Audible difference between analog interconnects

[Don Hills]

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

 

I kind of wish I could unsee that.

[YashN]

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.

 

My DIY Power cord is twisted pair with shielding. Made a big difference for my SS amp.

[sandyk]

I kind of wish I could unsee that.

Hey Don

Our American cousins sure do things differently ? (grin)

Regards

Alex

[Jud]

I kind of wish I could unsee that.

 

Here's someone with more neatly arranged cables...

 

 

I chose to make the *room* look normal and the *cables* look like a bit of a hash instead.

[sandyk]

Here's an earlier photo from someone with more neatly arranged cables. (Another Sydney CA member)

 

[plissken]

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

 

My BJC CAT6a outperforms the AudioQuest Vodka RJE in one metric 28:1 and in another metric 3:1, and another metric also 3:1.

[plissken]

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.

 

Phillips Golden Ear Test. It's available online and totally 100% blind. Comb filtering, distortion, stereo imaging etc....

 

https://www.goldenears.philips.com

[semente]

Phillips Golden Ear Test. It's available online and totally 100% blind. Comb filtering, distortion, stereo imaging etc....

 

https://www.goldenears.philips.com

 

I've gone through part of it (with cheap headphones connected to iMac) and found it quite challenging.

Interesting, though, and quite educational.

 

R

[Paul R]

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

 

(Amusement) One would need superconducting cable to make that statement objectively true, and even then the sound might be subjectively cold over those cables.

 

Seriously though, wire isn't always just wire. And cables do sometimes make a differnce in the sound. You sound like you maybe are just trying to ignore those observations. Whatever the reasons and explanations, no real scientist starts off denying observations like that.

 

Try to falsify the conclusions from those observations, yes. However, the prime advocate of ABX testing has rather predjudiced the entire community against him. Mostly with bad attitude, and a total resistance to the idea he might in any way be wrong.

 

Please do try to avoid that attitude.

 

Gordon Rankin, a man who has designed some of the best DACs in the world, measured the hell out some USB cables- because the darn things sounded different when attached to a DAC. Was unable to measure any difference with his equipment that would account for why they sound different. However, they did sound different, and still do to this day. That man knows what he is talking about with USB, and he had no doubts that he was hearing a difference. (You can find those postings here on CA...)

 

Now I will grant you, there are plenty of snake oil fueled flights of fancy around the subject, but that does not by any means prove that all the observations, or even most of them, are inaccurate.

 

Further, most folks are not interested in furthering science, they are interested in improving the sound of their systems. In a case like that, the results are obviously subjective - and can not be falsified. (i.e. They are inherently untestable.)

 

In the cases like Alex's claim however, that is unfortunately not true. Th resilts are very testable and do not bear out his conclusions. Also unfortunate, he won't assist in finding out what he really heard, which was not a difference in identical digital files played back from the same media on the same system. (Note the qualifications - it is easily proved that identical files sound different on different systms, and that they can sound different when played back from different media, or with different power supplies on the playback system, or... You see where that goes.)

[plissken]

I've gone through part of it (with cheap headphones connected to iMac) and found it quite challenging.

Interesting, though, and quite educational.

 

R

 

Thanks. It's a good tool.

[plissken]

Gordon Rankin, a man who has designed some of the best DACs in the world, measured the hell out some USB cables- because the darn things sounded different when attached to a DAC.

 

An John Siau of Benchmark and the Engineer(s?) at Schitt totally disagree with him.

 

Are they some how 2nd rate engineers?

[Jud]

An John Siau of Benchmark and the Engineer(s?) at Schitt totally disagree with him.

 

Are they some how 2nd rate engineers?

 

I don't think the engineers at Schiit have made their positions completely clear on that, beyond some reasonably humorous marketing for their low cost line of analog and digital cables. Back when Schiit's DAC designer Mike Moffat was a principal at Theta, they brought out their Laser Linque, saying it clearly sounded better than the SPDIF coaxial and optical cables available at the time. Also, back then (Timebase Linque Conditioner) and now (Wyrd), he's been a proponent of connecting digital cables to Regen-like reclocking/conditioning boxes.

[plissken]

I don't think the engineers at Schiit have made their positions completely clear on that, beyond some reasonably humorous marketing for their low cost line of analog and digital cables. Back when Schiit's DAC designer Mike Moffat was a principal at Theta, they brought out their Laser Linque, saying it clearly sounded better than the SPDIF coaxial and optical cables available at the time. Also, back then (Timebase Linque Conditioner) and now (Wyrd), he's been a proponent of connecting digital cables to Regen-like reclocking/conditioning boxes.

 

And all it does is leaves us back at the bias controlled testing.

[plissken]

I don't think the engineers at Schiit have made their positions completely clear on that, beyond some reasonably humorous marketing for their low cost line of analog and digital cables.

 

Other than linking directly to a USB cable that costs a few bucks at monoprice?

[BobSherman]

My BJC CAT6a outperforms the AudioQuest Vodka RJE in one metric 28:1 and in another metric 3:1, and another metric also 3:1.

 

 

So you can hear these differences ?

[Jud]

Other than linking directly to a USB cable that costs a few bucks at monoprice?

 

I'm sure they wouldn't be too torn up if you got a Wyrd to go with that, for example if the Adapticlock on one of their DACs showed the USB input was lousy quality.

 

Take a semi-"objectivist" view about something you don't make much if any revenue from (cables), thus building up cred with one segment of the market, while Mike cracks wise at objectivists in his Head-Fi thread, thus building up cred with another segment. It's called "marketing."

[semente]

It's called "marketing."

 

I was just about to write that.

 

R

[Sal1950]

Here's an earlier photo from someone with more neatly arranged cables. (Another Sydney CA member)

 

Nice system but it breaks a golden rule. Your speakers should never be larger than your video screen.

[Paul R]

An John Siau of Benchmark and the Engineer(s?) at Schitt totally disagree with him.

 

Are they some how 2nd rate engineers?

 

Jon Siau (of Benchmark) markets a competing DAC that is very good. I have trouble separating his marketing from his science though. He complained, loudly and with great certainty that DSD was useless too, but the Benchmark 2 does DSD. And does it very well. (shrug)

 

Besides, I have never seen John Siau directly dispute that with Gordon Rankin. Perhaps you have a link?

 

As for Schiit - well Mike Morrow markets some of the best reviewed cables around, including analog interconnects. Some versions get quite expensive. I seriously doubt he would do that if he did not believe they sounded better. He is another of the "good guys" in the audio world.

 

http://morrowaudio.com/audiophile-and-home-theater/interconnects/elite-grand-reference

 

-Paul

[Jud]

As for Schiit - well Mike Morrow markets some of the best reviewed cables around, including analog interconnects. Some versions get quite expensive. I seriously doubt he would do that if he did not believe they sounded better. He is another of the "good guys" in the audio world.

 

Elite Grand Reference Interconnects (RCA & XLR Available)

 

-Paul

 

Schiit = Mike Moffat

 

Mike Morrow = No Schiit

[Paul R]

Schiit = Mike Moffat

 

Mike Morrow = No Schiit

 

Uhhhh... brain fart. Sorry! -Paul

[Sal1950]

Jon Siau (of Benchmark) markets a competing DAC that is very good. I have trouble separating his marketing from his science though. He complained, loudly and with great certainty that DSD was useless too, but the Benchmark 2 does DSD. And does it very well. (shrug)

 

Besides, I have never seen John Siau directly dispute that with Gordon Rankin. Perhaps you have a link?

 

As for Schiit - well Mike Morrow markets some of the best reviewed cables around, including analog interconnects. Some versions get quite expensive. I seriously doubt he would do that if he did not believe they sounded better. He is another of the "good guys" in the audio world.

 

Elite Grand Reference Interconnects (RCA & XLR Available)

 

-Paul

 

It would be a very poor business decision for John not to offer DSD in his class A+ rated DAC if the market continues to demand it. Even if he does not agree with the claims of some in the audiophile community.

I don't believe Moffit will hold out forever either if the market continues to call for DSD. I do applaud him for standing by his believes and the scientific measurements against DSD.

 

$3k for a set of Morrows interconnects is just insane. You can put together a very nice complete stereo for that. Gene DellaSala B.S.E.E., HAA & ISF Certified

<span class="description">

[Jud]

An John Siau of Benchmark and the Engineer(s?) at Schitt totally disagree with him.

 

Are they some how 2nd rate engineers?

 

Benchmark was one of the first, if not the first, asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) DACs on the market. Benchmark advertised ASRC as conferring "complete" immunity to jitter, and I still am told by people who either recall this or got it second hand from Benchmark's advertising that a DAC that isn't completely immune to jitter isn't doing its job.

 

A while later, Gordon Rankin popularized asynchronous USB input (not the same as ASRC) with his Streamlength firmware. This minimized jitter even further than ASRC. Benchmark's new DAC, the DAC2, uses asynchronous input for USB, but Benchmark still markets its version of ASRC, now given the name "UltraLock2," as providing complete jitter immunity to its DAC.

 

So Benchmark has its marketing cake and eats it, too, advertising its version of ASRC as conferring complete jitter immunity lacking in any other DAC (and thus making fancy USB cables unnecessary), while quietly adopting the innovative asynchronous USB input that is widely considered superior to ASRC.

[mansr]

Jon Siau (of Benchmark) markets a competing DAC that is very good.

 

And that somehow makes him less of an engineer?

[Jud]

And that somehow makes him less of an engineer?

 

Folks these days market to segments, and do so very effectively, including many companies whose design engineers I've long admired. "Objectivists" are such a segment, and so are "subjectivists."

 

Besides the Benchmark story that I've described above, one of my favorite examples of marketing to the objectivist segment is the ODAC, or "Objective DAC," designed by NwAvGuy. One widely held position among many objectivist-leaning folks is that subjectivists wildly exaggerate the importance of jitter. JDS Labs, which sells the ODAC, used to market it as not using any particular anti-jitter measures like ASRC or asynchronous USB input, just achieving inaudibly low jitter (though not a particularly low measured number - unnecessary) through well-spec'ed parts. In their rush to market to the hard-nosed objectivist, they missed the fact that the ESS chip in the ODAC does ASRC internally to achieve jitter rejection. So they were in a rush to disclaim anti-jitter measures the DAC actually had! I don't see this disclaimer any longer on the JDS Labs website, so perhaps someone called it to their attention or they realized it on their own.

 

So fear not, objectivist-leaning audiophiles of the world. Audio companies know how to talk to you in terms that you'll understand and like.

 

(Same for subjectivists, of course.)