Audible difference between analog interconnects

[Don Hills]

... Usually removing artifacts that were not in the original sound to begin with.

 

You might wish to rephrase that.

[semente]

many delicate cables, looks like spaghetti to anyone but me

 

Could you take a photo, or link one from the web?

I'd like to see that.

 

R

[Jud]

You might wish to rephrase that.

 

I suppose if it refers to anti-aliasing filters at the D/A end of the chain, and the original signal as the analog music that was recorded, it would be an accurate description, but yes, it does cause a little thinking, doesn't it?

[Boris75]

It's the same information regardless of how it is processed.

 

+1. The description of Fourier and inverse-Fourier transforms on the Wolfram Mathworld website is quite good in my opinion:

Fourier Transform -- from Wolfram MathWorld

[Jud]

You don't need two dacs for analog cable. Just feed the dac mono. If your cable is too delicate, you could always use a couple of less delicate cables that you think sound different.

 

That's right, I was speaking of USB cable only regarding two DACs. The USB cable and the cable between my HDD and the computer are the only two cables in my system that are easily accessible.

[Paul R]

You might wish to rephrase that.

 

I was thinking in specific of DACs. Of course, a filter can add to or modify a signal just as well, such as a filter that adds reverberation. I was in specific thinking of a low pass filter used to remove alias artifacts.

 

Come to think of it, every filter modifies the signal, digital or analog, software or hardware. And wires, connecters, and certainly speakers act as a filter to the signal as well.

[Don Hills]

I suppose if it refers to anti-aliasing filters at the D/A end of the chain, and the original signal as the analog music that was recorded, it would be an accurate description, but yes, it does cause a little thinking, doesn't it?

 

I originally read it as "removing something that wasn't there in the first place", but having now had my morning coffee it it does in fact make sense if you read it as "removing artifacts added along the chain". My mistake...

[Jud]

Could you take a photo, or link one from the web?

I'd like to see that.

 

R

 

First pic from east looking west, second from west looking east:

 

 

[esldude]

First pic from east looking west, second from west looking east:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24743[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24744[/ATTACH]

 

Clearly your situation in regard to USB is still unruly. I would suggest adding an Intona unit after the two Regens to perhaps isolate your DAC from the noise the Regens add to the USB path.

[Sal1950]

First pic from east looking west, second from west looking east:

I'm cooking spaghetti for dinner today too.

Seriously, your not concerned with all those unshielded design cables balled up with power lines and everything else, that your not suffering from any audible induced artifacts?

[Jud]

Clearly your situation in regard to USB is still unruly. I would suggest adding an Intona unit after the two Regens to perhaps isolate your DAC from the noise the Regens add to the USB path.

 

 

Yeah, gotta smile.

 

Strange, though, that in spite of appearances, I wouldn't say I'm overly "tweaky" with respect to cables or little boxen attached to them. I play around a bit until I find something I like, and stick with it for quite a while. Some of the cables you see here are over a quarter century old, and I have no particular plans to replace anything I currently own. My most recent cable purchases were USB cables before settling on the Mapleshade Clearlink about 2 - 3 years ago. I bought new speaker cables about 5 years ago to replace a 25-year-old set; and before that, I may have last bought analog interconnects 10-15 years ago.

 

Regarding the Regens, I found I liked the two chained better than one. Had a couple of Jitterbugs in to listen to but ultimately didn't like them, as they imparted an identifiable cast to the sound, and so could not be accurate.

 

As for the Intona, I've read the same good reports everyone else has, but I observe a loose rule about the cost of tweaks/cables versus boxen, and in that respect the Intona is just a little more than I'm prepared to pay. I like the idea of good value for money, as most of us do, as well as the old idea about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure, so I'm leaning toward optical Ethernet, inexpensive but reasonably good linear power supplies, and perhaps an NAA as potential future possibilities. If I do that, I'd have a serious listen to see whether one or both of the Regens ought to come out at that point.

[Jud]

I'm cooking spaghetti for dinner today too.

Seriously, your not concerned with all those unshielded design cables balled up with power lines and everything else, that your not suffering from any audible induced artifacts?

 

I'm concerned, have listened and occasionally measured, and have not experienced any induced artifacts, measurable or audible (kinda surprised me). Had the ground hum (knew it wasn't induced because it changed not one iota when the cables were moved), which was resolved by replacing what I had with the thin cables you see coming from the turntable.

[gmgraves]

First pic from east looking west, second from west looking east:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24743[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24744[/ATTACH]

 

Looks familiar!

[semente]

First pic from east looking west, second from west looking east:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24743[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24744[/ATTACH]

 

That's one chaotic bunch of pasta you've got there, Jud.

 

I can understand the clear sleeved isolation in the flat conductor ICs but your power wires also seem to have this.

 

Are the hair-like ICs you've mentioned the ones connected to the turntable?

 

One good thing about DIY cables is that you can make them just as long as you need them and not longer, which helps performance and avoids mixing signal with power.

Stacking equipment also helps keep both circuits parted, at least with some manufacturers' gear which follows convention.

 

Thanks for the photos,

Ricardo

[Allan F]

I'm concerned, have listened and occasionally measured, and have not experienced any induced artifacts, measurable or audible (kinda surprised me). Had the ground hum (knew it wasn't induced because it changed not one iota when the cables were moved), which was resolved by replacing what I had with the thin cables you see coming from the turntable.

Looks like you could use a quantum tunnel to hide some of those wires.

[BobSherman]

What Nikhil is saying is essentially correct, and will be backed up by most experienced DIY members of the forum.

 

 

+1

[BobSherman]

My 'validated CAT6' cables demonstratively outperform cables costing 28 times more. That's not emotional, just common rational sense.

 

 

If there is no difference in cables, how to the BJ cables "outperform" others?

[PopPop]

 

Your pic made me grin, Jud. I have all mine crammed into a box between the wall and my components. I have tried to keep the audio cables verticals and the power cords horizontal, as much as possible.

 

[Jud]

That's one chaotic bunch of pasta you've got there, Jud.

 

I can understand the clear sleeved isolation in the flat conductor ICs but your power wires also seem to have this.

 

Yes. The power wires use twisted pair conductors, which should help to keep interference from them a bit lower. I've tried a few power cords, and none I've tried, including some fancy MIT cords, were shielded as far as I recall. So these aren't any different in regard to shielding, and I'm not sure I recall other power cords using twisted pair, so I suppose these could actually be better with regard to causing interference. (I'm not claiming that, just wondering.)

 

Are the hair-like ICs you've mentioned the ones connected to the turntable?

 

Yep.

 

Thanks for the photos,

Ricardo

 

My pleasure. Always good to have a little fun.

[Jud]

[ATTACH]24745[/ATTACH]

 

Your pic made me grin, Jud. I have all mine crammed into a box between the wall and my components. I have tried to keep the audio cables verticals and the power cords horizontal, as much as possible.

 

[ATTACH]24746[/ATTACH]

 

I kind of wanted the same, but then two things happened: The ribbons pretty much just lie there horizontal; and those power cord wires have a real memory for the time they spent coiled. So it's impossible to keep them horizontal or vertical, they go helical and any other arrangement be damned.

[Jud]

ABX tests can and have regularly given results on distortion, frequency effects, and other factors beyond just loudness.

 

I'd be happy to know more about the tests you're referring to, with particular attention to (1) the test procedures, and (2) those that would be applicable to audio equipment or accessory comparisons. While for example significant frequency differences might be expected to be detectable with ABX testing, one would ordinarily not expect one DAC or amp or cable to send along G-G-G-Eb for the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth, and another to send along F-F-F-C#. (Differences in overall frequency response are another matter.)

 

Please feel free to respond here or by PM.

[Sal1950]

If there is no difference in cables, how to the BJ cables "outperform" others?

They don't "outperform" any other cable that is correctly designed. Main issue is that you don't have to spend more that about $2 a foot for any cable to get one that will deliver a totally transparent signal from A to B.

There are difference in some cables, some are poorly designed and degrade the signal

[esldude]

I'd be happy to know more about the tests you're referring to, with particular attention to (1) the test procedures, and (2) those that would be applicable to audio equipment or accessory comparisons. While for example significant frequency differences might be expected to be detectable with ABX testing, one would ordinarily not expect one DAC or amp or cable to send along G-G-G-Eb for the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth, and another to send along F-F-F-C#. (Differences in overall frequency response are another matter.)

 

Please feel free to respond here or by PM.

 

Do I really need to do this? Do you really think that only loudness difference is detected blind? Do you not think a droop of say a half db over the top octave is detectable blind? Do you doubt a clean vs 2% test signal is detectable blind? If we're playing games I don't care to bother. Do you honestly at this point believe blind testing is not useful for much other than loudness differences?

[esldude]

I'd be happy to know more about the tests you're referring to, with particular attention to (1) the test procedures, and (2) those that would be applicable to audio equipment or accessory comparisons. While for example significant frequency differences might be expected to be detectable with ABX testing, one would ordinarily not expect one DAC or amp or cable to send along G-G-G-Eb for the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth, and another to send along F-F-F-C#. (Differences in overall frequency response are another matter.)

 

Please feel free to respond here or by PM.

 

Human Hearing - Phase Distortion Audibility Part 2 | Audioholics

 

Here is one article discussing phase distortion. Results are included in the article from testing done by Stanley Lipschitz.

 

Audibility of Phase Distortion

 

This page discusses some info about how the test tones used for the non-music part of that test.

[esldude]

I'd be happy to know more about the tests you're referring to, with particular attention to (1) the test procedures, and (2) those that would be applicable to audio equipment or accessory comparisons. While for example significant frequency differences might be expected to be detectable with ABX testing, one would ordinarily not expect one DAC or amp or cable to send along G-G-G-Eb for the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth, and another to send along F-F-F-C#. (Differences in overall frequency response are another matter.)

 

Please feel free to respond here or by PM.

 

Here is a nice short write up about testing for comb filtering audibility. A few details I would like to know are omitted.

 

https://www2.ak.tu-berlin.de/~akgroup/ak_pub/2006/Brunner_2006_On%20the%20Audibility%20of%20Comb%20Filter%20Distortions.pdf

 

Here is the abstract to testing done on FR irregularities. I don't have access to the full text or details, but it is an example that such testing has been done with successful results.

 

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=10291