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

[gmgraves]

You asked about measuring soudstage. You asked about LCR and how it varies with sound quality. Simple answer, if LCR in conventional use of cables doesn't change the signal it doesn't change the sound quality. Such is the case.

 

What L, C, or R would effect sound quality? One that could change the signal, typically in terms of frequency response. Those have to be so large as to be intentional or incompetent. If intentional we are now down to a haphazard EQ effect which varies with which gear it is connected to. Simple method, don't do EQ this way. Connect transparently and if you want EQ do actual controllable EQ. We could go through the process of giving you numbers, but it is a waste of time.

 

You might also point out that LRC values large enough to effect a cable's EQ in the manner that you mention, simply cannot be fashioned out of the wire, shielding and insulating materials used in cable construction. In order to act as a a filter these LC values would have to be extremely large, and therefore physically large as well. Like capacitors, and inductors, for instance, at least as large as one's thumb. The lower the frequency that one would want to affect, the larger the value of both the capacitors and the inductors. By itself, no actual cabling can physically have more than a few picoFarads of capacitance or a few nanoHenrys of inductance per foot and these small amounts simply don't affect the low AC frequencies in the audio passband in the lengths used in hi-fi.

 

As for soundstage, it can only vary if the signal varies. With stereo there are only 2 signals. You can effect it with proper EQ bumps and dips. You can effect it by blending the two channels. You could extract how much stereo info is there by deriving a difference signal between the two channels. Soundstage is a result of differing channel info, FR effects and interactions with speakers and room. There may not be a single number we can put on it. Doesn't make it some mystery that falls between the cracks.

 

You can also change it with phase differences between the two channels, but interconnects, in and of themselves, can't change that either!

[sandyk]

This is interesting.

 

I don't have my PC anywhere near my HiFi gear but after reading a lot about not running power cables and interconnects/speaker cables parallel etc, I wondered if I was experiencing any negative effect that I just didn't recognise? I decided to clean up the mess behind my setup which apart from my 2 channel gear includes an LED TV, cable TV box, AVR & blu ray player. There were obvious instances of power & analog cables running parallel so I spent hours re-routing cables and creating gizmos to make sure that there was decent separation, especially between power and analog/digital.

 

The end result - absolutely no difference in SQ. So I guess this is due to one of 3 reasons:

 

 

1. My cables have great shielding
   
2. I am just lucky
   
3. I am partially deaf
   

 

Perhaps there is so much crap spewing out of all the SMPS in use that any improvement was masked ? Don't forget that they still spew RF/EMI back into the A.C. mains sewer in Standby Mode too.

[gmgraves]

In my home, if you place a cable in the vicinity of my workstation and 4K monitor you can get a very audible increase in hum -- the increase varies from cable to cable -- have to assume it's related to shielding.

 

No cable shielding is 100% effective. One has to use common sense when routing cables. Rules of thumb are to keep AC cables and signal cables as far apart as possible, don't run signal cables parallel with the mains wiring in the walls, keep small signal cables well away from noisy environments (such as pcs) etc.

[jabbr]

No cable shielding is 100% effective. One has to use common sense when routing cables. Rules of thumb are to keep AC cables and signal cables as far apart as possible, don't run signal cables parallel with the mains wiring in the walls, keep small signal cables well away from noisy environments (such as pcs) etc.

 

Just pointing out a situation in which differences between cables might be obvious for obvious reasons.

 

Wasn't a big problem until I got a new GPU with a new 4K Monitor connected by HDMI 1.3. I've solved it by running HQPlayer on that workstation but listening in another room connected by Ethernet, and with common sense cables e.g. BJC/Supra.

[sandyk]

Yes, that is axiomatic. However, many who post here believe that no two disparate cables do pass an audio signal unaltered. They believe that current physics just doesn't know what is being altered or how it is being altered. And some here seem to believe that the tiny fractions of a dB that different LRC values impart on different cable constructions are actually audible.

 

Put a sock in it George. Many here do realise that it's the cable's ability to reject external RF/EMI influences that are the most likely reasons for heard improvements. A twisted pair will help to reject RF/EMI, but a twisted pair inside a shield will do even better, for example.. Some cables even have 2 separate layers of shielding as you well know. Add to that what Speedskater said back in part c of his reply 307, which I have also mentioned in replies to you on numerous occasions.

 

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.

Several members here just delight in dishing out the same old, same old, just to try and put down members who do report hearing differences between cables of similar lengths. There was also a recent reply highlighting just how much various cables are influenced by close proximity to 4K monitors etc. Neither does all RF/EMI that gets into a cable manifest itself as an audible hum, yet it can still degrade performance (SMPS artifacts for example)

[wanta911]

Perhaps there is so much crap spewing out of all the SMPS in use that any improvement was masked ? Don't forget that they still spew RF/EMI back into the A.C. mains sewer in Standby Mode too.

 

Yeah but I'm actually somewhat paranoid & unplug any component that is not hifi related when listening to music. All of my source gear uses LPS and my household appliances are all on a different circuit at the other end of the apartment.

[jabbr]

There is an offshoot discussion about whether a cable's signature (if exists!) is determined entirely by LRC.

 

What about capacitors. It is generally acknowledged among audio circuit designers that capacitors, inductors, transistors and even resistors can have sonic signatures.

 

1) Have you encountered two versions of the same transistor made by different manufacturers that have different "sounds"? Why?

2) Capacitors? Do you go based on spec alone or brand?

3) Coils?

4) What characteristics do you use to select resistors?

5) If no to all above, do you actively build circuits? design circuits?

[gmgraves]

Put a sock in it George. Many here do realise that it's the cable's ability to reject external RF/EMI influences that are the most likely reasons for heard improvements. A twisted pair will help to reject RF/EMI, but a twisted pair inside a shield will do even better, for example.. Some cables even have 2 separate layers of shielding as you well know. Add to that what Speedskater said back in part c of his reply 307, which I have also mentioned in replies to you on numerous occasions.

 

Put a sock in it? Nice talk! What have I said now, to peak your ire?

 

 

Several members here just delight in dishing out the same old, same old, just to try and put down members who do report hearing differences between cables of similar lengths. There was also a recent reply highlighting just how much various cables are influenced by close proximity to 4K monitors etc. Neither does all RF/EMI that gets into a cable manifest itself as an audible hum, yet it can still degrade performance (SMPS artifacts for example)

 

Agreed, but that's not me, now is it?

[gmgraves]

There is an offshoot discussion about whether a cable's signature (if exists!) is determined entirely by LRC.

 

What about capacitors. It is generally acknowledged among audio circuit designers that capacitors, inductors, transistors and even resistors can have sonic signatures.

 

How many times does this have to be repeated? YES, capacitors and inductors, and other components can and do have sonic signatures, but the capacitance, resistance, and inductance formed by wire are too small to have ANY effect at audio frequencies! It's that simple!

 

1) Have you encountered two versions of the same transistor made by different manufacturers that have different "sounds"? Why?

2) Capacitors? Do you go based on spec alone or brand?

3) Coils?

4) What characteristics do you use to select resistors?

5) If no to all above, do you actively build circuits? design circuits?

 

None of that has any relevance to the subject at hand, even if it were 100% correct, which it isn't. LRC has NOTHING whatsoever to do with interconnects sounding different - PERIOD!

[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

[jabbr]

How many times does this have to be repeated? YES, capacitors and inductors, and other components can and do have sonic signatures, but the capacitance, resistance, and inductance formed by wire are too small to have ANY effect at audio frequencies! It's that simple!

 

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?

 

None of that has any relevance to the subject at hand, even if it were 100% correct, which it isn't. LRC has NOTHING whatsoever to do with interconnects sounding different - PERIOD!

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.

[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

[mansr]

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)?

 

The main parameters of a capacitor besides capacitance are series resistance, series inductance, and leakage (essentially equivalent to a parallel resistor). The series resistance determines how much current the capacitor can supply when charged to a given voltage. Depending on its role in a circuit, a small resistance need not be an issue at all. Same for leakage.

 

Besides these properties, a capacitor, like every electronic component, imparts some noise which obviously depends on the design. Ceramic capacitors can also have piezoelectric properties resulting in both microphony and acoustic emissions.

 

I can imagine that replacing capacitors in a cheap amp with higher quality equivalents could improve the sound, but I'd expect high-end gear to be built with parts matching the overall performance of the device.

[tne]

You asked about measuring soudstage. You asked about LCR and how it varies with sound quality. Simple answer, if LCR in conventional use of cables doesn't change the signal it doesn't change the sound quality. Such is the case.

 

What L, C, or R would effect sound quality? One that could change the signal, typically in terms of frequency response. Those have to be so large as to be intentional or incompetent. If intentional we are now down to a haphazard EQ effect which varies with which gear it is connected to. Simple method, don't do EQ this way. Connect transparently and if you want EQ do actual controllable EQ. We could go through the process of giving you numbers, but it is a waste of time.

 

As for soundstage, it can only vary if the signal varies. With stereo there are only 2 signals. You can effect it with proper EQ bumps and dips. You can effect it by blending the two channels. You could extract how much stereo info is there by deriving a difference signal between the two channels. Soundstage is a result of differing channel info, FR effects and interactions with speakers and room. There may not be a single number we can put on it. Doesn't make it some mystery that falls between the cracks.

 

 

You seem to be missing the larger question (alluded to earlier by jabbr). How can one define metrics and make measurements on components or systems of components, be it cables, USB thingees, preamps, etc., that allow for the characterization of their effects on sound quality? What do you measure and characterize in order to have a quantitative approach to optimize these components and their interactions in order to improve sound quality? How does one compare X vs. Y through measurement and characterization in a way that evaluates their effects on SQ?

 

Simple, trivial, dismissive answers are not beneficial.

[Jud]

The main parameters of a capacitor besides capacitance are series resistance, series inductance, and leakage (essentially equivalent to a parallel resistor).

 

Are measurements of these parameters normally provided, e.g., on web pages at which a capacitor is displayed for sale, or at the manufacturer's web site?

 

Besides these properties, a capacitor, like every electronic component, imparts some noise which obviously depends on the design. Ceramic capacitors can also have piezoelectric properties resulting in both microphony and acoustic emissions.

 

 

Would you say the parameters you mention above, plus noise behavior, describe the sound quality of a capacitor to the exclusion of any other properties?

[jabbr]

The main parameters of a capacitor besides capacitance are series resistance, series inductance, and leakage (essentially equivalent to a parallel resistor). The series resistance determines how much current the capacitor can supply when charged to a given voltage. Depending on its role in a circuit, a small resistance need not be an issue at all. Same for leakage.

 

Besides these properties, a capacitor, like every electronic component, imparts some noise which obviously depends on the design. Ceramic capacitors can also have piezoelectric properties resulting in both microphony and acoustic emissions.

 

I can imagine that replacing capacitors in a cheap amp with higher quality equivalents could improve the sound, but I'd expect high-end gear to be built with parts matching the overall performance of the device.

 

There has been a lot written about capacitor non linearities causing distortions some of which are audibly pleasing. This is recognized to the extent that such nonlinearities can be modeled: eg: https://www.cadence.com/rl/Resources/application_notes/nonlinear_capacitor_model_appnote.pdf

 

Similar for inductors and even resistors but certainly transistors.

 

Let me say that I am definitely not an advocate of using cables to impart a sound but I can't say that certain cables don't themselves have a nonlinear sonic signature. Could this be related to some piezoelectric effect? I don't know (nor particularly care to investigate). On the other hand, am I vastly more interested in the sonic signature of a Sony VFET? Yes!

 

Jus sayin: QLR is a first approximation ...

[jabbr]

Are measurements of these parameters normally provided, e.g., on web pages at which a capacitor is displayed for sale, or at the manufacturer's web site?

 

 

 

Would you say the parameters you mention above, plus noise behavior, describe the sound quality of a capacitor to the exclusion of any other properties?

 

Good designers that I know use models/simulations to get a good approximation of circuit behavior but understand the limits of models, and fall back on prototyping a circuit and listening. I think someone who is looking for a particular "sound" would look for specific components rather than wires.

[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

[esldude]

You seem to be missing the larger question (alluded to earlier by jabbr). How can one define metrics and make measurements on components or systems of components, be it cables, USB thingees, preamps, etc., that allow for the characterization of their effects on sound quality? What do you measure and characterize in order to have a quantitative approach to optimize these components and their interactions in order to improve sound quality? How does one compare X vs. Y through measurement and characterization in a way that evaluates their effects on SQ?

 

Simple, trivial, dismissive answers are not beneficial.

 

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.

[mansr]

Are measurements of these parameters normally provided, e.g., on web pages at which a capacitor is displayed for sale, or at the manufacturer's web site?

 

They should be in the datasheet.

 

Would you say the parameters you mention above, plus noise behavior, describe the sound quality of a capacitor to the exclusion of any other properties?

 

Someone mentioned nonlinearities as well. Whether they matter for a particular component depends on its role and operating range. For example, in power supply filter capacitors it would be of no concern, and frequency-dependent properties are unlikely to vary significantly in the audio band.

[esldude]

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

 

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.

[Jud]

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.

 

So does this include being able to stop a honkin' big ground hum by switching one pair of a particular manufacturer's cables for a different pair of cables from the same manufacturer? (Same length, same general design philosophy, different implementation.) Yes, they were from my turntable, though the connection at the 'table was RCA rather than DIN.

[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

[jabbr]

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

 

Probably because the people who make the cables are interested in marketing that sells cables rather than spending the time and effort making difficult measurements.

 

One type of measurement that is more sophisticated is a "transfer function" or "impulse response" but needs to be very high resolution.

 

Then there would be the difficulty for someone to interpret ...