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

[Richard Dale]

http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_beast.pdf

 

A great read! Thanks for posting the link.

 

With respect to the discussion on this thread, I personally think cables make a difference but it is system dependent.

 

Here is an example of a worthwhile cable change from my experience. A few years ago I bought a pair of Audiostatic DCI electrostatic speakers. They were very hard to get sounding right. They needed positioning 'just so' to get them to focus. I bought a pair of short speaker plinths to get them off the carpet and that helped matters. But the bass still wasn't right - on a lot of tracks it would be fine, but on one or two the bass just collapsed into a booming resonance and the speakers just 'lost it'. I was driving the Audiostatics with a pair of valve monoblocks with 4 EL34s per channel running in class A, and using the speaker wire that the dealer who I bought the speakers from recommended - it was silver I think and I'm sure it's L/R/C values were reasonable. When I switched to Nordost Red Dawn at some expense, it fixed to boomy bass resonance, and that was certainly an 'objective' effect. There was also more detail and the speakers finally really began to work (except on reggae, which never really sounds right on electrostatics IMHO). So I would say in the case of this system the Nordost speaker cables were a perfect match, although in other systems they might not have been.

[jabbr]

Interesting read, even if it got a bit complicated at some point.

Did you mean to tell me that the 'sweetness' he mentioned is coming from the high capacitance?

No, not capacitance. Here is a classic technical article: http://www.linearsystems.com/assets/media/application_notes/JFET's%20The%20New%20Frontier%20Part%201,%20by%20Erno%20Bordely.pdf which describes both parallelization as a method of noise reduction as well as the cascode as a method of input capacitance effect reduction (Miller effect).

: input capacitance driving the so-called "Miller" effect is mitigated by the cascode.

 

What is described by Pass is an experiment he made, which illustrates the thought and design process of one of the most highly successful audio designers of our time -( he readily admits that he's not a digital or computer guy ). He starts with spec sheets, measures individual part curves, creates a design ... and then listens. In this case he was going for a very very low distortion design but found that it didn't sound fantastic and at the end of the day he is not in business to create the lowest distortion equipment, rather the equipment that sounds the best, and consequently sells. Successful design, and likewise successful implementation mandates the use of both measurement and listening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, I have been enjoying your posts a lot.

 

My pleasure, I'm posting while listening and learning a lot

[Sal1950]

http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_beast.pdf

 

Really enjoyed the first page of Nelsons paper! It's like I'd written it myself and remembrances of going to the theater in the 50s and 60s to see all the syfy and horror films of the day. Forbidden Planet was the StarWars of the day, incredible for its time.

Monsters Jim, Monsters from the Id

[gmgraves]

If the brain of some one who doesn't understand electrical theory creates an enhanced musical image via "snake oil" interconnects, the wires have done their job virtually if not actually. To that particular listener the difference is moot. We each create our own reality, some more or less consistent with the norm than others.

 

That might be be the most intelligent thing that anyone has posted on this thread yet! Bravo!

[gmgraves]

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

 

 

Input of the amp or output? An amp's input is usually a very high impedance, generally more than 10 K. The input capacitance is either the input capacitance of the op-amp used as the first stage, or, the input capacitance of the first stage input transistor, FET or tube. All of which are essentially insignificant, especially if the output of the source component is low impedance (say 1K or less) which it generally always is.

 

The output capacitance can be higher, but with solid-state amps, the output impedance should be less than one ohm, so that shouldn't be a problem and wouldn't affect an interconnect anyway.

 

You folks are grasping at straws WRT this LRC thing.

[Sal1950]

If the brain of some one who doesn't understand electrical theory creates an enhanced musical image via "snake oil" interconnects, the wires have done their job virtually if not actually. To that particular listener the difference is moot. We each create our own reality, some more or less consistent with the norm than others.

 

That might be be the most intelligent thing that anyone has posted on this thread yet! Bravo!

 

The same could be said of effects created via equalization or dsl processing, etc.

But what about the concept of High Fidelity, accuracy to the source as best we can accomplish. What has happened to those goals?

[jabbr]

.

 

PS. I've performed both of the above actions, each more times than I want to count, with no increase in the SQ of my headphones????[/color]

 

Ever get your head reclocked?

[StephenJK]

OK, then we're all agreed. Can we then close this thread and move on?

[PopPop]

The same could be said of effects created via equalization or dsl processing, etc.

But what about the concept of High Fidelity, accuracy to the source as best we can accomplish. What has happened to those goals?

 

Accuracy, that's arbitrary. What source? A single instrument with a single mike in an acoustically dead room? Fidelity, what is that? It's different for every listener in every venue. Audiophile music listening is about creating in your home the sound that most gives you pleasure.

 

I have ushered for the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra at the Ordway Center, where I have also performed. I can tell you with certainty that the performers hear something different than the people in "orchestra" seats (front and center) who hear a completely different concert than those who sit in the balcony loge or third tier box seats.

 

One person may hear the hiss of the rosin being drawn across a string while another may hear the sound of breath escaping the keys if a clarinet. And the whole tonal balance changes from seat to seat.

 

The variety of media, components and interconnects is what gives audiophiles the ability to create the musical reality that is consistent with their experience.

 

Trying to get what is essentially an individual sensory experience boiled down into quantifiable terms is like expecting to catch a unicorn.

[Sal1950]

Ever get your head reclocked?

What don't kill ya only makes ya stronger. LOL

[Jud]

Maybe the shielding was bad or damaged. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

Points for persistence, anyway. OK, let's just describe both events in detail and put this to bed, shall we?

 

First time there was a hum problem:

 

- Shielded phono cable.

 

- Hum was reduced but did not go away when connecting turntable chassis ground to ground screw on pre-amp.

 

- Took it to a dealer, who looked at the back of my cartridge and showed me a thin copper strap from the cartridge ground lead to the metal cartridge body. He cut the strap. I took it home. No more ground hum.

 

Second time there was a hum problem:

 

- After buying a new turntable, I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to tidy up power cabling. So I moved the turntable all the way to the left side of my system and put the DAC on the right side. Hooked up the new turntable with the ribbon cables and heard the hum.

 

- The hum was reduced but did not go away when connecting the turntable ground to the pre-amp ground screw.

 

- For cosmetic reasons and to see if the hum was related to the positioning of the turntable interconnects (though the interconnects were suspended in air a foot or more away from any power cords, other interconnects, and components until they got to the pre-amp), I positioned the turntable all the way over on the right side of my system, and moved the DAC back to the left side. This changed the position of the turntable by about two meters, and meant the interconnects were not running behind any of the same components they had been, except for the pre-amp. (The pre-amp power supply is remotely located from the pre-amp.) Again the turntable interconnects were suspended about 3 feet in the air and not close to any power cords, other interconnects, or components other than the turntable and pre-amp. The situation with the hum was completely unchanged - less when the turntable ground was connected to the pre-amp ground screw, but still plainly audible.

 

- Not wanting to fool around with the cartridge, and remembering past discussions on the forum about ground currents and cable resistance from thin conductors, I tried the cables with the thinnest conductors I had. Bingo, hum gone.

 

Yes. Cables might affect ground potential, they don't have it. The term (ground) potential is only meaningful in the context of a connected system. It is a relative measure that isn't defined for a component (especially not a wire) in isolation.

[Emphasis added.]

 

Exactly. Some aspects of the behavior of interconnects or components that can be important to sound quality only arise in the context of a connected system.

 

So what is your point in the end about the cable that hums? You were using it with phono which has another 40-50 db gain vs the rest of your system. The cable might be picking up some hum used elsewhere, but without the extra gain of a phono stage the hum is too low in level to hear. Taking into account the RIAA curve the 60 hz area might be more like 65 db gain. You could have quite loud hum at the phono input and drop out the 65 db gain elsewhere and hear none of it.

 

Yep. In fact (rank speculation on my part here) it might even be low enough in level that you wouldn't notice the hum/noise itself, but it might mask low-level detail or make it less clear.

[esldude]

Points for persistence, anyway. OK, let's just describe both events in detail and put this to bed, shall we?

 

First time there was a hum problem:

 

- Shielded phono cable.

 

- Hum was reduced but did not go away when connecting turntable chassis ground to ground screw on pre-amp.

 

- Took it to a dealer, who looked at the back of my cartridge and showed me a thin copper strap from the cartridge ground lead to the metal cartridge body. He cut the strap. I took it home. No more ground hum.

 

Second time there was a hum problem:

 

- After buying a new turntable, I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to tidy up power cabling. So I moved the turntable all the way to the left side of my system and put the DAC on the right side. Hooked up the new turntable with the ribbon cables and heard the hum.

 

- The hum was reduced but did not go away when connecting the turntable ground to the pre-amp ground screw.

 

- For cosmetic reasons and to see if the hum was related to the positioning of the turntable interconnects (though the interconnects were suspended in air a foot or more away from any power cords, other interconnects, and components until they got to the pre-amp), I positioned the turntable all the way over on the right side of my system, and moved the DAC back to the left side. This changed the position of the turntable by about two meters, and meant the interconnects were not running behind any of the same components they had been, except for the pre-amp. (The pre-amp power supply is remotely located from the pre-amp.) Again the turntable interconnects were suspended about 3 feet in the air and not close to any power cords, other interconnects, or components other than the turntable and pre-amp. The situation with the hum was completely unchanged - less when the turntable ground was connected to the pre-amp ground screw, but still plainly audible.

 

- Not wanting to fool around with the cartridge, and remembering past discussions on the forum about ground currents and cable resistance from thin conductors, I tried the cables with the thinnest conductors I had. Bingo, hum gone.

 

[Emphasis added.]

 

Exactly. Some aspects of the behavior of interconnects or components that can be important to sound quality only arise in the context of a connected system.

 

 

 

Yep. In fact (rank speculation on my part here) it might even be low enough in level that you wouldn't notice the hum/noise itself, but it might mask low-level detail or make it less clear.

 

 

So with full detail, the first TT had nothing really to do with it. I have had shielded phono connection and humming TT's as well. Sometimes you added a 3rd pin ground on the power cord which many TT's don't have. Or an additional ground strap leading to elsewhere. Or use a cheater plug to disconnect 3rd pin ground on the pre-amp which many did have or other things. The fact it had hum with shielded cable and removing a connection on cart doesn't have anything to say about the second TT.

 

Now going from the ribbon to a thin cable fixed hum in the second TT. Would going with a conventional shielded phono cable have done so as well? We don't know. Was it fixed due to high resistance of the thin cable? We don't know. The second cable if I understood the description of it was shielded in the way it was constructed. So you can't parse out which was responsible for hum going away.

[Sal1950]

Accuracy, that's arbitrary. What source? A single instrument with a single mike in an acoustically dead room? Fidelity, what is that? It's different for every listener in every venue. Audiophile music listening is about creating in your home the sound that most gives you pleasure.

 

I have ushered for the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra at the Ordway Center, where I have also performed. I can tell you with certainty that the performers hear something different than the people in "orchestra" seats (front and center) who hear a completely different concert than those who sit in the balcony loge or third tier box seats.

 

One person may hear the hiss of the rosin being drawn across a string while another may hear the sound of breath escaping the keys if a clarinet. And the whole tonal balance changes from seat to seat.

 

The variety of media, components and interconnects is what gives audiophiles the ability to create the musical reality that is consistent with their experience.

 

Trying to get what is essentially an individual sensory experience boiled down into quantifiable terms is like expecting to catch a unicorn.

 

No disrespect meant but I find this whole premise ludicrous. What have all the engineers been working at for the last 100 years? When did the path from a Edison cylinder machine to todays best HDA recordings on a high end playback system, did the progress become "arbitrary"? My neighbors recently bought a new Bose Acoustic Wave box, paid big bucks, over a $1k for it and can't stop bragging on its sound. What does it sound like, a upscale plastic table radio. But they love it, does that make it equal to our systems cause they think it "sounds good" and since by your standards "Accuracy, that's arbitrary" it doesn't really matter anyway? Is there no standard of excellence we as music lover should strive for.

High Fidelity has a meaning, and "sounds good" is not a measurement of quality.

[PopPop]

OK, we differ here.

[esldude]

[/color]High Fidelity has a meaning, and "sounds good" is not a measurement of quality.

 

That is one of the key issues to me. High fidelity or high accuracy has meaning. Sounds good is whatever. It is true with exposure to better gear some people develop a taste for what is better as sounding good. It however is not a guide to accuracy or to a measure of quality that can be relied upon beyond one's preference for how to enjoy music.

[Sal1950]

That is one of the key issues to me. High fidelity or high accuracy has meaning. Sounds good is whatever. It is true with exposure to better gear some people develop a taste for what is better as sounding good. It however is not a guide to accuracy or to a measure of quality that can be relied upon beyond one's preference for how to enjoy music.

Amen brother.

[PopPop]

Perhaps arbitrary isn't the best word to associate with accuracy, but consider this. Given my listening room, my Maggie's do a much better job of accurately reproducing the intimacy and sound stage of a string quartet than, say, my B&W CM8s. The CM8s on the other hand do a much better job of conveying all the sound energy of a rock concert.

 

So, is one more "accurate" than the other?

[esldude]

Perhaps arbitrary isn't the best word to associate with accuracy, but consider this. Given my listening room, my Maggie's do a much better job of accurately reproducing the intimacy and sound stage of a string quartet than, say, my B&W CM8s. The CM8s on the other hand do a much better job of conveying all the sound energy of a rock concert.

 

So, is one more "accurate" than the other?

 

Two different types of music have different parameters. Rock has a need for loudness and overall energy that a string quartet does not. A better speaker might serve both types of music better than what you have. So you have speakers with different limitations which serve different types of music. You could say they are more accurate for each respective kind of music. A single better speaker might encompass all the parameters of both genres with the intimate soundstage when called for and able to rock out when no such quality is in the music itself.

[Sal1950]

Perhaps arbitrary isn't the best word to associate with accuracy, but consider this. Given my listening room, my Maggie's do a much better job of accurately reproducing the intimacy and sound stage of a string quartet than, say, my B&W CM8s. The CM8s on the other hand do a much better job of conveying all the sound energy of a rock concert.

 

So, is one more "accurate" than the other?

 

Sure, but each has areas of strengths and weakness. You've already determined under what musical conditions which one is more accurate. If you want one speaker that is more accurate in all areas you have to spend a LOT more money. But you already know these things.

 

Dang esl, you beat me to the draw.

[Sal1950]

Oh oh, you guys see the schiit has hit the fan over at whatsbestforum? Haven't caught all the details yet but appear amir has launched some time of coup against Steve Williams and the site?

There's trouble, trouble in Audiophile City.

 

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?20175-Thanks-to-Amir

 

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?20177-What-are-the-Facts

 

"To everyone reading this. Amir has blocked my account to post as well as hacked the admin control panel which had kept me off the site

For everyone to know

I am the some owner of WBF. The site is registered to me. There is no business. There are no shares and there is no money. Amir has truly hacked the site and everyone needs to know.

I am the sole owner of a website that is a hobby

Will this insanity ever end

Steve Williams

 

[esldude]

Oh never mind. Removed upon further reflection.

[semente]

Input of the amp or output? An amp's input is usually a very high impedance, generally more than 10 K. The input capacitance is either the input capacitance of the op-amp used as the first stage, or, the input capacitance of the first stage input transistor, FET or tube. All of which are essentially insignificant, especially if the output of the source component is low impedance (say 1K or less) which it generally always is.

 

The output capacitance can be higher, but with solid-state amps, the output impedance should be less than one ohm, so that shouldn't be a problem and wouldn't affect an interconnect anyway.

 

You folks are grasping at straws WRT this LRC thing.

 

In this particular case I was thinking about output...

 

If some people are reporting that they can hear cable differences with some gear but not other then there must be something in that gear that is filtering/masking those differences; it could also explain why other people don't hear any differences.

 

R

[semente]

The same could be said of effects created via equalization or dsl processing, etc.

But what about the concept of High Fidelity, accuracy to the source as best we can accomplish. What has happened to those goals?

 

If people are reporting differences in cable performance this means that (either they're delusional or) that distinct cable architecture is responsible for changes to the signal which in turn affects accuracy/fidelity, for both ICs and speaker wire.

 

The thing that would interest me is an investigation to the possible causes for those differences.

From the development of this topic I seems like most people agree that it's not a simple matter of LCR.

 

Could it be the construction (solid vs strands, wire thickness, coating, insulation material), the geometry (parallel, twisted, braided, coaxial, conductor spacing), the shielding or it's absence, something else?

 

Some years ago I compared freebie, braided, coaxial and parallel-distant IC topologies and my preference went for the latter as it seem to produce the "clearest", most "grain-free" sound - it's not a frequency response thing.

 

R

[semente]

Accuracy, that's arbitrary. What source? A single instrument with a single mike in an acoustically dead room? Fidelity, what is that? It's different for every listener in every venue. Audiophile music listening is about creating in your home the sound that most gives you pleasure.

 

I have ushered for the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra at the Ordway Center, where I have also performed. I can tell you with certainty that the performers hear something different than the people in "orchestra" seats (front and center) who hear a completely different concert than those who sit in the balcony loge or third tier box seats.

 

One person may hear the hiss of the rosin being drawn across a string while another may hear the sound of breath escaping the keys if a clarinet. And the whole tonal balance changes from seat to seat.

 

The variety of media, components and interconnects is what gives audiophiles the ability to create the musical reality that is consistent with their experience.

 

Trying to get what is essentially an individual sensory experience boiled down into quantifiable terms is like expecting to catch a unicorn.

 

The term (high) fidelity refers to the recorded signal and not to the original event but I do agree that the ultimate goal of a recorded music playback system is to provide listening please.

 

We have all experienced the limits of recording and playback - even the best systems and recordings fail to sound like the real thing; but the signal is all we have.

For some people, the as accurate as possible reproduction of the signal is enough to re-create the musical experience whilst for others it comes short.

I think that some recording techniques could be responsible for that dissatisfaction.

Could we achieve a more musically (not sonically) gratifying experience through judiciously "distorting" the signal?

Many people believe so (think about the extra "bloom" provided by some valve amplification) and it could be the theme for another interesting debate, but I don't think cables are the right tool for such "expressionist" goals.

 

R

[esldude]

If people are reporting differences in cable performance this means that (either they're delusional or) that distinct cable architecture is responsible for changes to the signal which in turn affects accuracy/fidelity, for both ICs and speaker wire.

 

The thing that would interest me is an investigation to the possible causes for those differences.

From the development of this topic I seems like most people agree that it's not a simple matter of LCR.

 

Could it be the construction (solid vs strands, wire thickness, coating, insulation material), the geometry (parallel, twisted, braided, coaxial, conductor spacing), the shielding or it's absence, something else?

 

Some years ago I compared freebie, braided, coaxial and parallel-distant IC topologies and my preference went for the latter as it seem to produce the "clearest", most "grain-free" sound - it's not a frequency response thing.

 

R

 

What is your method of comparison?