringing, oscillation and other problems that the output stage might have driving a difficult cable.

 

Obviously.

[mansr]

ok. that is a trivial and uninformative answer.

 

are you saying that two cables with the same LCR will sound identical?

 

Yes. How could they not?

 

can you predict how the sound from a system changes when you perturb one of these parameters?

 

Assuming the change is large enough to make a notable change, the exact result will additionally depend on the characteristics of the source and load. Although those are more complex, if they are known, the overall response can be calculated.

 

how do differences in LCR (bulk and surface) translate to differences in the sound signature and sound quality, particularly in regard to "sounds better"?

 

Objectively, a "better" cable is one with a flatter frequency response. Subjectively, a given individual may have a preference for just about anything, and that is impossible to predict.

 

how does one measure and characterize properties of cables (and other things) in a way that allows for the proper evaluation and production of components for improved sound without the voodoo BS that is so common?

 

Using standard test equipment and methods covered in any 1st-year electronics course.

[gmgraves]

Text does not convey the tone. I'm in complete agreement with you. I.E. You're making too much sense i.e. "That's just crazy talk".

 

Remember if you bring too much logic to the conversation they'll start asking for you to be banned.

 

Oh, you were being sarcastic. Unfortunately, sarcasm depends largely on body language, facial expressions and voice quality to be recognized. Internet text doesn't do a very good job of transmitting those qualities across the ether. So please accept my apology for not recognizing it.

[gmgraves]

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.

[tne]

Yes. How could they not?

 

 

 

Assuming the change is large enough to make a notable change, the exact result will additionally depend on the characteristics of the source and load. Although those are more complex, if they are known, the overall response can be calculated.

 

 

 

Objectively, a "better" cable is one with a flatter frequency response. Subjectively, a given individual may have a preference for just about anything, and that is impossible to predict.

 

 

 

Using standard test equipment and methods covered in any 1st-year electronics course.

 

be specific. none of your approaches leads to a "sounds better" development path for cables, etc., nor one where optimizing LCR leads to improved flatness of frequency response. could you tell me what the ideal values of LCR are for flat frequency response?

[gmgraves]

Maybe some do, but then the third point kicks in. There are also companies that will freeze whatever cables or even entire amps you send them.

 

Why not? It's a revenue stream (albeit a pretty cynical one). If people are convinced that it will make their equipment sound better, then it probably will. Human aural memory is so poor that the chances that the equipment owner will remember well enough what his equipment sounded like before cryogenic treatment to notice any real difference (even if one were to actually exist) are exceedingly poor. And remember, the fact that the customer is willing to pay to have his equipment treated means that he wants to believe that this treatment will make his equipment sound better. The only better deal for a seller that I can come up with is the church "selling" eternal life. There are NO dissatisfied customers there!

[gmgraves]

Yes. How could they not?

 

 

 

Assuming the change is large enough to make a notable change, the exact result will additionally depend on the characteristics of the source and load. Although those are more complex, if they are known, the overall response can be calculated.

 

 

 

Objectively, a "better" cable is one with a flatter frequency response. Subjectively, a given individual may have a preference for just about anything, and that is impossible to predict.

 

 

 

Using standard test equipment and methods covered in any 1st-year electronics course.

 

 

The only problem is that those measurements don't actually mean anything. LRC on audio cables in the lengths commonly use in stereo systems is trivial and if one does the maths, the amount of measurable attenuation is in the 10th of a dB (or less) range and that attenuation is at the top of the passband (20 KHz and above) where I guarantee than nobody, including the virgin ears of a 12-year-old-girl, could possibly notice it!

[esldude]

be specific. none of your approaches leads to a "sounds better" development path for cables, etc., nor one where optimizing LCR leads to improved flatness of frequency response. could you tell me what the ideal values of LCR are for flat frequency response?

 

You already have one answer from gmgraves.

 

Take flatness of response. In analog interconnects you have already flat response to several hundred kilohertz. Often higher. Can you push that to some higher flatness? I suppose you could, but it won't sound different. Same for any possible distortion on cable at audio frequencies. Etc. etc. The reason there is no sounds better path for development is the result is already for audio purposes pretty much perfect. There is no where left to go with improvement.

[mansr]

could you tell me what the ideal values of LCR are for flat frequency response?

 

Zero.

[plissken]

There can be a lot of data available:

 

Belden RG6 (1694a):

 

Nom. Characteristic Impedance:

Impedance (Ohm)

75

 

Nom. Inductance:

Inductance (μH/ft)

0.106

 

Nom. Capacitance Conductor to Shield:

Capacitance (pF/ft)

16.2

 

Nominal Velocity of Propagation:

VP (%)

82

 

Nominal Delay:

Delay (ns/ft)

1.24

 

Nom. Conductor DC Resistance:

DCR @ 20°C (Ohm/1000 ft)

6.4

 

Nominal Outer Shield DC Resistance:

DCR @ 20°C (Ohm/1000 ft)

2.8

 

Nom. Attenuation:

Freq. (MHz) Attenuation (dB/100 ft.)

1.000 0.240

3.580 0.440

5.000 0.520

6.000 0.570

7.000 0.610

10.000 0.710

12.000 0.780

25.000 1.080

67.500 1.650

71.500 1.690

88.500 1.860

100.000 1.950

135.000 2.240

143.000 2.300

180.000 2.570

270.000 3.170

360.000 3.690

540.000 4.600

720.000 5.380

750.000 5.500

1000.000 6.420

1500.000 7.990

2000.000 9.370

2250.000 10.010

3000.000 11.780

4500.000 14.920

 

Max. Operating Voltage - UL:

Voltage

300 V RMS

 

Start Freq. (MHz) Stop Freq. (MHz) Min. RL (dB)

5.000 1600.000 23.000

1600.000 4500.000 21.000

 

Sweep Test

Sweep Testing: 100% Sweep tested 5 MHz to 4.5 GHz.

[esldude]

Yeah, but where is the data that tells you how it sounds? LOL

 

 

 

There can be a lot of data available:

 

Belden RG6 (1694a):

 

Nom. Characteristic Impedance:

Impedance (Ohm)

75

 

Nom. Inductance:

Inductance (μH/ft)

0.106

 

Nom. Capacitance Conductor to Shield:

Capacitance (pF/ft)

16.2

 

Nominal Velocity of Propagation:

VP (%)

82

 

Nominal Delay:

Delay (ns/ft)

1.24

 

Nom. Conductor DC Resistance:

DCR @ 20°C (Ohm/1000 ft)

6.4

 

Nominal Outer Shield DC Resistance:

DCR @ 20°C (Ohm/1000 ft)

2.8

 

Nom. Attenuation:

Freq. (MHz) Attenuation (dB/100 ft.)

1.000 0.240

3.580 0.440

5.000 0.520

6.000 0.570

7.000 0.610

10.000 0.710

12.000 0.780

25.000 1.080

67.500 1.650

71.500 1.690

88.500 1.860

100.000 1.950

135.000 2.240

143.000 2.300

180.000 2.570

270.000 3.170

360.000 3.690

540.000 4.600

720.000 5.380

750.000 5.500

1000.000 6.420

1500.000 7.990

2000.000 9.370

2250.000 10.010

3000.000 11.780

4500.000 14.920

 

Max. Operating Voltage - UL:

Voltage

300 V RMS

 

Start Freq. (MHz) Stop Freq. (MHz) Min. RL (dB)

5.000 1600.000 23.000

1600.000 4500.000 21.000

 

Sweep Test

Sweep Testing: 100% Sweep tested 5 MHz to 4.5 GHz.

[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

[Jud]

Yes. How could they not?

 

Off the top of my head: if one has better shielding in a high-RFI environment; OTOH, in cables where noise resulting from crosstalk is a concern but there is low RFI, effective separation of conductors might result in better sound, compared to a heavily shielded cable that keeps the conductors in close proximity.

[mansr]

Yeah, but where is the data that tells you how it sounds? LOL

 

The quoted data tells you that it has no discernible effect on audio frequencies.

[mansr]

Off the top of my head: if one has better shielding in a high-RFI environment; OTOH, in cables where noise resulting from crosstalk is a concern but there is low RFI, effective separation of conductors might result in better sound, compared to a heavily shielded cable that keeps the conductors in close proximity.

 

You can hear radio frequencies?

[Jud]

You can hear radio frequencies?

 

Yes, I have listened to radio frequencies picked up by cables (called "antennas" when they are intentionally used for this purpose) and conducted into electronics many thousands of times.

[Paul R]

You already have one answer from gmgraves.

 

Take flatness of response. In analog interconnects you have already flat response to several hundred kilohertz. Often higher. Can you push that to some higher flatness? I suppose you could, but it won't sound different. Same for any possible distortion on cable at audio frequencies. Etc. etc. The reason there is no sounds better path for development is the result is already for audio purposes pretty much perfect. There is no where left to go with improvement.

 

Except:

 

1. People do hear differences in cables, often repeatable.

2. They are not hearing imaginary differences.

3. What is causing the difference?

 

We know what it is not - it is not massive differences in LCR. It is also, not imagination.

 

Conundrum - which always means one thing. There is some factor there we are missing.

 

-Paul

[esldude]

The quoted data tells you that it has no discernible effect on audio frequencies.

 

Yes I know. Was just preemptively offering up the question.

[plissken]

Yes, I have listened to radio frequencies picked up by cables (called "antennas" when they are intentionally used for this purpose) and conducted into electronics many thousands of times.

 

Actually you are listening to the demodulated information embedded in the fixed frequency carrier.

 

It's like my dialing up your cell phone with a fax machine and having you listen with pencil and paper at hand so you can write out my pizza order

[jabbr]

You can hear radio frequencies?

 

Don't assume the system is linear