# HIGH END CABLES - The truth revealed! (personal opinion only)



## KrooLism

OK. I recently got my MF kW SACD and I have been doing some tests on this.

 I have also been experimenting on some different cables.

 Here is what I have found:

 kW SACD -> Grace M902 -> Pass Aleph -> K-1000

 If the IC is connecting devices with no potentiometers and varying currents, then it's less essential to use a good cable.
 kW SACD to preamp is a good example. The current is static and stable and a semi-decent cable is more than capable of doing the job.

 However, from 902 -> aleph, the current changes all the time as you control the volume. I have found that it makes a small difference in the quality of cable you use here.

 NONE of the differences is mind boggling or explosive. They are all extremely subtle.

 Next time you're at a Hi-Fi store, go look how the output terminals are hardwired to the mainboard on those high-end players. They look like $10/meter cables but probably a slightly higher grade. The kW sacd has that "good" cable connection and solder joints, but it's DEFINITELY NO VALHALLA!!!


----------



## Jon L

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KrooLism* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have also been experimenting on some different cables._

 

It's also possible, of course, that the "different cables" you are comparing may in fact sound similar to each other. What cables are you talking about here?


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jon L* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's also possible, of course, that the "different cables" you are comparing may in fact sound similar to each other. What cables are you talking about here?_

 

I agree....

 What are you comparing? 
 What do you consider to be a High end cable?


----------



## KrooLism

Nothing super high end. Got a couple of Tara Labs Monsters.

 Borrowed a AQ Cheetah from an audio hi-fi store.

 Also have an assortment of customs and AR master series.

 Like I said, if you have a chance, go look at what cables they use to connect the outputs of your source to the mainboard. Nothing hihg-end about them at all.

 I probably wouldn't spend over $200 for a cable. AQ Cheetah sounds the same as my $40 customs ones. And my custom ones look better.


----------



## naamanf

Why put a price point on cables? Why can't a $10 cable be as good as a $1000 cable? If they measure the same in respect to RLC they are going to sound the same regardless of price point.


----------



## Thelonious Monk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why put a price point on cables? Why can't a $10 cable be as good as a $1000 cable? If they measure the same in respect to RLC they are going to sound the same regardless of price point._

 


 there's no doubt that there's a difference. everything you add to the audio chain makes a difference... but the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty damn fast with cables. $50/meter is my favorite, i can't tell much of a difference at all after that, and $100/meter is pushing it still. there's a gigantic quality leap from $10/m -> $30/m for me, and after that not so much... there's just a breaking point where the manufacturers start cutting corners. $1000/m is completely frivolous, you're nuts if you pay that much... i refuse to spend more than 5% of my budget on cables; odds are it's going to be 30% source, 30% amplifier, 30% cans, 10% other... example: Benchmark DAC1 + Singlepower Extreme + Grado HP1000 + $30 optical + $100 interconnects + recable on the headphones.

 it's ridiculous to say that there's no difference, and ridiculous to spend a crapload on interconnects... but hey, it's your ears. i still think you should spend about $30/meter just to be safe... or at least from a reputable name.


----------



## spambob

I made my own audio cables (out of copper wire from small DC motors) for my home theater system and it sounds much better than my friend's setup with expensive wires.
 i use several strands of loose wire going through 2 separated plastic tubes, soldered each wire at break points and soldered firmly into their end connectors. 
 i believe that my loose wires through each tube cancel out any micro electromagnetic effects that would normally be caused in a standard twisted or straight cable of any price.
 ive tested and currently use wiring of this sort for all my wiring; short range betwen all my components and even ling range to my surround speakers.
 cost is near nothing.. at least nothing extra since its from all sorts of small dc motors from small toys and given my my neighbours(from toys/etc again).


----------



## Patrick82

I have owned Outlaw PCA and Van den Hul D 102 mkIII, the latter costs about 4 times more. The difference between them was MUCH smaller than Van den Hul vs Nordost Valhalla.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why put a price point on cables? Why can't a $10 cable be as good as a $1000 cable? If they measure the same in respect to RLC they are going to sound the same regardless of price point._

 

stick around for a few years will change your mind. 

 If you are using $1k cable I assume your system is at least $10k. you are better off upgrading the power cable first, or even better yet split $1k between IC and PC.


----------



## KrooLism

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Thelonious Monk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_there's no doubt that there's a difference. everything you add to the audio chain makes a difference... but the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty damn fast with cables. $50/meter is my favorite, i can't tell much of a difference at all after that, and $100/meter is pushing it still. there's a gigantic quality leap from $10/m -> $30/m for me, and after that not so much... there's just a breaking point where the manufacturers start cutting corners. $1000/m is completely frivolous, you're nuts if you pay that much... i refuse to spend more than 5% of my budget on cables; odds are it's going to be 30% source, 30% amplifier, 30% cans, 10% other... example: Benchmark DAC1 + Singlepower Extreme + Grado HP1000 + $30 optical + $100 interconnects + recable on the headphones.

 it's ridiculous to say that there's no difference, and ridiculous to spend a crapload on interconnects... but hey, it's your ears. i still think you should spend about $30/meter just to be safe... or at least from a reputable name._

 

*LAW OF DEMINISHING RETURNS*... That's the phrase I was looking for.

 Ahhh... you just got a splinter out of my mind!!! Cheers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Yes - I couldn't agree more.
 LDR is extremely fast on cables. I have a $5 (20 feet) rca IC and it sounds horrible. As if it can't even carry the signal that distance. But after $50 - barely can hear the difference. With my current system, a $200 and $2000 sound exactly the same to me.

 ...and once again, we're back to the same old argument.


----------



## 4 eyes

Has anyone that can tell the difference between cables ever taken part in a blind test? In my experience I haven't seen anyone consistantly identify the same cables in a blind test. Even just to say, that's cable A or that's cable B, regardless of whether one is supposed to sound better than the other or be more expensive.

 While I highly doubt there is an audible difference, I haven't listened to enough HIGH END systems to completely discount the possibility that in certain conditions two analog cables could sound different from one another.

 One thing I find amusing though is the idea of high priced digital cables. Ones and zeros are what's going down that wire, and if any of them get mixed up along the way, they are corrected on the recieving end using ECC (Error Correction Codes). In undamaged digital cables there should be no difference in what is recieved at the end of two different cables.

 The other thing that gets me is power cables. The whole distance the power travelled from the power station down your street, into your house, through the wiring in your walls is completely out of your control. Now a 3 foot run of wire between that uncontrolled infrastructure and your pre-amp/power-amp/source/whatever is all of the sudden going to clean everything up? I don't believe it.

 This issue is like discussing religion or politics though, it's likely impossible we're going to change anyones minds here. So that being said, let's play nice. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Shawn.


----------



## Febs

Believe it or not, the rules of this "Cables" forum actually prohibit discussing double-blind tests. Hence the "DBT-free forum" designation.


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *4 eyes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_While I highly doubt there is an audible difference, I haven't listened to enough HIGH END systems_

 

I believe this sums it up nicely!


----------



## Thelonious Monk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *4 eyes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One thing I find amusing though is the idea of high priced digital cables. Ones and zeros are what's going down that wire, and if any of them get mixed up along the way, they are corrected on the recieving end using ECC (Error Correction Codes). In undamaged digital cables there should be no difference in what is recieved at the end of two different cables._

 

yeah man... have you seen how expensive that Aural Symphonics stuff is? snake oil if i've ever seen it! however, optical cables follow the same rule as interconnects for me; there's a difference going up in price under $100, and after that it's nigh-impossible to tell.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *4 eyes* 
_The other thing that gets me is power cables. The whole distance the power travelled from the power station down your street, into your house, through the wiring in your walls is completely out of your control. Now a 3 foot run of wire between that uncontrolled infrastructure and your pre-amp/power-amp/source/whatever is all of the sudden going to clean everything up? I don't believe it._

 

think of it as the first 3 feet instead of the last 3 feet... most of your degradation in electricity will come from that wiring in your walls. a way around that is the wire the power lines directly into your system, which i've seen some (crazy) people do. like that one dude from the audiophile club of athens... hey, what else can he do to upgrade his system? damn rich people...


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *4 eyes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One thing I find amusing though is the idea of high priced digital cables. Ones and zeros are what's going down that wire, and if any of them get mixed up along the way, they are corrected on the recieving end using ECC (Error Correction Codes). In undamaged digital cables there should be no difference in what is recieved at the end of two different cables.

 The other thing that gets me is power cables. The whole distance the power travelled from the power station down your street, into your house, through the wiring in your walls is completely out of your control. Now a 3 foot run of wire between that uncontrolled infrastructure and your pre-amp/power-amp/source/whatever is all of the sudden going to clean everything up? I don't believe it.


 Shawn._

 

On the digital coax side of the house you could argue that a better cable is properly impedance matched allow better propagation of the signal. But at the short distance used and the frequency of the signal it really isn't a factor. 

 As far as power cable goes I am with you 100% It is either the proper gauge to carry the required current without a voltage drop or it isn't. If a power cable can really effect the sound of a component I would seriously question the engineer of the equipment used on why he/she can't design a proper power supply. Does one really thing using a high end cable on their computer will make it faster. Or give brighter more vivid colors on their monitor/TV? Does high end electronic test equipment use special power cables? Nope.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Thelonious Monk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_think of it as the first 3 feet instead of the last 3 feet_

 

I hope thats a joke. You could also think it's the middle three feet but that doesn't change the fact that *it is the last three feet*.


----------



## John_M

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Believe it or not, the rules of this "Cables" forum actually prohibit discussing double-blind tests. Hence the "DBT-free forum" designation._


----------



## vcoheda

If you have a $5000-10000 player, then why not buy a $1000 cable. I think as long as everything is proportionate, then the purchase is reasonable, regardless of what actual benefits are derived. I mean, there clearly is some truth to the statement that you get what you pay for.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope thats a joke. You could also think it's the middle three feet but that doesn't change the fact that *it is the last three feet*._

 

There is almost no point making any argument for the power cord UNLESS one had actually 1st hand experience with a decent power cord. Conventional EE study is devoid of any analysis of the effects of cables beyond the RLC parameters. 

 I understand your frustration with the idea of a 3 ft power cord _could_ possibly change the final sound of the amp/source. If you are willing to set aside any "knowledge" you have and just try some different power cords on equipments that's atleast semi hi-end, you will find out all those so called 'snake oil' are not what they seem and you will appreciate what good power , power cords, expensive cables can do for ur system.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Conventional EE study is devoid of any analysis of the effects of cables beyond the RLC parameters._

 

Exactly. There is nothing else. Anything you _might_ be hearing is a product of one of those three components.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Exactly. There is nothing else. Anything you might be hearing is a product of one of those three components._

 

certainly shows your lack of knowledge of the finer points of EE. I am guessing you have either not studied EE or in your 1st year. Nothing wrong if the idea of secondary and tertiary effect of cable frustrates you. You start to deal with secondary and may be some tertiary effects when you do layout for VLSI in ASIC design.


----------



## naamanf

Then go ahead and explain how those effects have anything to do with a cable at 60hz? VLSI? Were talking about current flow through a conductor. Way to go off on a tangent.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then go ahead and explain how those effects have anything to do with a cable at 60hz? VLSI? Were talking about power flow through a conductor._

 

No. 1. I am not aware of any paper addressing issues of 2ndary and tiriary effect on cable at audio frequency. lack of authority does not mean lack of truth. 2. you are prejudiced against other effects besides RLC 3. you have not said whether you are an EE or an EE student and what year you are in. 4. Its inefficient for me to explain since you can take those classes yourself.


----------



## naamanf

1.) I am also unaware of the effects of the Kebler elves on cables. Doesn't mean eating their cookies make things sound better. 2.) Other effects like the Kebler elves? 3.) EE? Whats that? I learn everything from Wikipedia. 4.) I don't think you can explain them. I would be happy if you could even explain any effects L or C might have on a power cable at 60hz.


----------



## naamanf

Hey lets even say you are right and there are other_ very_ small effects on power cables. How would those effects change the sound of any given piece of audio gear after the power had already gone through yards of bargain basement Romex and then transformed, rectified, filter, and regulated by a supposed very high end and well engineered piece of electronics?


----------



## Thelonious Monk

come on, you have more fight in you than that, don't you?


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Thelonious Monk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_come on, you have more fight in you than that, don't you?_

 

Only on Fridays.


----------



## elrod-tom

OK...it's not like this subject hasn't been beaten to death around here.

 I'm hopeful that everyone will respect the opinions of those on the other side of the argument, whatever side you may find yourself on.

 BTW - In case anyone isn't already aware, we have a rule against discussing DBT in this forum. Not because it is or isn't legit, but because it tends to bring out the worst in those on the extreme ends of both camps of true believers. I for one find zealots of all stripes to be extremely annoying, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.

 Play nice with others...thanks.


----------



## naamanf

My bad (tucks tail between legs).


----------



## Sovkiller

Here we go again!!!!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Thelonious Monk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_think of it as the first 3 feet instead of the last 3 feet... most of your degradation in electricity will come from that wiring in your walls. a way around that is the wire the power lines directly into your system, which i've seen some (crazy) people do. like that one dude from the audiophile club of athens... hey, what else can he do to upgrade his system? damn rich people..._

 

AC, same as DC, flows in closed circuits, to say they are the first or the last 3 feet is absurd, they are not the first not the last, they are exactly the center 3 feet of the whole power system, you have miles of bare cooper before, and another miles of same bare cooper after, electricity came by one conductor, pass through your amp, and keep on going through the other conductor to the same place it came from. That is till now, how a circuit works, you open the circuit you get no flow. Electricity does not arrive to your amp and stays there, not is generated at your amp and going out, it just flows throughout your amp...how the central portion of your cable is going to fix all that mess, I don't know...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	











  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you have a $5000-10000 player, then why not buy a $1000 cable._

 

Think in simply becasue you do not need it, is that not a valid reason???


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Conventional EE study is devoid of any analysis of the effects of cables beyond the RLC parameters._

 

Beyond the RLC parameters? OK could you tell us then which are the other parameters that proves the differences people say the heard??? BTW for the skeptics the rest are beyond the common sense, so what? And provides absolutelly nothing other that I hear this and that...that doesn't offer any more valid input neither...

 Also guys keep in mind that if there is a set of variables that could prove the differences, in a physical way, and you can repeat the test, and get the same results, you have found the way of creating the optimal cable, no need to go any further, get those optimal parameters, or the combination of them, and you will have the best cable ever made, but please let us know which are those parameters to consider, as we are all in the dark here.....


----------



## hYdrociTy

There _are_ forces for which are not yet accounted for....







 Metaphysics!





[size=xx-small]This has been an announcement from hYdrociTy Post Investments L.L.C.[/size]


----------



## Happy Camper

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My bad (tucks tail between legs)._

 

Bad dog!!!!!!

 Please, continue this discussion. I am not an EE but can understand an explaination. 

 There are people who would be willing to make an investment in a product that has confirmed results. You read about every upgrade improving the bass and dynamics by magnitudes of a reviewer's scale. If a reviewer does not notice a detectable improvement, they get the "lack of synergy" or "component upgrade" response. Or the best, your not sophisticated enough to determine the difference so be happy and run far away. 

 If all this improves the sound, wouldn't the designer use these upgrades to improve their product against their competition? If the super deluxe, El Grande, Uber version would bring more money, wouldn't they provide it? If the majority of the wiring is copper, how does changing a small section "improve" sound? Wouldn't the money spent having a single run of wire from breaker to recepticle be cheaper and make a better improvement?

 I don't mean this to be accusatory. Just an explaination. Keep in mind, the vets here have beat this to death, us noobs are catching up so please, review.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_. If all this improves the sound, wouldn't the designer use these upgrades to improve their product against their competition? If the super deluxe, El Grande, Uber version would bring more money, wouldn't they provide it? If the majority of the wiring is copper, how does changing a small section "improve" sound? Wouldn't the money spent having a single run of wire from breaker to recepticle be cheaper and make a better improvement?
_

 

Some reputable hight end manufactures say that the supplied cable is as good as it gets because it is the right size for the components current demand and they know they build a quality power supply.

 It would make sense that if using a high end cable benefited the system then doing a direct connection would be beneficial. Not to mention Romex is a lot cheaper. Or for that matter just use the same Romex as the rest of the house wiring for the cable.


----------



## Stax-i-nox

Jena Labs cables are great .......I have several pair connecting my Stax and K1000, and they are good stuff, albeit expensive. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







www.jenalabs.com


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here we go again!!!!



 AC, same as DC, flows in closed circuits, to say they are the first or the last 3 feet is absurd, they are not the first not the last, they are exactly the center 3 feet of the whole power system, you have miles of bare cooper before, and another miles of same bare cooper after, electricity came by one conductor, pass through your amp, and keep on going through the other conductor to the same place it came from._

 

Not exactly the case. The return or neutral side actually goes to earth ground. So half of that circuit is the earth it self.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have owned Outlaw PCA and Van den Hul D 102 mkIII, the latter costs about 4 times more. The difference between them was MUCH smaller than Van den Hul vs Nordost Valhalla._

 

I concur with patrick that going from nordost top of theline was bigger difference then any other cable thus far and i owned quite a couple of expensive interlinks. I would say compared to the last other one i owned, i would miss about half the information that i get now. Especially body, speed and musicallity are unmatched. I think others can match in detail but not all aspects of the nordost reference line of cables. especially neutrality is unmatched, you really hear what the components do in your system.

 The difference between the nordost line itself is smaller and the higher you go, the more you get in detail, body and musicallity. Especially the body of voices and instruments are better in the reference series.

 Weather they are worth the money or not, i leave that entirely to you. For me they brought a big change and i think they are worth the money!

 I got them second hand though, so more bang for the bucks.


----------



## Happy Camper

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Stax-i-nox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Jena Labs cables are great .......I have several pair connecting my Stax and K1000, and they are good stuff, albeit expensive. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

Power or IC/headphone cable? 

 IC/headphone cable would have a more profound impact on the signal characteristics (sound). I can accept these cables focusing energy by RLC to impact certain parts of the signal. I don't understand why these cables aren't on the maker's product. Even as a deluxe version. Maybe we put too much trust in the maker to provide the best possible product. I think this is part of what brings skepticism. 

 I am waiting for the alignment of particular celestial bodies to move on some of Ken's cables. I use his ipod silk dock. Would like to try some ICs but have other areas needing investment (other hps & DAC in particular) first.


----------



## 4 eyes

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Believe it or not, the rules of this "Cables" forum actually prohibit discussing double-blind tests. Hence the "DBT-free forum" designation._

 

My apologies, I should have read the forum rules more closely. Lively discussion though!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If all this improves the sound, wouldn't the designer use these upgrades to improve their product against their competition? If the super deluxe, El Grande, Uber version would bring more money, wouldn't they provide it?_

 

Why don't all cars come with the best possible tires? Why aren't all TV broadcasts in HD? Manufacturers and vendors build and market their products to meet particular price points, market segments, etc., and to maximize profit. That means that most products are _*not *_designed to provide the best performance possible. Someone with a marketing degree or background could probably explain it even better, but there are probably hundreds or thousands of examples of products that could be improved with some sort of aftermarket modification, yet the manufacturer or vendor does not inlcude it because limited number of customers who are interested in that level of performance is not their main market, or it would otherwise not be profitable.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why don't all cars come with the best possible tires? Why aren't all TV broadcasts in HD? Manufacturers and vendors build and market their products to meet particular price points, market segments, etc., and to maximize profit. That means that most products are *not *designed to provide the best performance possible. Someone with a marketing degree or background could probably explain it even better, but there are probably hundreds or thousands of examples of products that could be improved with some sort of aftermarket modification, yet the manufacturer or vendor does not inlcude it because limited number of customers who are interested in that level of performance is not their main market, or it would otherwise not be profitable. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Alright, I've taken some marketing classes in connection with an accounting degree. I don't agree with your analogy.

 There's a ton of stuff on the market that's just a barely tarted up version of the basic example. Consider another one of my hobbies: fountain pens. You can usually buy a basic version in a plastic/resin housing with an excellent feed, nib and ink storage system. Or you can buy the limited edition, say Abraham Lincoln Commerative Pen, made of 925 sterling with rubies and sapphires set into the body. One is $300, the other is $4,500. Both write the same. Or with cars. You know a $30k car doesn't cost all that much more to build than a $15k car. Do they really spend $15k more in materials? No. Most of the cost is in the overhead, stuff like the factory, tooling, labor, pensions, etc. You get the idea.

 And it's no different with cables. Call in an order to China, have them braid it in a funny way, tart up the sheathing, and use cast silver (or whatever) connectors at the end. Then you mark it up 20,000% and brand it as "luxury" or "audiophile." That's where you really make the margin. If you look at the bare materials of a Nordost Valhalla, objectively, there's no way the sum of the parts adds up to cost. If you think the rest is tied up in R&D, you're wrong. As we've seen from the endless DBT, etc. testing that's been done, no one really knows how cables work.

 If you want to throw around terms like "skin effect," etc., that's disingenuous. Sure, skin effect is real. It's demonstrable in the lab. So are a lot of other things. The disingenuous part is when there's no causal link between the described effect and what the end result is. This is a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. It's just like arguing that water causes cancer. After all, 100% of people with cancer drank a glass of water at one time. However, it just does not follow that water causes cancer without empirical evidence.

 So when you see the cable manufacturers throwing out all sorts of electronic exotica, stop and ask yourself how the described effect affects the cable. Further, do you see any results of testing? Of course not.

 If there was a way to adequately test the cables, the manufacturers would do so. They are not naive. They know people call their products snake oil. So why not prove the nay-sayers wrong? Why don't they do that? Why don't they nail down and prove their products excellent? Why do they only describe their products in vague terms, just barely skirting the issue of false advertising? Also, why don't they want to prove their products superior to the competition? Pick up any car magazine and you'll get tons of copy about the differences between models. But not with cables. They don't do it because they can't.


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope thats a joke. You could also think it's the middle three feet but that doesn't change the fact that *it is the last three feet*._

 

This reminds me of a post i saw on head-fi about a year ago. Some guy drew an ms paint diagram of an electrical power plant and then a long windy line going from the electrical wires to a lone house 1000 miles away. It was hilarious, i tried to find it again but no luck.

 who knows, maybe ill recreate it


----------



## pedalhead

Personally, I have no idea whether a $1000 RCA sounds better than a $10 one, but I've spent enough £££ on my system to want to eliminate any *reasonable* possible detriments to the sq. In my case, that means I tend to spend about $100 on interconnects. That price point, for me, gives me enough of a fluffy feeling that I'm doing my bit in support of the rest of my system, but also doesn't go beyond what is easily affordable with my available funds. Placebo? Quite possibly, but I'd rather spend $100 & be able to relax & enjoy the music, rather than thinking "I wonder if I could get better sound with more expensive cables". That feeling is worth $100 for me. Maybe for some people who've spent 10x my system cost, it's worth $1000. 

 Ah well. This question has been discussed for yeeears on usenet & elsewhere, and it'll go on forever I am sure!


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope thats a joke. You could also think it's the middle three feet but that doesn't change the fact that *it is the last three feet*._

 

I heard a huge difference with different thicknesses and lengths of the cable plugged into the wall. The cable needs to match the thickness of the apartment wiring. If it's a different size it needs to be as short as possible so it doesn't do as much damage to the sound.


----------



## AC1

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So when you see the cable manufacturers throwing out all sorts of electronic exotica, stop and ask yourself how the described effect affects the cable. Further, do you see any results of testing? Of course not.

 If there was a way to adequately test the cables, the manufacturers would do so. They are not naive. They know people call their products snake oil. So why not prove the nay-sayers wrong? Why don't they do that? Why don't they nail down and prove their products excellent? Why do they only describe their products in vague terms, just barely skirting the issue of false advertising? Also, why don't they want to prove their products superior to the competition? Pick up any car magazine and you'll get tons of copy about the differences between models. But not with cables. They don't do it because they can't._

 

Well that also means that tube equipment or vinyl would not need to be listened to since they don't "measure" as well as some other technology. That is just not the case however.


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So why not prove the nay-sayers wrong?_

 

Why would they care about someone who isn’t going to buy their products anyway?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why don't they nail down and prove their products excellent?_

 

If they are still in business someone must think their products are excellent, and that’s probably proof enough.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why do they only describe their products in vague terms, just barely skirting the issue of false advertising?_

 

Hey, if you don’t understand what they are saying that doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t understand.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, why don't they want to prove their products superior to the competition?_

 

There is no proof of superiority when it comes to subjectivity, and synergy, and who cares about proof when their reputation is causing everyone to buy their products.


----------



## jamesb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CRESCENDOPOWER* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why would they care about someone who isn’t going to buy their products anyway?_

 

i think that any cable manufacturer would jump at the chance to have scientific evidence of the benefits of their cable. if there was such evidence i would buy that cable.

 also the thing that bothers me the most:
 a cable can't transmit a higher amplitude than is coming from the source (otherwise it would be an amp), so if one cable has more bass or more highs, that implies that the lesser cable was rolling of the high or low frequencies 
 the thing i find hard to believe is that the rolloff in cheap cables always falls exactly at the extremes of the audible band
 whats so special about the middle of the audiable band of frequencies that its always so easy to transmit compared to the frequencies either side?
 these frequencies are harder to create with speakers, but even cheap cables are plenty capable of transmitting signals that are in the mhz

 i know that frequency respons is not the only thing people talk about when comparing cables, but its something that has been bugging me for a while...


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not exactly the case. The return or neutral side actually goes to earth ground. So half of that circuit is the earth it self._

 

AFAIK, in the US we have a ground cable as well connected to the box, and ground, that is not connected to the neutral in the outlet, both cable return and live are routed to the pole outside the house....if neutral is conected to the ground you have no much difference in stating that it is the central portion anyway...


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jamesb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i think that any cable manufacturer would jump at the chance to have scientific evidence of the benefits of their cable. if there was such evidence i would buy that cable.

 also the thing that bothers me the most:
 a cable can't transmit a higher amplitude than is coming from the source (otherwise it would be an amp), so if one cable has more bass or more highs, that implies that the lesser cable was rolling of the high or low frequencies 
 the thing i find hard to believe is that the rolloff in cheap cables always falls exactly at the extremes of the audible band
 whats so special about the middle of the audiable band of frequencies that its always so easy to transmit compared to the frequencies either side?
 these frequencies are harder to create with speakers, but even cheap cables are plenty capable of transmitting signals that are in the mhz

 i know that frequency respons is not the only thing people talk about when comparing cables, but its something that has been bugging me for a while..._

 


 Just listen to a good cable and a cheap cable and you'll hear what is missing!


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just listen to a good cable and a cheap cable and you'll hear what is missing!_

 

-What about the ones that have done it nad have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?

 -Oh no, sorry they have no properly trained ears... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 (or a defective hearing what is worst)...


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_-What about the ones that have done it nad have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?

 -Oh no, sorry they have no properly trained ears... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (or a defective hearing what is worst)... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Whats wrong? The answer is simple: your system is not revealing enough (a much nicer way to say your system is not good enough to take advantage of the cable). 

 Every component imparts its own sonic distortion to the audio landscape. Whether you can hear is a subjective test. On the other hand, whether you can measure it is an objective test. Granted, not everything can be measured accurately and not everything can be measured economically. For the most part, you can rely on some basic solid cable engineering to weed out the lessor quality. e.g. vacuum is the best dielectric, single extruded copper has better electron uniformity, shorter is better than longer, colder is better than warmer, etc. 

 It is important to make a clarification. You would probably be better off upgrading your power cable, power source, instead of putting more money into IC. The answer is very simple: clean power effects every component in how they make the sound. IC, on the other hand, serves only as a conductor to transmit the signal from one box to another. 

 I am quite concerned about some members' prejudice against whether cable can alter sound and whether high priced cable is better the low priced ones. Although there is no correlation between price and performance, and I even concede that some lower priced cables may be more synergistic with your system than the higher priced ones, the very fact that cable makes a difference cannot be denied, regardless of their prices.

 I can safely make the following statement: I know enough to know that I don't know everything there is to know about the effects of cable on signal transmission. Therefore, I keep an open mind and I test everything. Before you start poking holes at "I know enough", keep in mind I did not waste 4 years of my life in the lab at Ann Arbor, nor did I waste 2 years of my life designing circuits for certain CPU maker (not those 2, well not exactly anyway).


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Alright, I've taken some marketing classes in connection with an accounting degree. I don't agree with your analogy.

 There's a ton of stuff on the market that's just a barely tarted up version of the basic example. Consider another one of my hobbies: fountain pens. You can usually buy a basic version in a plastic/resin housing with an excellent feed, nib and ink storage system. Or you can buy the limited edition, say Abraham Lincoln Commerative Pen, made of 925 sterling with rubies and sapphires set into the body. One is $300, the other is $4,500. Both write the same. Or with cars. You know a $30k car doesn't cost all that much more to build than a $15k car. Do they really spend $15k more in materials? No. Most of the cost is in the overhead, stuff like the factory, tooling, labor, pensions, etc. You get the idea.

 And it's no different with cables. Call in an order to China, have them braid it in a funny way, tart up the sheathing, and use cast silver (or whatever) connectors at the end. Then you mark it up 20,000% and brand it as "luxury" or "audiophile." That's where you really make the margin. If you look at the bare materials of a Nordost Valhalla, objectively, there's no way the sum of the parts adds up to cost. If you think the rest is tied up in R&D, you're wrong. As we've seen from the endless DBT, etc. testing that's been done, no one really knows how cables work.

 If you want to throw around terms like "skin effect," etc., that's disingenuous. Sure, skin effect is real. It's demonstrable in the lab. So are a lot of other things. The disingenuous part is when there's no causal link between the described effect and what the end result is. This is a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. It's just like arguing that water causes cancer. After all, 100% of people with cancer drank a glass of water at one time. However, it just does not follow that water causes cancer without empirical evidence.

 So when you see the cable manufacturers throwing out all sorts of electronic exotica, stop and ask yourself how the described effect affects the cable. Further, do you see any results of testing? Of course not.

 If there was a way to adequately test the cables, the manufacturers would do so. They are not naive. They know people call their products snake oil. So why not prove the nay-sayers wrong? Why don't they do that? Why don't they nail down and prove their products excellent? Why do they only describe their products in vague terms, just barely skirting the issue of false advertising? Also, why don't they want to prove their products superior to the competition? Pick up any car magazine and you'll get tons of copy about the differences between models. But not with cables. They don't do it because they can't._

 

 I understand the points you make and some (or many) may be valid, but I don't see how your statement is at all responsive to my point, which is on a totally different issue, i.e., whether one can say that an aftermarket improvement offers no benefits to product performance because otherwise the manufacturer would have included it as a standard item.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jamesb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i think that any cable manufacturer would jump at the chance to have scientific evidence of the benefits of their cable. if there was such evidence i would buy that cable.
_

 

There are zillions of other products where comparative adverstising is not done and claims regarding the products benefits are not supported by scientific evidence. There is nothing unique in this regard about the audio or cable industry.


----------



## geardoc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Believe it or not, the rules of this "Cables" forum actually prohibit discussing double-blind tests. Hence the "DBT-free forum" designation._

 

You're pulling my leg, right? I didn't see a smiley face like you're kidding..


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *geardoc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're pulling my leg, right? I didn't see a smiley face like you're kidding.._

 

No, he's not pulling your leg, or any other appendage. See post #28 in this thread for a brief explanation.


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_-What about the ones that have done it nad have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?

 -Oh no, sorry they have no properly trained ears... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (or a defective hearing what is worst)... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 That would be me. I have bought all sorts of high end equipment and cables. IMO, properly constructed cables all sound the same to me. Some higher end cables can sound different, but only because they aren't providing the transparency a properly constructed cable should. Generally, I think poeople don't do enough critical level matching before drawing a conclusion on differences in components and accessories. It leads to Fletcher-Munson type level dependent issues that most people simply don't care to understand.

 All that being said, I'm not one to say differences don't exist. I just think that a properly constructed cable that provides transparency doesn't require cryogenic treatments or other cost intensive methods to manufacture. I also feel that if cables are making a fundamental change in the way a system sounds, perhaps one should think about the underlying components first.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_-What about the ones that have done it and have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?_

 

Nobody is wrong. They haven't heard a difference, and that's certainly right. There are different possible reasons, among them that their system isn't revealing enough or their ears aren't trained or sensitive enough, or they are prejudiced since cables can't make a difference anyway. 

 Many people can't distinguish high-bitrate MP3s from uncompressed (I freely admit I can't as well), some even can't distinguish low-bitrate MP3s from uncompressed (which I can). Does this mean that (all) people who pretend to hear the difference imagine them and others who say there's no difference to be heard are right? No.
.


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_-What about the ones that have done it nad have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?

 -Oh no, sorry they have no properly trained ears... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (or a defective hearing what is worst)... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Why does anyone have to wrong? And why does anyone have to be right?

 This hobby is about listening to music and playing with different components.

 There are "generally" two camps on these threads.

 The ones that have tried different cables and heard a difference
 The nay sayers who have not tried cables, but just know they do not make a difference, because the "numbers" do not show a difference.

 And to a lesser degree the camp that has tried cables and have not heard a difference.

 Instead of debating what we know, or feel, must be true, why not debate practical and actual experience?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some higher end cables can sound different, but only because they aren't providing the transparency a properly constructed cable should._

 

That's not my experience. In most cases «high-end» cables sound more transparent to my ears. However, they may still measure the same (roughly spoken), so there's no reason to think they alter the signal, whereas more «normal» cables leave it intact. 


  Quote:


 _Generally, I think poople don't do enough critical level matching before drawing a conclusion on differences in components and accessories. It leads to Fletcher-Munson type level dependent issues that most people simply don't care to understand._ 
 

I would highly recommend not to do level matching when comparing cables -- their resistance is so low that it isn't responsible for possible sonic differences and certainly not for measurable level differences.
.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's not my experience. In most cases «high-end» cables sound more transparent to my ears._

 

Well, keep in mind we are talking about sleekstack's experience here: his high-end cable is probably like $5,000 and his low end is probably $999 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Joking aside, all things are relative.


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's not my experience. In most cases «high-end» cables sound more transparent to my ears. However, they may still measure the same (roughly spoken), so there's no reason to think they alter the signal, whereas more «normal» cables leave it intact. ]_

 

 Great. But that's not my experience. I just don't think there is any magic to transparency when it comes to cables.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would highly recommend not to do level matching when comparing cables -- their resistance is so low that it isn't responsible for possible sonic differences and certainly not for measurable level differences.
._

 

Why would you ever recommend not level matching? It would make sense to say that it is usually not necessary when comparing cables of the same type, but it can certainly do no harm. If significant level changes are found it would give someone a reason to look further into the construction of a particular cable. Furthermore, if someone is comparing balanced to single ended, optical to SPDIF, etc., it is usually necessary.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Whats wrong? The answer is simple: your system is not revealing enough (a much nicer way to say your system is not good enough to take advantage of the cable)._

 

I brought this discussion up with the owner of a local hight end audio store I know.

 He has the "golden" ears and rooms full of "revealing" equipment. The only time he has ever noticed any difference with power cables is when the manufacturer includes one that is to small for current demands. That's it. 

 WOW! An honest audio sales man. 

 He stills sells the thousand dollar cables to those that think they need it but definitely doesn't push them as making any difference.

 How can the basic laws of science as we know it seem to work and apply to every piece of electronics we own except for audio gear?

 Does that chip maker cryo treat their CPUs and then computer control the warming process so there is less resistance?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Great. But that's not my experience. I just don't think there is any magic to transparency when it comes to cables._

 

There may be no magic, but there are different levels of transparency (as discribed by yourself, just with a different bias). 


  Quote:


 _Why would you ever recommend not level matching? It would make sense to say that it is usually not necessary when comparing cables of the same type, but it can certainly do no harm. If significant level changes are found it would give someone a reason to look further into the construction of a particular cable. Furthermore, if someone is comparing balanced to single ended, optical to SPDIF, etc., it is usually necessary._ 
 

Yes, level matching can do harm when there's in fact no level differences to be equalized. Of course we were talking of cables, right? We weren't comparing apples to oranges. Nevertheless, even Toslink or S/PDIF doesn't matter since digital level is independent of the signal-transfer medium. The only case of the above where level matching is mandatory is the comparison of balanced and unbalanced amps -- but there the level differences aren't caused by the cables, but by the amps.
.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_AFAIK, in the US we have a ground cable as well connected to the box, and ground, that is not connected to the neutral, both cable return and live are routed to the pole outside the house....if neutral is conected to the ground you have a fail indication in all power conditioners and measuring devices I know off..._

 

Two hot lines of 120v 180deg out of phase come from the transformer at the pole along with a neutral return. The neutral return is grounded at the pole and the house. All neutral and ground wires go to the same terminal that is grounded at the house. Open your fuse box end see for yourself.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, level matching can do harm when there's in fact no level differences to be equalized. Of course we were talking of cables, right? We weren't comparing apples to oranges. Nevertheless, even Toslink or S/PDIF doesn't matter since digital level is independent of the signal-transfer medium. The only case of the above where level matching is mandatory is the comparison of balanced and unbalanced amps -- but there the level differences aren't caused by the cables, but by the amps.
._

 

I think Sleestack was addressing the fact that if levels are not exactly the same when auditioning two sets of cables there will be a difference in perceived sound quality based purely on the SPL difference. The same trick used by many unscrupulous speak and cable sales men.


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, level matching can do harm when there's in fact no level differences to be equalized. Of course we were talking of cables, right? We weren't comparing apples to oranges. Nevertheless, even Toslink or S/PDIF doesn't matter since digital level is independent of the signal-transfer medium. The only case of the above where level matching is mandatory is the comparison of balanced and unbalanced amps -- but there the level differences aren't caused by the cables, but by the amps.
._

 

If there is no level difference you simply wouldn't adjust levels. I don't see how going through the level matching process can do any harm. Furthermore, if you believe that different cables can sound different, why not go through the process and make sure one cable isn't actually affecting levels. If someone says a cable produces more bass, wouldn't one expect that the bass response would measure differently? How can something sound very different and not have differences in levels at various frequencies?

 You do agree that level matching when comparing sources (and not just amps) is necessary?


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Christ naamanf if you learned all that from Wikipedia I tip my hat to you. I took an EE crashcourse encompassing much of what you've been talking about and even with a tutor I barely absorbed that much. EE is electrical engineering by the way.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jmmtn4aj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Christ naamanf if you learned all that from Wikipedia I tip my hat to you. I took an EE crashcourse encompassing much of what you've been talking about and even with a tutor I barely absorbed that much. EE is electrical engineering by the way._

 

That's was a bit of a joke to go along with the Kebler theory of cables


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I brought this discussion up with the owner of a local hight end audio store I know.

 He has the "golden" ears and rooms full of "revealing" equipment. The only time he has ever noticed any difference with power cables is when the manufacturer includes one that is to small for current demands. That's it. 

 WOW! An honest audio sales man. 

 He stills sells the thousand dollar cables to those that think they need it but definitely doesn't push them as making any difference.

 How can the basic laws of science as we know it seem to work and apply to every piece of electronics we own except for audio gear?

 Does that chip maker cryo treat their CPUs and then computer control the warming process so there is less resistance?_

 

actually chips are usually baked before being packaged, that's done to IIRC cure certain polymer and form consistent doping in the depletion region. Its been soo long since I learned this stuff, I only know the basics of processor manufacturing. computing center, on the other hand, are designed to run the processor as cold as possible, for many benefits including reduced resistance and reduce chance of electron migration which would create holes in the conductor. 

 If you are not an EE I don't expect you to know any of this stuff, but please check your facts before you post.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I brought this discussion up with the owner of a local hight end audio store I know.

 He has the "golden" ears and rooms full of "revealing" equipment. The only time he has ever noticed any difference with power cables is when the manufacturer includes one that is to small for current demands. That's it._

 

How can you hear the music when the ears are full of gold? It's the same as when you try to run marathon with the mouth full of grillz and gold chains hanging around your neck.


----------



## Happy Camper

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why don't all cars come with the best possible tires? Why aren't all TV broadcasts in HD? Manufacturers and vendors build and market their products to meet particular price points, market segments, etc., and to maximize profit. That means that most products are *not *designed to provide the best performance possible. Someone with a marketing degree or background could probably explain it even better, but there are probably hundreds or thousands of examples of products that could be improved with some sort of aftermarket modification, yet the manufacturer or vendor does not inlcude it because limited number of customers who are interested in that level of performance is not their main market, or it would otherwise not be profitable. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Manufacturers of cars realized the markups on "tweaked" editions long ago. Shelby, AMG, Dinan, SRT, SS.... do have the optimal components. And there are still better theoretical tweaks, but the cost of benefit is too expensive as determined by the designer. These are the reference standards of the maker's technology. Not their standard (mass) target. This is what I view as the best the factory design can provide. The end product can be put to the test before purchase to see what the upgrade provides. 

 There are industries that have need of cable and power technology. Medical is one of them. I look at the materials and cables used during installations of hi ticket surgical suites. This in areas where color accuracy and 3-D detail is critical for laser surgery and focusing hi energy radiation. Video surgery suites, MRI, Linear Accel. etc, and they use pretty standard ICs and power cable. But then some systems have tens of thousands in power supplies and shielded environments in which to operate. But internal components are still plastic coated ribbon cable, CAT-5 cable, BNC connectors. 

 I am sure there is tangable value with their products but how do you determine its performance? We aren't all stereo stores that can audition product by vendors. I will listen to my AV dealer. And they do support the majority of whats discussed here. They have been able to audition identical system setups with different target cables. He showed me some tech. specs on some cables $500. There are a couple of impedance, capacitance, resistance numbers. Nothing to say if more or less of any of the measured numbers was an improvement or not. 

 Scientifically, I have no doubt the theories provide improvements. Shunyata signal cables look very well thought out. The trouble is explainations get into design. Once everyone got the idea, they can't make the margins. Protect the cash cow. I guess I would too, if I had a product people would spend this kind of money on. Don't take this questioning personal. I wouldn't be here participating in this discussion if I weren't considering it. I want to be sold on the purchase. What sold you?

 Again, my investment intent is determined on proven performance. I can see ICs and more treatment of power as good to performance. I don't understand how to determine the performance of cables and power cords.

 PS- a hobbyist should not have to have an EE to prudently purchase a product.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If there is no level difference you simply wouldn't adjust levels. I don't see how going through the level matching process can do any harm. Furthermore, if you believe that different cables can sound different, why not go through the process and make sure one cable isn't actually affecting levels. If someone says a cable produces more bass, wouldn't one expect that the bass response would measure differently? How can something sound very different and not have differences in levels at various frequencies?_

 

Usual cables have indeed identical frequency responses, roughly spoken. The perceived sonic differences don't reflect themselves in measurements. There are rare exceptions (extreme electrical values, integrated EQ components), but they don't count.

 If you like level matching with cables, more power to you. I just haven't experienced level differences among them (let's talk of interconnects or headphone cables, as opposed to ultra-long speaker cables where small differences are possible indeed!), so can't see the need. Actually I was basically reacting to your disqualification of people who supposedly aren't aware of level differences among cables. 

  Quote:


 _You do agree that level matching when comparing sources (and not just amps) is necessary?_ 
 

I do. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sorry for the annoyance! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want to be sold on the purchase. What sold you?_

 

1 week audition in my own system and feel the cables make a profound difference, from barely listenable to truly magical.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you are not an EE I don't expect you to know any of this stuff, but please check your facts before you post._

 

You really come off high and mighty. My facts? I think they have all been correct and directly related to the topic at hand. You still haven't been able to explain any factor that might cause a power cable to have any audible effects on a component. 

 I figured you would get my point about cryo treating CPUs. The theory behind cyro treating cable is that the molecules get closer together and stay closer even after being warmed to room temperature. And this treatment supposedly minutely reduces the cable resistance to the point an audible difference can be heard. If this was truly the case I would think that CPU manufacturers would doing this to allow CPUs to run more efficiently. It was a serious question.


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's was a bit of a joke to go along with the Kebler theory of cables 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

And I thought I was in the presence of the worlds most efficient information sponge


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jmmtn4aj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And I thought I was in the presence of the worlds most efficient information sponge 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No, but you would be blown away about what I know about the reproductive cycle of sea sponges from watching Discovery HD


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You really come off high and mighty._

 

That's an unfair characterization of my comments. I simply have more intellectual confidence in what I say. The reason is very simple: I have gone through the trainings, labs, exams, and I have lived and breathed this stuff for 2 years after my education. 

 I neither affirm nor deny your conjecture on cryo treatments. I am simply stating that CPU manufacturing do incorporate heat treat as part of the process. On the issue of whether cryo/heat on conductor makes a difference, my intuition tells me the answer is no. Yet it does not contradict the theory that cable makes a difference. You are trying to overgeneralize the inverse of a theory by asking a question that casts shadow over that theory. And that, is your fallacy.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_PS- a hobbyist should not have to have an EE to prudently purchase a product._

 

Sometimes its better NOT to have an EE degree to be in this hobby. Having an EE is sometimes counterproductive to audio nirvana. Like many whom I have debated with on this thread, I also argued from their side in my earlier years, having had some basic classes under my belt. Had I not had an EE degree, I would probably reached my current understanding much quicker. EE degree is a curse on one hand and a handy tool on the other.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's an unfair characterization of my comments._

 

Not really

 10+ years working with equipment where current flow and signal propagation is everything has also tough me a lot. 

 Plus being an audio nut over the last 20 years has taught me thing or two. 

 As an EE I would think you would be able to grasp the simple principle of current flow and basic power supply design. Not to mention simple scientific reasoning. What you have done is try to throw the topic off course by trying to impress upon the readers how you obviously must have superior knowledge based on the fact that your an EE. And can throw out acronyms like VLSI which has nothing to do with power cables and the current flow through them. We are not talking about designing CPUs.


----------



## mminutel

Well, when i recabled my K81DJs, it was certainly an audible difference. Granted that starquad isn't really top of the line, I could still tell a profound difference.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Many people can't distinguish high-bitrate MP3s from uncompressed (I freely admit I can't as well), some even can't distinguish low-bitrate MP3s from uncompressed (which I can). Does this mean that (all) people who pretend to hear the difference imagine them and others who say there's no difference to be heard are right? No._

 

I don't think that this is a good analogy. In the case of MP3s, it is easy to demonstrate empirically that the MP3 and the uncompressed file are different. You need to look no further than the file size to see that there is information in the uncompressed file that is not present in the MP3 file. Thus, the only question is whether those differences are audible to a particular listener. Though I personally cannot tell the difference between high bitrate MP3s and the uncompressed original, there are others who have demonstrated in controlled listening tests that they can.

 In the case of cables, however, there is a lack of both empirical evidence of differences and a lack of controlled listening tests confirming that whatever differences may exist are audible.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think that this is a good analogy..._

 

There's no «perfect» analogy needed to demonstrate that people's hearing abilities are different. And that the fact that somebody can't hear an effect doesn't tell it isn't real and audible to others nonetheless.
.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not really

 10+ years working with equipment where current flow and signal propagation is everything has also tough me a lot._

 

A high-voltage technician would have the same qualifications as what you have stated. Certainly does not invoke confidence in one's comments on the issue of whether cable makes a difference on a molecular level. If you are not an EE, material scientist, or have not had any education in either whether at work, in school or both, I don't feel you have the qualification to comment on 2ndary and tertiary effects of the composition of cable on audio frequency band. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Plus being an audio nut over the last 20 years has taught me thing or two. _

 

This comment is of no moment in our discussion.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A high-voltage technician would have the same qualifications as what you have stated. Certainly does not invoke confidence in one's comments on the issue of whether cable makes a difference on a molecular level. If you are not an EE, material scientist, or have not had any education in either whether at work, in school or both, I don't feel you have the qualification to comment on 2ndary and tertiary effects of the composition of cable on audio frequency band. _

 

Qualification has nothing to do with it a persons ability to understand basic principals. It's a good thing you were not around to tell Einstein he wasn't qualified. Or tell Bill Gates he isn't qualified to write software.

 The fact of the matter is I have laid out a couple reasons why power cables don't and can't make a difference. You have in no way been able to use your "qualifications" to either refute those claims or provide other reasonable explanation. 

 I say there are no secondary and tertiary effects on cable at 60hz A/C. 

 If there are please indulge us on what they are. Saying that I and the rest of the readership isn't qualified or intelligent enough to under stand these principals is both insulting and pompous.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't feel you have the qualification to comment on 2ndary and tertiary effects of the composition of cable on audio frequency band._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am not aware of any paper addressing issues of 2ndary and tiriary effect on cable at audio frequency._


----------



## rsaavedra

This thread reminds me of this other one, which is very recent, and which eventually got closed.

 Here we also have relatively new members (very low post counts) posting questions on a very argumentative topic that has been heavily discussed already in many other threads. The recurrence of the topic in spite of existing recent threads makes me wonder if these might be the same people using different accounts.


----------



## naamanf

I can assure you I am a new member here.

 I'm not even really trying to argue the merits of cables in the audio path. I'm arguing the ones in the power supply path (which in the long run is in the audio path but most of you are not qualified to understand it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ).


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_-What about the ones that have done it nad have heard absolutelly no differences, are they wrong also?

 -Oh no, sorry they have no properly trained ears... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (or a defective hearing what is worst)... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 No they comapred a 150 dollar cable with a 150 dollar cable and found no difference, shocking in the same pricerange!

 150 dollars and 3000 is a whole other league.


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Plus being an audio nut over the last 20 years has taught me thing or two._

 

In your 20 years of being an "audio nut" have you actually tried any after market power cords in your systems?


----------



## chesebert

Here is a paper on twisted pair and why its better. now 2 cables one with and one without twisting have the same RLC provided their physical dimension and material are the same. Just to give you some idea that there are differences besides RLC of a particular cable. Now magnetic flux and eddy current, skin effect, electron migration would be considered 2ndary effect IMO, and stuff like electron deposition on dielectric, and IMD on crystal boundaries would be tertiary effects IMO. 

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/15/1...isnumber=10367

 I think I just like to stress that I know enough to know that I don't know everything, and as an engineer, I am willing to try, experiment and test different ideas and theories. I think you need to keep an open mind as someone whom are working in scientific/engineering field.


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No they comapred a 150 dollar cable with a 150 dollar cable and found no difference, shocking in the same pricerange!

 150 dollars and 3000 is a whole other league._

 

Why would you make that assumption? I compared $150 cables with $1500 cables. Specifically Cobalt with Cardas Golden Reference and Nordhost Valhallas. 

 Without knowing specifically which cables you are talking about, it is rather pointless to say $150 cables and $3000 cables are not in the same league.


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This thread reminds me of this other one, which is very recent, and which eventually got closed.

 Here we also have relatively new members (very low post counts) posting questions on a very argumentative topic that has been heavily discussed already in many other threads. The recurrence of the topic in spite of existing recent threads makes me wonder if these might be the same people using different accounts._

 

Astute observation...hummmmmm?


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In your 20 years of being an "audio nut" have you actually tried any after market power cords in your systems?_

 

Not on my own. Never felt the need to. After A/B cables on systems much better than my own I heard no audible difference. I wish it was there then that would mean there would be more things that could be done to improve a system. But I also understood why there was no difference and why I wouldn't hear one.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not on my own. Never felt the need to. After A/B cables on systems much better than my own I heard no audible difference. I wish it was there then that would mean there would be more things that could be done to improve a system. But I also understood why there was no difference and why I wouldn't hear one._

 

I think I can rest my case based on the above statement. no further debates are warranted.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_




_

 

your method of quoting is disturbing. As Justice Scalia once said, if you look over the heads of a crowd of people, you can always pick out your friend.


----------



## Happy Camper

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I brought this discussion up with the owner of a local hight end audio store I know.

 He has the "golden" ears and rooms full of "revealing" equipment. The only time he has ever noticed any difference with power cables is when the manufacturer includes one that is to small for current demands. That's it. 

 WOW! An honest audio sales man. 

 He stills sells the thousand dollar cables to those that think they need it but definitely doesn't push them as making any difference._

 

My A/V owner heard I have been asking about this topic. He called at home and told me to leave my equipment and bring a Pastrami & chips, he'll supply the diet coke. He will conduct some listening and viewing classes after the store closes. After the class, I am free to take home the cheapest of each line he carries to review in my setup. After determining the maker I like best, I can check out the lineup for material and build differences. He also has some home made cables to try. 

 His analogy of using the the forum debates to determine product purchases is like having your high school buddies pick your wife. And way too many false products with unproven claims. This is why I will pay his markup (which is usually better than list). He made the quest of cables and power cords for his store. After this trial, I will report to the thread my novice opinion for any noob interested.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is a paper on twisted pair and why its better. now 2 cables one with and one without twisting have the same RLC provided their physical dimension and material are the same. Just to give you some idea that there are differences besides RLC of a particular cable. Now magnetic flux and eddy current, skin effect, electron migration would be considered 2ndary effect IMO, and stuff like electron deposition on dielectric, and IMD on crystal boundaries would be tertiary effects IMO. 

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/15/1...isnumber=10367

 I think I just like to stress that I know enough to know that I don't know everything, and as an engineer, I am willing to try, experiment and test different ideas and theories. I think you need to keep an open mind as someone whom are working in scientific/engineering field._

 

The question is how would those effects effect the audio performance of a power supply in regards to it's connecting power cable? And what effect would they have to current at 60hz? Some of those effects are not even a factor at audio frequencies. 

 But even more importantly how is a high dollar cable at the end of 30ft of Romex going to affect the powersupply?

 And last but not least, all the above effects do play a much larger role in computers. Why are special cables not need?

 I am actually attempting to have a civil and genuine discussion. I also try to keep an open mind.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My A/V owner heard I have been asking about this topic. He called at home and told me to leave my equipment and bring a Pastrami & chips, he'll supply the diet coke. He will conduct some listening and viewing classes after the store closes. After the class, I am free to take home the cheapest of each line he carries to review in my setup. After determining the maker I like best, I can check out the lineup for material and build differences. He also has some home made cables to try. 

 His analogy of using the the forum debates to determine product purchases is like having your high school buddies pick your wife. And way too many false products with unproven claims. This is why I will pay his markup (which is usually better than list). He made the quest of cables and power cords for his store. After this trial, I will report to the thread my novice opinion for any noob interested._

 

He (store owner) does pretty much the same. They do cables on a try before you buy basis.

 I think I might also do some trials to either reconfirm or disprove my current thoughts on power cable.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The question is how would those effects effect the audio performance of a power supply in regards to it's connecting power cable? And what effect would they have to current at 60hz? Some of those effects are not even a factor at audio frequencies. 

 But even more importantly how is a high dollar cable at the end of 30ft of Romex going to affect the powersupply?

 And last but not least, all the above effects do play a much larger role in computers. Why are special cables not need?

 I am actually attempting to have a civil and genuine discussion. I also try to keep an open mind._

 

did you actually read the paper? a twisted pair even at the end of a power line can reduce the flux


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not on my own. Never felt the need to. After A/B cables on systems much better than my own I heard no audible difference. I wish it was there then that would mean there would be more things that could be done to improve a system. But I also understood why there was no difference and why I wouldn't hear one._

 

Now I am a little confussed as to what you are after?

 Are you looking for people who have heard differences to recant?

 Are you just here for the debate?


----------



## naamanf

And that small change of the magnetic flux on the cable (which is a function of inductance) is going to have what effect on the power supply? Especially when you take into account the effect of the power supplies transformer.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nobody is wrong. They haven't heard a difference, and that's certainly right. There are different possible reasons, among them that their system isn't revealing enough or their ears aren't trained or sensitive enough, or they are prejudiced since cables can't make a difference anyway. [/COLOR]_

 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Whats wrong? The answer is simple: your system is not revealing enough (a much nicer way to say your system is not good enough to take advantage of the cable)._

 

We could say that the power supply in yours is not good enough that is not able to work those anomalies you need to treat with the one meter of the cable...what is good for the goose is good for the gander.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










  Quote:


 Every component imparts its own sonic distortion to the audio landscape. Whether you can hear is a subjective test. On the other hand, whether you can measure it is an objective test. Granted, not everything can be measured accurately and not everything can be measured economically. For the most part, you can rely on some basic solid cable engineering to weed out the lessor quality. e.g. vacuum is the best dielectric, single extruded copper has better electron uniformity, shorter is better than longer, colder is better than warmer, etc. 
 

Non of those *have proved* to be the answer, cables with similar dielectrics, and similar cooper are claimed to sound different by the beleivers on tests....(well actually the same exact have sound different ot them according to some DBT)

  Quote:


 It is important to make a clarification. You would probably be better off upgrading your power cable, power source, instead of putting more money into IC. The answer is very simple: clean power effects every component in how they make the sound. IC, on the other hand, serves only as a conductor to transmit the signal from one box to another. 
 

At least we agree on that the quality of the power supply is important, but not on the other topics...

  Quote:


 I can safely make the following statement: I know enough to know that I don't know everything there is to know about the effects of cable on signal transmission. Therefore, I keep an open mind and I test everything. Before you start poking holes at "I know enough", keep in mind I did not waste 4 years of my life in the lab at Ann Arbor, nor did I waste 2 years of my life designing circuits for certain CPU maker (not those 2, well not exactly anyway). 
 

Nobody knows for sure, and that is why it needs to be proved...Now if you do not have any evidence of those changes that a power cord can do, or can not prove them, sorry to tell you that, but regarding that particualr point of the power cord voodoo science, yes you have wasted your time there...



 All I can tell you for sure, is that the component that have made the *most noticeable change* in my system, is the heapdhones...period...change the tranducer if you are not satisfied with the sound is all I can tell you, and if you do, *just stop and enjoy the music*...and be happy my friend...audiophilia is a decease, and contagious....


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_your method of quoting is disturbing._

 

Disturbing?! Ha! All I did was to juxtapose two of your sentences. If that "disturbs" you, then you should reconsider what you write.

 Edit: Let me re-phrase, because it is not my intention to add fuel to the fire. If you have some knowledge or expertise that can add to the discussion, why not share that knowledge rather than merely attacking someone else's qualifications? It appears to me that you have made contradictory statements in this thread. On one hand, you acknowledge that there is no literature on the secondary and tertiary effects as they relate to the audio range. You've also written that conventional EE doesn't go beyond RLC. Finally, you've written that first-hand experience is necessary to understand the point about cables. My interpretation of this last point is (and forgive my paraphrasing and please feel free to correct me if I have missed your point) that listening can teach you things that are currently not explicable by conventional engineering principles. Yet at the same time, you claim that someone needs to have a background in EE or related disciplines in order to understand the issues. I'm having difficulty reconciling these various statements.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This thread reminds me of this other one, which is very recent, and which eventually got closed.

 Here we also have relatively new members (very low post counts) posting questions on a very argumentative topic that has been heavily discussed already in many other threads. The recurrence of the topic in spite of existing recent threads makes me wonder if these might be the same people using different accounts._

 

I think that this will do as well, specially on this very controversial topic that there is no way of an agreement, same as analog versus digital, and tubes versus solid state, those thread always ended closed, why? Simply the believers in one field are not able to provide while the believers of the other ask for, and then the debate began and get hot....and later on...well that is history...On those popics is better to do a search, find info in different sources, audiophile and technical, and get your own conclusions...and spend wisely after....

 IMO is like $1500.00 that will go to a power cable, should be invested into a better heapdhone or a better source, or a better amp, (or to support better your kids) that will give you a far better enjoyment instead...but that is just my opinion...


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Disturbing?! Ha! All I did was to juxtapose two of your sentences. If that "disturbs" you, then you should reconsider what you write.

 Edit: Let me re-phrase, because it is not my intention to add fuel to the fire. If you have some knowledge or expertise that can add to the discussion, why not share that knowledge rather than merely attacking someone else's qualifications? It appears to me that you have made contradictory statements in this thread. On one hand, you acknowledge that there is no literature on the secondary and tertiary effects as they relate to the audio range. You've also written that conventional EE doesn't go beyond RLC. Finally, you've written that first-hand experience is necessary to understand the point about cables. My interpretation of this last point is (and forgive my paraphrasing and please feel free to correct me if I have missed your point) that listening can teach you things that are currently not explicable by conventional engineering principles. Yet at the same time, you claim that someone needs to have a background in EE or related disciplines in order to understand the issues. I'm having difficulty reconciling these various statements._

 

I think you missed my point: that is listening will teach you that there is a difference. Just because no one bothered to measure it doesn't mean that its not measurable. Trust me the difference between cable is the last thing you will see in an ieee paper...not to disrespect anyone but audio is a pretty tiny piece of pie in the whole EE industry and cable is a infinitesimally small portion of that tiny piece. I don't know anyone whom would commit to do such research (who would fund it? the cable industry? LOL). 

 All we can rely on are basically some parameters that _could_ effect the prorogation in the audio frequency or at 60hz AC. So back to my point: that is, a person without EE or equivalent knowledge would not realize that there are other parameters besides RLC that could effect the sound. While I am trying to argue certain parameters _could_ effect the sound, I am keeping on getting rebuttals asking _how_ they effect the sound, which was not my point.


----------



## naamanf

So your point is that you know there is a difference in sound power cables provide and you think those differences might be caused be other cable parameters other than RLC? 

 Isn't magnetic flux and eddy currents a function of the cables inductance? For skin effect to be a factor would the frequency need to be much higher than the audio band? And if the cable is the currect size for the current flowing through it electron migration isn't a factor.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_While I am trying to argue certain parameters could effect the sound, I am keeping on getting rebuttals asking how they effect the sound, which was not my point._

 

On the same lines I could say that eating Keebler cookies could make the sound better. Don't you think I should have a reasonable explanation for such a statement?


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On the same lines I could say that eating Keebler cookies could make the sound better. Don't you think I should have a reasonable explanation for such a statement?_

 

no because Keebler cookies does not materially effect the cable.


----------



## naamanf

Yep. But you haven't been able to correlate how those effects might effect the output of the voltage on a power supply. Let alone how the generally know effects of L and C might effect a poorly made cable mated to a well made power supply. 

 I on the other hand I can explain why Keebler cookies make everything sound better.


----------



## Stax-i-nox

http://www.aloaudio.com/myrig/myrig.html

 Seems like the wires DO make a difference in his setup?


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I can rest my case based on the above statement. no further debates are warranted._

 

Exactly, he has no experience whatsoever. End of thread!


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CRESCENDOPOWER* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Exactly, he has no experience whatsoever. End of thread!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

How do you figure? I have listened to different cables in much higher end (home) gear than my own and didn't hear any difference. Or do I have hear or think I hear a difference to be considered experienced? 

 But I do have very high end gear in my car. And a can assure you that power cabling doesn't effect the sound in an environment where current demand is higher and a lot noisier.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Stax-i-nox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://www.aloaudio.com/myrig/myrig.html

 Seems like the wires DO make a difference in his setup?_

 

Of course they do. He sells them.


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How do you figure? I have listened to different cables in much higher end (home) gear than my own and didn't hear any difference. Or do I have hear or think I hear a difference to be considered experienced?_

 

LOL, you're not even using a system that you are familiar with.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But I do have very high end gear in my car. And a can assure you that power cabling doesn't effect the sound in an environment where current demand is higher and a lot noisier._

 

you equate high-end with car audio. what can I say? I am sorry I wasted both my time and your time.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you equate high-end with car audio. what can I say? I am sorry I wasted both my time and your time._

 

I don't equate car audio as high end. I equate high end as high end. 
 Just shows your ignorance to the world of audio if you think the only reference listening environment is your living room. 

 I am sorry I only have $10,000 system in house and a $30,000 in my car. I spend more time in my car so it makes sense.

 And way to ignore everything about what might make those power cables different. You have not yet once refuted any of my claims and backed up your own on what makes the power cables change the sound of a system.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CRESCENDOPOWER* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL, you're not even using a system that you are familiar with._

 

But I am very familiar with the reference material being listened to.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you equate high-end with car audio. what can I say? I am sorry I wasted both my time and your time._

 

And what's laughable is that the DAC in my car is almost worth as much as your entire home system.


----------



## spambob

ive learned that most of the time a power cable is a powercable like stated by a few(cable thickness thing).
 but having high quality, thick single conductor wires coming from the mains to a screw terminal block on the wall i s my way. then it connects to a power conditioner with my special cables(loose stranded copper wires unwound from small dc electric motors; going through flexible plastic tubes). from the power conditioner i suppose its back to "a power cable is a power cable", but i still did the special custom wires.


----------



## ca90ss

There are only three things that can affect the performance of a cable: inductance, resistance and capacitance. Anyone who believes there is some other magical factor that affects cable performance is full of crap. Without objective measurements of a specific cable showing differences in these 3 parameters subjective comparisons are worthless. /thread


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ca90ss* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are only three things that can affect the performance of a cable: inductance, resistance and capacitance. Anyone who believes there is some other magical factor that affects cable performance is full of crap. Without objective measurements of a specific cable showing differences in these 3 parameters subjective comparisons are worthless. /thread_

 

Knowing those 3 parameters will not tell you exactly what the cable sounds like, just like knowing specifications of a power amp will not tell you exactly what it sounds like. So, in my book those 3 parameters don’t mean all that much.


----------



## 300Z

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CRESCENDOPOWER* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Knowing those 3 parameters will not tell you exactly what the cable sounds like, just like knowing specifications of a power amp will not tell you exactly what it sounds like. So, in my book those 3 parameters don’t mean all that much.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

So what are the specific parameters that make a cable sound different? You have to be able to measure it, if two elements measure the same they sound the same. No other way around that.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CRESCENDOPOWER* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Knowing those 3 parameters will not tell you exactly what the cable sounds like, just like knowing specifications of a power amp will not tell you exactly what it sounds like. So, in my book those 3 parameters don’t mean all that much.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

These 3 parameters will pedict precisely, how electricity will behave like if the cable is made a part of an electrical circuit.

 All modern technology is based on that knowledge. Strange thing is, it does apply to even the highest developed branches of electronics, but not for audio. 
 As the prices climb, and the smaller the research department of the company, the less the most basic knowledge seems to be applieable.The more so, the convinced customers get thin-skinned to the terms "marketing" and "placebo".

 Believe it or not, there's no music inside the stupid cable. Damn, it's electricity.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_These 3 parameters will pedict precisely, how electricity will behave like if the cable is made a part of an electrical circuit.

 All modern technology is based on that knowledge. Strange thing is, it does apply to even the highest developed branches of electronics, but not for audio. 
 As the prices climb, and the smaller the research department of the company, the less the most basic knowledge seems to be applieable.The more so, the convinced customers get thin-skinned to the terms "marketing" and "placebo".

 Believe it or not, there's no music inside the stupid cable. Damn, it's electricity._

 

And resistance and isolation material etc. the one is much better then the other. Teflon is best.

 If so, then all the rest is placebo also like the differences in amps, wich are much smaller then in cables and sources. Hell, even the filters in speakers don't make any difference, they all souns the same.


----------



## meat01

Teflon is the best, because of its heat resistance, which is why the aerospace companies and military use it. Not because it sounds better.


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And what's laughable is that the DAC in my car is almost worth as much as your entire home system._

 

And we have a winner.

 This quote proves you know what you are talking about 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I find it incredible that anyone would put that much money in a car audio system when the noice floor starts at, what, 70 db and goes higher the faster you drive.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And resistance and isolation material etc. the one is much better then the other. Teflon is best.

 If so, then all the rest is placebo also like the differences in amps, wich are much smaller then in cables and sources. Hell, even the filters in speakers don't make any difference, they all souns the same._

 

lol, guess what the "R" in "R,C,L"means?


----------



## KrooLism

I find it amusing how 95% of people can't even tell the difference between good 320kbps and lossless, yet rant on about the differences between $200 cables and $4000 cables.

 And not to mention... during the original recording, if *they're* only using a $50 cable in the studio while recording... the best sound *you're *ever going to get is only worth $50!


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KrooLism* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I find it amusing how 95% of people can't even tell the difference between good 320kbps and lossless, yet rant on about the differences between $200 cables and $4000 cables.

 And not to mention... during the original recording, if *they're* only using a $50 cable in the studio while recording... the best sound *you're *ever going to get is only worth $50!_

 


 Interesting to note that 73% of people make up statistics.


----------



## 300Z

The science of cables... Interesting read.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lol, guess what the "R" in "R,C,L"means?_

 

rediculous?
 conclusions?
 Laughing.?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Or resistance (r), Inductance (L) and Capacitance (C), the three ingredients to alter sound the most in cables? Guess where the best measuring cables, high end, shine?! Yes, in those three catagories. 

 Quote "At audio frequencies shape fo the conductor really makes NO difference..... At RF frequencies it makes ALL the difference." hmm, the ohno proces, single crystal pure copper has measurable 1/5 th more frequency responce then any other cable. so, it does matter after all. Ohno is expensive to make and found mostly in high end cables. The rest, cheaper cables roll off the extreem highes.

 Important, yes, since 15khz can be heard the frequency of 30khz is important, extension leeds to hearable more information in the high regions. So, for full info at 20 khz, you need extension to at least 40khz due to the harmonics. Most cables i heard don't and roll off the extreem highs.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


 Originally Posted by KrooLism 
 I find it amusing how 95% of people can't even tell the difference between good 320kbps and lossless, yet rant on about the differences between $200 cables and $4000 cables.

 And not to mention... during the original recording, if they're only using a $50 cable in the studio while recording... the best sound you're ever going to get is only worth $50! 
 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting to note that 73% of people make up statistics._

 

That's why so much recordings sound like crap, and harsh! I have high quality recordings of audioquest made with high end cables and high end gear and they are completely in another league compared to a normal cd recording!

 Remember also that in a studio you can alter the sound, so if you use a crap cable you can compensate for that to an extend. A better cable would simply do better.


----------



## 300Z

And you assume that that is attributed to the cables?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *300Z* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And you assume that that is attributed to the cables?_

 


 Why not, high end equipment needs better cables to shine. I've never seen a high end system with 50 dollar cables, there must be a reason for that. Or are they just simply ripping you off. To my intense listening and cable experiments there is much differrence in cables. Especially in tonality, extension, speed, body and neutrality.


----------



## Happy Camper

Could it be said, then, that science has not addressed these audio differences or have only been studied at higher level technogies (sat and communications, biomedical, military etc.) with more complex signal demands? Audio study at this level could or may have been done and determined it of no merit. Are other properties (not in the normal power supply 101 courses) impacting the signal? I doubt the AC static and magnetic energy effects have an impact on sound with a properly built psu. I am ignorant enough on this topic to admit it and ask. I have had power courses in HS, Navy (IC), Computer repair, Electrical union and factory design courses. None of these courses discuss power impact on signal quality (other than thru the power supply performance) except by fluxuation of potential and phase timing, to the best of my memory. These classes were 30 years ago. Have things been discovered that have changed? Any treatment of extrainious contaminants were done at the psu/filter and shielded components. Everything in the signal generation section was made and transported internally thru the power supply. 

 Sampling is the only way of knowing what impact this has. At least this product can be auditioned before purchase. 

 Enjoyment of a spirited debate can motivate folks to extend efforts to find answers so lazy folk like me can benefit
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. That's what is so cool about this forum. Personal qualifications for those giving an answer to a question should not be an issue, the source and validity of information is. If we are all arguing about opinions or wrong training, I can see why this turns into a FFA. But we have the industry expertize here to debate the physics of the topic. 

 Why do these debates generally get terminated? Moderators can keep on topic or remove offensive posts. Or, do we not want to know the answers on a public forum sponsered by influencial vendors?


----------



## 300Z

I recommend you to read the link that I just posted above...


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 This quote proves you know what you are talking about 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




_

 

Nope. Sure doesn't. Doesn't make me an audiophile. But it does make me serious about getting the best sound possible be it in my car, house, or on my head. 
 The fact that a enjoy a quality system in my car doesn't change my knowledge of electronics and how they work. I would venture to guess that most car nuts know more about electronics and sound reproduction than home audiophiles.

 The joke to this whole argument is that a supposed EE makes some wild claims about possible cables that he can't back up or apply proving he either a) isn't a EE, or b) was last in his class.

 I was actually trying to have a civil conversation and maybe gain some insight on what effects there might be on power cables. He just threw some big words and ran off, constantly avoiding the real meat of the debate. 

 For those of you that do hear the differences in cables, what do you think causes them? Serious question. One that nobody has been able to answer so far. Not saying you don't hear them, but what are they?

 And if so few EEs and so little time and money is spent on audio research where do all these small boutique cable companies get designs from? Who "engineers" their cable? How do they know they have a better product than company B?


----------



## KrooLism

The reality is that all recording studios, even the best ones, at the end of the day is still a business. Cost of running that business would be taken into consideration everyday by management.

 I highly doubt you're going to get a director of a recording studio to approve of recabling his whole studio with Valhallas or Jena Labs. The opportunity costs would simply be too great. 

 I have always found paradox when going into the ultra ultra high-end of audio. The paradox being that us audiophiles spend a relatively stupidly high amount of money on "hi-fi" gear, which is the luxury. However, (and I'll make up another statistic here... challenge if you will) I'm willing to bet that 99% of all music is made with only professional grade gear.

 Sheesh - I'm saying "professional grade gear" as if it's a bad thing. In all honesty, I have NEVER heard true professional equipment sound bad. My Grace Design M902 isn't technically "Hi-Fi", it's still classed as professional, but the higher end of the scale. Sound rivals that of the kW. 
 Pioneer mixers, KRK studio monitors, Technics Turntables, Numark CD players, Roland synth's, Korg intergrated keyboards, Hosa cables, Yamaha flatbeds... they are all not classed nor marketed as hi-fi gear! However, these are all the professional grade equipment that most modern day music is made from. *And it sounds bloody good.*

 As per the opening post, I'm *not* debating that cables do or don't make a difference in sound. Obviously different conductors would conduct an electrical current differently and hence sound different. All I'm saying is that I have found a better use for a "good" cable and that is to place it where there is a varying current and not a constant one.

 And... let me stress again that the differences were absolutely MINIMAL and that they we're my own personal observations ONLY.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For those of you that do hear the differences in cables, what do you think causes them? Serious question. One that nobody has been able to answer so far. Not saying you don't hear them, but what are they?_

 

Some years ago I've sent my Metaxas Solitaire power amp to the distributor to get it modified. The modification mainly consisted of the removal of two small inductor coils (with at most 0.05 mH) meant to protect against HF oscillation -- considering the (bipolar) amp's extreme bandwidth -- at the speaker outputs. An accompanying, necessary measure was the replacement of a few resistors against some low-inductance types. So the only physical gain the modification provided was actually a bandwidth increase from the high ultrasonic range to the extreme ultrasonic range. The audible range was virtually untouched by the modification. Nevertheless, the sonic result was impressive: smoother, even less fatiguing highs and higher resolution throughout the spectrum. And this with a CD player as source, hence a signal with a sharp cut-off at about 21 kHz. 

 So my guess is that for some reason the HF response (...of cables and electronics) still matters, no matter how band-limited the signal. I know, that's not a satisfying and not a particularly logical conclusion... Just an attempt (since I do hear sonic differences in cables).



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KrooLism* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The reality is that all recording studios, even the best ones, at the end of the day is still a business. Cost of running that business would be taken into consideration everyday by management.

 I highly doubt you're going to get a director of a recording studio to approve of recabling his whole studio with Valhallas or Jena Labs. The opportunity costs would simply be too great. 

 I have always found paradox when going into the ultra ultra high-end of audio. The paradox being that us audiophiles spend a relatively stupidly high amount of money on "hi-fi" gear, which is the luxury. However, (and I'll make up another statistic here... challenge if you will) I'm willing to bet that 99% of all music is made with only professional grade gear._

 

That's indeed an interesting argument. Something that made me ponder a bit in the past. My «excuse» for the fact that cables make a difference during playback nonetheless is that really neutral and accurate music reproduction is still an unachieved goal. Too much of the original signal is corrupted on the way from the singer's mouth or the violin string through condenser microphone, mixer electronics, low-pass filter, A/D converter, digital transport(s), low-pass filter, D/A converter, analog output electronics, amplifier, sound transducer... I tend to see the music reproduction at home somehow also as a reconstruction of the original, as if the signal from the digital transport had the task to control some sort of MIDI synthesizer (= the DAC). That's not completely wrong, if you think about it. 

 So from this perspective it's pointless to even consider the (maybe) mediocre studio cabling. What the cables in our home setups do is to make the best out of the available signal, meaning the main bias lies on synergy, not so much on absolute and maximum transparency (= completely unaltered original signal). Of course this scenario only works within a frame of reference in the form of subtle sonic differences as the ones caused by cables and electronics. On sound-transducer level the original signal can be considered accurate enough to make for music reproduction instead of music reconstruction... 
.


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Thelonious Monk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_think of it as the first 3 feet instead of the last 3 feet..._

 

Does this man that the longer the power cable is, the better?

 Would a 10 feet high quality power cable be better than a 1 feet one?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope. Sure doesn't. Doesn't make me an audiophile. But it does make me serious about getting the best sound possible be it in my car, house, or on my head. 
 The fact that a enjoy a quality system in my car doesn't change my knowledge of electronics and how they work. I would venture to guess that most car nuts know more about electronics and sound reproduction than home audiophiles.

 The joke to this whole argument is that a supposed EE makes some wild claims about possible cables that he can't back up or apply proving he either a) isn't a EE, or b) was last in his class.

 I was actually trying to have a civil conversation and maybe gain some insight on what effects there might be on power cables. He just threw some big words and ran off, constantly avoiding the real meat of the debate. 

 For those of you that do hear the differences in cables, what do you think causes them? Serious question. One that nobody has been able to answer so far. Not saying you don't hear them, but what are they?

 And if so few EEs and so little time and money is spent on audio research where do all these small boutique cable companies get designs from? Who "engineers" their cable? How do they know they have a better product than company B?_

 

Insulation pops into mind: how much flows back into the signal. We all know insulation material leaks, but teflon leaks the least and is therefor the best insulation material known. More expensive cables use teflon as insulation. Silver plating. The thicker the plating the more body you get. Crystal structure: the Ohno single crystal structure. Expensive to make superieur to any other manufactoring proces. Also found in high end or more expensive cables. And last but not least, the plug. The silver eichmann's are known to have one of the least resistance values of most plugs around.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does this man that the longer the power cable is, the better?

 Would a 10 feet high quality power cable be better than a 1 feet one?_

 


 It seems that for powercables it is better to have a longer one. Between 1 and 3 meters is best.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Insulation pops into mind: how much flows back into the signal. We all know insulation material leaks, but teflon leaks the least and is therefor the best insulation material known._

 

I am sorry but I need to correct your mistake. Vacuum is the best insulator followed closely by air. I think one company makes vacuum insulated IC that cost $12k per foot


----------



## meat01

Please tell me how insulation leaks into the signal. What about all of the metal film resistors and ceramic caps? Do they leak into the signal?

 Look at all of the jumper wires that are not made of copper or silver, what do they do to the signal?

http://img169.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ict0072bf2.jpg


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Insulation pops into mind: how much flows back into the signal. We all know insulation material leaks, but teflon leaks the least and is therefor the best insulation material known. More expensive cables use teflon as insulation. Silver plating. The thicker the plating the more body you get. Crystal structure: the Ohno single crystal structure. Expensive to make superieur to any other manufactoring proces. Also found in high end or more expensive cables. And last but not least, the plug. The silver eichmann's are known to have one of the least resistance values of most plugs around._

 

All of those can be measured with RLC. But what effects would a cable with higher than normal capacitance and a slight increase in resistance have on 60hz at 120v? Even with those effects how is it going to make a difference when connected to 30ft of romex? And even more importantly how is it going to effect to power supply it's feeding?


----------



## markl

Quote:


 I highly doubt you're going to get a director of a recording studio to approve of recabling his whole studio with Valhallas or Jena Labs. 
 

 Much as I hate chiming in on the endlessly BORING cable de-bunking threads, this statement needs refutation. There are many many many recording studios that use aftermarket cabling.


----------



## Thelonious Monk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KrooLism* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In all honesty, I have NEVER heard true professional equipment sound bad. My Grace Design M902 isn't technically "Hi-Fi", it's still classed as professional, but the higher end of the scale. Sound rivals that of the kW. 
 Pioneer mixers, KRK studio monitors, Technics Turntables, Numark CD players, Roland synth's, Korg intergrated keyboards, Hosa cables, Yamaha flatbeds... they are all not classed nor marketed as hi-fi gear! However, these are all the professional grade equipment that most modern day music is made from. *And it sounds bloody good.*_

 

amen... "professional" gear is my favorite type! especially since i have my own home studio, with my very own KRK monitors and Roland keyboard

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does this man that the longer the power cable is, the better?

 Would a 10 feet high quality power cable be better than a 1 feet one?_

 

are you poking fun at me or serious? i was just trying to get at the fact that the power cable isn't pointless, albeit less important than other parts of the chain (to me)


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Much as I hate chiming in on the endlessly BORING cable de-bunking threads, this statement needs refutation. There are many many many recording studios that use aftermarket cabling._

 

I'll bet these are the ones that make cd's that sound better then the 13 in a dozen cd sound! most modern cd's are just crap! What are they teaching those sounds engeneers these days: to cranck up the volume to clipping to hide the poor quality?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am sorry but I need to correct your mistake. Vacuum is the best insulator followed closely by air. I think one company makes vacuum insulated IC that cost $12k per foot_

 

I won't argue on that one, i agree vacuum or air is best bit i've never seen any affordable cable with those features. You guys complain about cables costing 3000 dollars, let alone 12000 for vacuum Ic's.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Much as I hate chiming in on the endlessly BORING cable de-bunking threads . . . ._

 

No, no, this one's really good with lots of new and interesting arguments.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Much as I hate chiming in on the endlessly BORING cable de-bunking threads, this statement needs refutation. There are many many many recording studios that use aftermarket cabling._

 

They use indeed aftermarket, of course, Canare and Belden, and Mogami...And htose are very good cables no doubt of that at all. Those are all what they will use as "aftermakret" till now, unless maybe an IC or two, that is what you will ever see there. I would like to see different ones though...but unless I see them myself, I would never believe that..honestly, it will be really good to see any direct info about that, any picture, any link to illustrate that... 



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'll bet these are the ones that make cd's that sound better then the 13 in a dozen cd sound! most modern cd's are just crap! What are they teaching those sounds engeneers these days: to cranck up the volume to clipping to hide the poor quality?_

 

The quality of the CDs has nothing, or very little to do with he cable quality, specially while all the process nowadays is completelly digital (except while miking) which do not require a high-end cable to get recorded optimally, it is just due to the compression used by the persons who recorded it, you do not need any aftermarket cable to get an excelent digital recording, not even analog. The recording you hear is degraded along tne rest of the process, and not during the recording it self. If you do a search and find out, you will see that it was not requirement 50 years ago, and it is not now, indeed the best recordings ever made were done with the same tools cables as any other, and just a diffrent head behind the console...


----------



## Thelonious Monk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'll bet these are the ones that make cd's that sound better then the 13 in a dozen cd sound! most modern cd's are just crap! What are they teaching those sounds engeneers these days: to cranck up the volume to clipping to hide the poor quality?_

 


 it's better quality or their job.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Please tell me how insulation leaks into the signal. What about all of the metal film resistors and ceramic caps? Do they leak into the signal?

 Look at all of the jumper wires that are not made of copper or silver, what do they do to the signal?

http://img169.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ict0072bf2.jpg_

 

an insulator acts more or less like capacitor. it stores energy and releases it back into the core. ALL types of insulation have this behavierand teflon simply releae back least of all types of insulation. The energy canot be all dissapated as heat and therefor a portion of the stored energy goes back into the core disrupting the signal , more or less. this can mean phase shift or frequency loss.

 it seems that all insulation materials stores more energy in the high frequencies, therefor loss in high frequncy is more apperent in cheaper cables then in high end cables wich use better insulation. All my tests with cables concur this. The better the cable(teflon used), the better the high regions are, better high extension.

 Where high end cables excel is in extended bottom and high frequencies! Also more micro detail! because the signal with teflon insulation is less distorted.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_an insulator acts more or less like capacitor. it stores energy and releases it back into the core. ALL types of insulation have this behavierand teflon simply releae back least of all types of insulation. The energy canot be all dissapated as heat and therefor a portion of the stored energy goes back into the core disrupting the signal , more or less. this can mean phase shift or frequency loss.

 it seems that all insulation materials stores more energy in the high frequencies, therefor loss in high frequncy is more apperent in cheaper cables then in high end cables wich use better insulation. All my tests with cables concur this. The better the cable(teflon used), the better the high regions are, better high extension.

 Where high end cables excel is in extended bottom and high frequencies! Also more micro detail! because the signal with teflon insulation is less distorted._

 

You do not need an expensive cable to get teflon as an insulator, teflon nowdays is rather cheap...

 BTW from the Blue Jeans cable website:

_"...Teflon Dielectrics and Insulation
 Teflon is a special case, in one interesting sense: while audio and video cables made with silver or OFC are seldom used by professionals, there are plenty of professional-quality cables made with Teflon, for reasons we'll get to in a moment. 

 Teflon, of course, is familiar to us all as a coating on cookware; but it has certain interesting electrical properties as well which account for its use in cables. Insulating materials like Teflon vary in their ability to isolate conductors electrically from one another, and this property is characterized mathematically as the "dielectric constant." The best dielectric, from a purely electrical standpoint, is a vacuum; air is very nearly as good. But of course, when we're making coaxial cable, it's hard to use pure air as a dielectric because we need something relatively solid to keep the center conductor from coming into contact with, and shorting out to, the shield. A good dielectric for cable manufacture needs to be physically stable as well as having a good dielectric constant. Two materials that meet these criteria are polyethylene, used in the vast majority of precision video cables, and Teflon. 

 If we look at the characteristics of Teflon and polyethylene side-by-side, what becomes apparent is that Teflon has a lower dielectric constant; it is, in that sense, simply a "better" dielectric than polyethylene. If we were to make two coaxial cables, otherwise identical to one another, but produce one with polyethylene foam dielectric and the other with Teflon foam dielectric, the Teflon cable would have lower capacitance. Low capacitance being good, that'd be a good thing--right? 

 It would indeed; but there's a problem. The dielectric constant, capacitance, and the cable's characteristic impedance are all tied up together. If, in our example, the polyethylene cable had a 75 ohm characteristic impedance, for use in video, the Teflon cable would have a higher impedance, and would present an impedance mismatch if used in a video circuit. In order to correct the problem, we need to make the dielectric and shield smaller. *When we get to 75 ohms impedance, we wind up with the same capacitance we had in the polyethylene cable. In other words, just because the Teflon is a "better" dielectric doesn't mean we get a "better" cable; it just means we don't need quite as much Teflon to achieve the same cable characteristics that we get using polyethylene. 
 Teflon's much more expensive, but a video cable with Teflon offers no performance enhancement over one made with polyethylene--so why the heck does anybody buy Teflon cables, anyhow? The answer has nothing at all to do with electrical performance, and everything to do with fire safety.* Polyethylene, when exposed to fire, burns and gives off toxic fumes. This becomes an enormous hazard in a modern office building, where huge bundles of telephone and data cables are run through spaces which are also used for ventilation, because a fire in one part of a building can rapidly spread toxic fumes to the whole building. Teflon, by contrast, is highly fire-resistant and does not give off toxic fumes as easily. Because of this fire safety issue, cables which are routed through a plenum--that is, a dropped-ceiling area used as a ventilation return--are required to have a "plenum" rating, and Teflon, being both highly fire resistant and an excellent dielectric, is used in most plenum-rated cables. 

 Perhaps partly because of the higher cost of Teflon cables, some people believe that plenum versions of precision video cables perform better than their non-plenum counterparts. For example, one will sometimes see Belden 1695A, the plenum version of 1694A, recommended as a performance upgrade from 1694A. In fact, however, the performance specs on these two cables are virtually identical (and when they're different, 1694A is the better of the two!), and there is no reason to favor 1695A--unless, of course, you need that plenum fire rating.

 We sell Teflon-dielectric cables, like Belden 1695A, alongside our polyethylene-dielectric offerings. If we thought that there were performance advantages to, say, Belden 1695A over Belden 1694A, we'd be the first to recommend it--but our experience has been that the two are, as the specs would suggest, completely indistinguishable. Teflon-based cables can be superb, but no more so than their less expensive, polyethylene equivalents; our recommendation is to use them if you need a plenum fire rating, but to save your money if you don't...."_


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They use indeed aftermarket, of course, Canare and Belden, and Mogami...And htose are very good cables no doubt of that at all. Those are all what they will use as "aftermakret" till now, unless maybe an IC or two, that is what you will ever see there. I would like to see different ones though...but unless I see them myself, I would never believe that..honestly, it will be really good to see any direct info about that, any picture, any link to illustrate that... 





 The quality of the CDs has nothing, or very little to do with he cable quality, specially while all the process nowadays is completelly digital (except while miking) which do not require a high-end cable to get recorded optimally, it is just due to the compression used by the persons who recorded it, you do not need any aftermarket cable to get an excelent digital recording, not even analog. The recording you hear is degraded along tne rest of the process, and not during the recording it self. If you do a search and find out, you will see that it was not requirement 50 years ago, and it is not now, indeed the best recordings ever made were done with the same tools cables as any other, and just a diffrent head behind the console..._

 

yes and no! I have excellent old cd recordings wich sound way, way much better then the new ones comming out these days. One feature that comes into mind is that the signal level is much higher on the new cd then the old ones. if i put in a new cd, i almost blow my ears.

 So, the expertise is fading then...in favor of speed and sales, there is no time or money for reqally good people behind the panels.
 Thank god i am slowly doing deaf anyway(age) but this is not a good sign in general for music.

 On the other hand, i have xrcd's and they are more expensive but they do take more care into the production of the actual cd and it is quite obvious better then any normal cd. So, if they wanted too, there is still somehting to gain in cd production as well.

 Canare, belden and mogami arent the cheapest either.You forgot to mention Dimarzio, wich also makes pro cables. I've one myself and am quite impressed of the price/performance ratio of these cables. While not as good as the high end IC i am using now, it really comes pretty close.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You do not need an expensive cable to get teflon as an insulator, teflon nowdays is rather cheap...

 BTW from the Blue Jeans cable website:

"...Teflon Dielectrics and Insulation
 Teflon is a special case, in one interesting sense: while audio and video cables made with silver or OFC are seldom used by professionals, there are plenty of professional-quality cables made with Teflon, for reasons we'll get to in a moment. 

 Teflon, of course, is familiar to us all as a coating on cookware; but it has certain interesting electrical properties as well which account for its use in cables. Insulating materials like Teflon vary in their ability to isolate conductors electrically from one another, and this property is characterized mathematically as the "dielectric constant." The best dielectric, from a purely electrical standpoint, is a vacuum; air is very nearly as good. But of course, when we're making coaxial cable, it's hard to use pure air as a dielectric because we need something relatively solid to keep the center conductor from coming into contact with, and shorting out to, the shield. A good dielectric for cable manufacture needs to be physically stable as well as having a good dielectric constant. Two materials that meet these criteria are polyethylene, used in the vast majority of precision video cables, and Teflon. 

 If we look at the characteristics of Teflon and polyethylene side-by-side, what becomes apparent is that Teflon has a lower dielectric constant; it is, in that sense, simply a "better" dielectric than polyethylene. If we were to make two coaxial cables, otherwise identical to one another, but produce one with polyethylene foam dielectric and the other with Teflon foam dielectric, the Teflon cable would have lower capacitance. Low capacitance being good, that'd be a good thing--right? 

 It would indeed; but there's a problem. The dielectric constant, capacitance, and the cable's characteristic impedance are all tied up together. If, in our example, the polyethylene cable had a 75 ohm characteristic impedance, for use in video, the Teflon cable would have a higher impedance, and would present an impedance mismatch if used in a video circuit. In order to correct the problem, we need to make the dielectric and shield smaller. When we get to 75 ohms impedance, we wind up with the same capacitance we had in the polyethylene cable. In other words, just because the Teflon is a "better" dielectric doesn't mean we get a "better" cable; it just means we don't need quite as much Teflon to achieve the same cable characteristics that we get using polyethylene. 

 Teflon's much more expensive, but a video cable with Teflon offers no performance enhancement over one made with polyethylene--so why the heck does anybody buy Teflon cables, anyhow? The answer has nothing at all to do with electrical performance, and everything to do with fire safety. Polyethylene, when exposed to fire, burns and gives off toxic fumes. This becomes an enormous hazard in a modern office building, where huge bundles of telephone and data cables are run through spaces which are also used for ventilation, because a fire in one part of a building can rapidly spread toxic fumes to the whole building. Teflon, by contrast, is highly fire-resistant and does not give off toxic fumes as easily. Because of this fire safety issue, cables which are routed through a plenum--that is, a dropped-ceiling area used as a ventilation return--are required to have a "plenum" rating, and Teflon, being both highly fire resistant and an excellent dielectric, is used in most plenum-rated cables. 

 Perhaps partly because of the higher cost of Teflon cables, some people believe that plenum versions of precision video cables perform better than their non-plenum counterparts. For example, one will sometimes see Belden 1695A, the plenum version of 1694A, recommended as a performance upgrade from 1694A. In fact, however, the performance specs on these two cables are virtually identical (and when they're different, 1694A is the better of the two!), and there is no reason to favor 1695A--unless, of course, you need that plenum fire rating.

 We sell Teflon-dielectric cables, like Belden 1695A, alongside our polyethylene-dielectric offerings. If we thought that there were performance advantages to, say, Belden 1695A over Belden 1694A, we'd be the first to recommend it--but our experience has been that the two are, as the specs would suggest, completely indistinguishable. Teflon-based cables can be superb, but no more so than their less expensive, polyethylene equivalents; our recommendation is to use them if you need a plenum fire rating, but to save your money if you don't...."_

 

there are degrees of quality of teflon and some teflon is hard to use as a flexible material in cables. so the thickness is also important.

 From a measuring point of view, teflon IS still the best insulator. If you want to dissapate the released energy as heat, teflon makes more sense since it is better for temperature. and keeps the cable cool outside.

 This is their theory...i can throw dozens other cable brand theories against it wich state teflon is the prefered insulator.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 See the part of phase shifting and frequency loss due to the released enrgy back into the core. This fenomenon might also add to the burn in period...after a while teflon releases a constant amount of energy back into the core, when the leakage is stable. hence more detail.

 They make quite good cables for a low price but they ain't the last word in high end cables, there are better with teflon!

 IC is not a coax cable.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yes and no! I have excellent old cd recordings wich sound way, way much better then the new ones comming out these days. One feature that comes into mind is that the signal level is much higher on the new cd then the old ones. if i put in a new cd, i almost blow my ears.

 So, the expertise is fading then...in favor of speed and sales, there is no time or money for reqally good people behind the panels.
 Thank god i am slowly doing deaf anyway(age) but this is not a good sign in general for music.

 On the other hand, i have xrcd's and they are more expensive but they do take more care into the production of the actual cd and it is quite obvious better then any normal cd. So, if they wanted too, there is still somehting to gain in cd production as well.

 Canare, belden and mogami arent the cheapest either.You forgot to mention Dimarzio, wich also makes pro cables. I've one myself and am quite impressed of the price/performance ratio of these cables. While not as good as the high end IC i am using now, it really comes pretty close._

 

Man you are reinforcing all what I said, there is absolutely no contradiction to what I said and what you are stating...or I do not get the idea of what you were trying ot say then...so I do not get the "yes and no" part...

 Are you trying to say that an engineer nowdays is not qualified enough to do a good recording? Gimme a break, even I have some friends that have done it, with rather less knowledge, see Orpheus CD (the member, it was beautifully recorded at home!!!!)
 If they do not get a better result, is simply becasue they are not interested in doing it, not becasue they do not know how to do it, or that the tools they have are a limitation, that is a human factor, and has nothing to do with cables used...place those guys in one of the Telarte studios, wire that studio with Valhallas all around, and set that same gorilla there, and they will do exactly the same with the music, same crap again using expensive cable now, and expensive gear around...


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man you are reinforcing all what I said, there is absolutely no contradiction to what I said and what you are stating...or I do not get the idea of what you were trying ot say then...so I do not get the "yes and no" part...

 Are you trying to say that an engineer nowdays is not qualified enough to do a good recording? Gimme a break, even I have some friends that have done it, with rather less knowledge, see Orpheus CD (the member, it was beautifully recorded at home!!!!)
 If they do not get a better result, is simply becasue they are not interested in doing it, not becasue they do not know how to do it, or that the tools they have are a limitation, that is a human factor, and has nothing to do with cables used...place those guys in one of the Telarte studios, wire that studio with Valhallas all around, and set that same gorilla there, and they will do exactly the same with the music, same crap again using expensive cable now, and expensive gear around..._

 

yes and no: i don't believe all the differences are in the engeneer but also due to the used gear.

 I have recordings made with very expensive high end gear(mark levinson amps etc and high end cables; the best of the best was used at that time) they really do sound so much better then any standard cd i have. So gear does matter, also during recording. the ease and especially the absolute control of the sound of the cd remind me of the best high end gear i heard!

 In comparisson most normal cd's sound like recorded with getto blasters. especially the commercial cd's.

 I didn't say that anywhere! I just say they release crap due to the commerce they have only limited time to spend in a studio to make cd, so it is rushed as opposed to older recording that sound much better and were produces in a longer period of time. Sometimes a reacording was recorded in ahlf a year where they just spend a week orm at the most 2 weeks in a recording studio nowadays! 

 Don't you think difference in cd recordings can be traced to used equipment as well. One studio has simply better equipment then others. Wouldn't a better cable make the life for a recording engeneer much easier, less to compensate?!


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_there are degrees of quality of teflon and some teflon is hard to use as a flexible material in cables. so the thickness is also important.

 From a measuring point of view, teflon IS still the best insulator. If you want to dissapate the released energy as heat, teflon makes more sense since it is better for temperature. and keeps the cable cool outside.

 This is their theory...i can throw dozens other cable brand theories against it wich state teflon is the prefered insulator.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 See the part of phase shifting and frequency loss due to the released enrgy back into the core. This fenomenon might also add to the burn in period...after a while teflon releases a constant amount of energy back into the core, when the leakage is stable. hence more detail.

 They make quite good cables for a low price but they ain't the last word in high end cables, there are better with teflon!

 IC is not a coax cable._

 

Nobody is denying the merits of teflon as an insulator, but there are other facts as they mention also, Belden made teflon cables as well, BJC use them if you want them to...and yes AFAIK the IC's should be coaxial, they are not in vane used by the majority of the high end manufacturers as the default geometry. I know that maybe some other manufacturers do not, but many manufacturers does, and use them as the only recommneded configuration, people with far more knowledge that me at least, and with far more experience than both of us together...

 BTW this is not their theory, this is the only theory behind teflon use, in coaxial cables, if you use same section as any other dielectric, you get a different Z, if you decrease the section to get the desired Z, then you get same performance as any other with bigger section...*it is a trade of*...unless you use maybe a twisted pair or another configuration (that many manufacturers do not recommended for low level audio signals or video signals)

 I never said that they are the best cable makers, but I would like to see one better for around the double of that price, that is IMO, *honesty*....of course you can get a $1000.00 cable and it will be better maybe, but at what cost???


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I didn't say that anywhere! I just say they release crap due to the commerce they have only limited time to spend in a studio to make cd, so it is rushed as opposed to older recording that sound much better. 

 Don't you think difference in cd recordings cn be traced to used equipment as well. One studio has simply better equipment then others. Wouldn't a better cable make the life for a recording engeneer much easier, less to compensate?!_

 

Yes I fully agree with you on that, time is a factor that ruins eveything, that is why many musicians nowdays have their own recording studios and get very good results that way...Adn of course used equipment is crucial, but not the determinating factor, is better to know what you have, and to know how to use what you have in an optimal way other than going for new more expensive and better gear sometimes...we have excellent recordings from the 50's, 60's, the gear used back then, was far worst than the one we have nowdays in that same studio...

 Yes a better cable will help of course, but as you same stated the ones they use, are not that bad, and they have most of the times other limitations that maybe need to be improved that will offer a more rewarding result, than upgrading the cables alone....


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_an insulator acts more or less like capacitor. it stores energy and releases it back into the core. ALL types of insulation have this behavierand teflon simply releae back least of all types of insulation. The energy canot be all dissapated as heat and therefor a portion of the stored energy goes back into the core disrupting the signal , more or less. this can mean phase shift or frequency loss.

 it seems that all insulation materials stores more energy in the high frequencies, therefor loss in high frequncy is more apperent in cheaper cables then in high end cables wich use better insulation. All my tests with cables concur this. The better the cable(teflon used), the better the high regions are, better high extension.

 Where high end cables excel is in extended bottom and high frequencies! Also more micro detail! because the signal with teflon insulation is less distorted._

 

The problem with this is that even with poorly designed cables that have higher than normal capacitance, the high end frequency roll off is going to be way above the audible frequency range. And that's for really bad cable. Take any quality cable (belden, canare, mogami...) and they will all have very low capacitance. 

 Not to mention the effect of capacitance on a power cable that is moving 60hz A/C. It just isn't a factor.


----------



## markl

Steve Hoffman's *cables* cost way more than most of our entire systems.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The problem with this is that even with poorly designed cables that have higher than normal capacitance, the high end frequency roll off is going to be way above the audible frequency range. And that's for really bad cable. Take any quality cable (belden, canare, mogami...) and they will all have very low capacitance. 

 Not to mention the effect of capacitance on a power cable that is moving 60hz A/C. It just isn't a factor._

 

Unfortunately that is not the practise: i have heard and tested many good cables in years and the best(high end) simply have better extension in the high end and low bottom. I have tested from cheap to high end and i could hear constantly an improvement in resolution, speed, transparency, neutrality, body and musicality. The best cables have the best of all the features i mentioned above. No detectable own signature have only the most high end cables, most cheaper cables have often a signature of their own.

 If i compare my last IC to the high end one i have now i would loose 50% in detail and transparency and especially in body and musicality! And it was not a cheap cable!

 So, to be blunt: some are just much beter then others in al respects that matter to music.

 you have to hear for yourself what you're missing compared to the one you are currently using. And i am quite sure you will miss most in the high regions.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Steve Hoffman's *cables* cost way more than most of our entire systems. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

well, on the youtube movie of the greek audiophile club the most expensive set was 200.000 euro's.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I don't even come close but i am sure that some others will have fine systems as well.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Steve Hoffman's *cables* cost way more than most of our entire systems. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yes but that is not the standard, and not a practice that will be extended, unfortunatelly for us... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW and as a side note, we all have heard better recordings than these in which he has been involved, but his job is very good no doubt of that...


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes I fully agree with you on that, time is a factor that ruins eveything, that is why many musicians nowdays have their own recording studios and get very good results that way...Adn of course used equipment is crucial, but not the determinating factor, is better to know what you have, and to know how to use what you have in an optimal way other than going for new more expensive and better gear sometimes...we have excellent recordings from the 50's, 60's, the gear used back then, was far worst than the one we have nowdays in that same studio...

 Yes a better cable will help of course, but as you same stated the ones they use, are not that bad, and they have most of the times other limitations that maybe need to be improved that will offer a more rewarding result, than upgrading the cables alone...._

 

RCA made some excellent tube recordings! remastered they are still on top of the new recordings. Tubes in the 40-50-60's were superior to the new tube stuff made today! The best tubes are still NOS tubes of that period. And the increase in sound quality is not trivial. i switched from good to the best NOS tubes in amy tube amp and they are really much better!


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Thelonious Monk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_are you poking fun at me or serious?_

 

Serious question.


----------



## ken36

I've never been a believer in high end cables. Except for the headphones of course.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In comparisson most normal cd's sound like recorded with getto blasters. especially the commercial cd's._

 

No, they were mastered _*for*_ ghetto blasters. *That* is the difference.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ken36* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've never been a believer in high end cables. Except for the headphones of course._

 

Strange, you hear differences in high end aftermarket cables for headphones but you don't believe in high end IC's?! quite contradictive.


----------



## chesebert

Here is an experiment for all whom are still interested in whether hi-end cable makes a difference and whether RLC are the only parameters in signal prorogation in audio frequency.

 1. make a 1m cable using copper, measure RLC
 2. make a cable using aluminum (the length is based on the RLC calculation), matching the RLC of the copper (just do the math)
 3. plug them between your source and amp
 4. report back on what you hear.


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Steve Hoffman's *cables* cost way more than most of our entire systems. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Bob Ludwig is even more audiophile obsessed than Hoffman, check out this discussion of studio gear he uses.........yes his audio cables cost more than our systems, even his patch cords!

_"I use bridged Cello Performance Mark II amplifiers capable of producing something like 3,000 watt peaks. I use the new utterly amazing Transparent Audio Opus MM Speaker cables and even my patch cords are made using Transparent Audio cable"_

Ludwig

 That article was a few years ago so he probably has made "upgrades" since then, those Transparent speaker cables are @30k a pair


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is an experiment for all whom are still interested in whether hi-end cable makes a difference and whether RLC are the only parameters in signal prorogation in audio frequency.

 1. make a 1m cable using copper, measure RLC
 2. make a cable using aluminum (the length is based on the RLC calculation), matching the RLC of the copper (just do the math)_

 

Yes, it is common knowledge that conductors of different materials sound different.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_3. plug them between your source and amp_

 

This is where the problem starts, most of non-believers have only done this once!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_4. report back on what you hear._

 

Cables don't make a difference!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Now, I'm off to all of the different cables manufactures' websites to check out their specifications on RLC so, I can figure out which cable will fit best in my system. I won't listen to it though.


----------



## mlhm5

The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies. 

 In a published article even 11 of the audiophiles at Stereo Review were unable to tell the difference between expensive speaker cables and 16AWG lamp cord.

 Surprised? Well you should not be.

 As far as hearing, well the smallest step-change in amplitude that can be detected is about 0.3dB for a pure tone. In situations we are discussing (not in an audiologist's office) it is more realistic to say 0.5 to 1.0dB which is about a 10% change.

 The smallest detectable change in frequency of a pure tone is about 0.2% in the band 500Hz-2kHz (in a booth at an audiologist's office) and this is the parameter for which the ear is most sensitive. 

 What's going on in these discussions of cable differences is circular reasoning (from Logics), that is the proposition to be proved (there is an actual difference among cables) is assumed at some point in the argument of which cable sounds better than another.

 Let me quote a great science fiction, get that fiction, author Issac Asimov.

_"Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? 

 Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?

 No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.

 One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"

 "Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. 

 I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." _


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 Yes, it is common knowledge that conductors of different materials sound different. 
 

Yes, but at what point is it audible?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, but at what point is it audible?_

 

When people start writing in these forums they here a difference.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." _[/i]

 


 Especially the last part is interesting.

 so, for cables you need more then proof to convince people.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 proof beyond proof.........
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i rather listen to the cables and decide wich one sounds best.


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, but at what point is it audible?_

 

The differences are so large between some cables I don't even have to have the headphones on my head to tell a difference.


----------



## mlhm5

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Especially the last part is interesting.

 so, for cables you need more then proof to convince people.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 proof beyond proof.........
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i rather listen to the cables and decide wich one sounds best._

 

If 11 "golden ear" audiophiles at Stereo Review, in a published article, could not tell the difference between 16AWG zip cord and expensive speaker cables, an average person has the right to persuaded by compelling evidence rather than by prejudice, bias, or uncritical thinking, before accepting the premise there are sonic differences between cables.


----------



## imported_Matt_Carter

*END CABLES - The truth revealed! (personal opinion only)*??

 I vote permanent ban!


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Matt_Carter* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*END CABLES - The truth revealed! (personal opinion only)*??

 I vote permanent ban!_

 

x2. I vote for ban on all cable related debates (in contrast with mere discussion)


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If 11 "golden ear" audiophiles at Stereo Review, in a published article, could not tell the difference between 16AWG zip cord and expensive speaker cables, an average person has the right to persuaded by compelling evidence rather than by prejudice, bias, or uncritical thinking, before accepting the premise there are sonic differences between cables._

 

Stereo Review was a joke, and anyone with any credibility at all knows this. They had a strict agenda to follow, and any opinion that did not mirror that was not published.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is an experiment for all whom are still interested in whether hi-end cable makes a difference and whether RLC are the only parameters in signal prorogation in audio frequency.

 1. make a 1m cable using copper, measure RLC
 2. make a cable using aluminum (the length is based on the RLC calculation), matching the RLC of the copper (just do the math)
 3. plug them between your source and amp
 4. report back on what you hear._

 

I might just do that. But if they the electric parameters of the cable are the same, they will sound the same. 

 Because the signal going in and out of one will be exactly as the other in respect to amplitude, frequency, and phase shift. So if the signal coming out of both cables is the same how can they sound different? They can't. It's the same exact signal. Are the formulas for figuring the effects of circuits on a given frequency different for different metals? They are not.

 Two cables that measure the same are going to sound the same. Regardless of price point and perceived quality Can you hear the difference between two cable that measure different. Sure because they are going to have a difference amplitude and phase characteristic. But it's all measurable.

 My original argument was over the use of power cables where due to the frequency range the effects of L an C of a cable are not a factor leaving only R.


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But if they the electric parameters of the cable are the same, they will sound the same._

 

Do you know of any different manufacturers of cables where the electrical parameters are exactly the same? If you do, please let me know so I can buy one of each, and try them out. I like throwing my money down the toliet.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I might just do that. But if they the electric parameters of the cable are the same, they will sound the same. 

 Because the signal going in and out of one will be exactly as the other in respect to amplitude, frequency, and phase shift. So if the signal coming out of both cables is the same how can they sound different? They can't. It's the same exact signal. Are the formulas for figuring the effects of circuits on a given frequency different for different metals? They are not.

 Two cables that measure the same are going to sound the same. Regardless of price point and perceived quality Can you hear the difference between two cable that measure different. Sure because they are going to have a difference amplitude and phase characteristic. But it's all measurable.

 My original argument was over the use of power cables where due to the frequency range the effects of L an C of a cable are not a factor leaving only R._

 

They cannot, if a copper and a silver core measure the same then they still gonna sound different. Silver sounds softer then copper. It's a fact!

 Silverplating or none, it's gonna influence the sound, no matter how they measure, a thicker silverplating gives more body!

 If two caps measure the same then they still sound very different: the internals are completely different!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I might just do that. But if they the electric parameters of the cable are the same, they will sound the same. 

 Because the signal going in and out of one will be exactly as the other in respect to amplitude, frequency, and phase shift. So if the signal coming out of both cables is the same how can they sound different? They can't. It's the same exact signal. Are the formulas for figuring the effects of circuits on a given frequency different for different metals? They are not.

 Two cables that measure the same are going to sound the same. Regardless of price point and perceived quality Can you hear the difference between two cable that measure different. Sure because they are going to have a difference amplitude and phase characteristic. But it's all measurable.

 My original argument was over the use of power cables where due to the frequency range the effects of L an C of a cable are not a factor leaving only R._

 

They cannot, if a copper and a silver core measure the same then they still gonna sound different. Silver sounds softer then copper and gives more detail in the upper end. It's a fact!

 Silverplating or none, it's gonna influence the sound, no matter how they measure, a thicker silverplating gives more body!

 And copper and silver will never measure the same, even if you used the same plug!

 Don't forget frequency loss due to the crystal structure used in the core, all add up to a better cable.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CRESCENDOPOWER* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Stereo Review was a joke, and anyone with any credibility at all knows this. They had a strict agenda to follow, and any opinion that did not mirror that was not published._

 

Think about it... If you were a hifi magazine, and you were going to be biased one way or the other about cables... wouldn't you be biased on the side of your advertisers?... the people who sell those pricey cables?

 As for opinions... all opinions are definitely NOT created equal. If they required hard evidence to back up opinions before publishing them, that's a good thing in my book.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They cannot, if a copper and a silver core measure the same then they still gonna sound different. Silver sounds softer then copper and gives more detail in the upper end. It's a fact!

 Silverplating or none, it's gonna influence the sound, no matter how they measure, a thicker silverplating gives more body!

 And copper and silver will never measure the same, even if you used the same plug!

 Don't forget frequency loss due to the crystal structure used in the core, all add up to a better cable._

 

cooper and silver are too close in their periodic position for *naamanf* to hear a difference. I think he should really start with Cu vs Al 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If he can't hear a difference, God help him..actually he really should visit a doctor if that happens


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Silver sounds softer then copper.
 a thicker silverplating gives more body!_

 

Using that logic, a black cable sounds darker and a skinny cable sounds thin.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_cooper and silver are too close in their periodic position for *naamanf* to hear a difference. I think he should really start with Cu vs Al 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If he can't hear a difference, God help him..actually he really should visit a doctor if that happens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Here we go again. Yet again you can't back up what you are saying by any logical explanation let alone scientific reasoning. All you can do is through around childish insults. I would expect more from someone that claims to be an EE and have a good working knowledge of electricity.

 The fact of the matter is anything that can be heard can be measured. No magic to it. 

 The logic that a cable has to cost thousands of dollars to be considered quality is ludicrous and beyond reason.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They cannot, if a copper and a silver core measure the same then they still gonna sound different. Silver sounds softer then copper and gives more detail in the upper end. It's a fact!

 Silverplating or none, it's gonna influence the sound, no matter how they measure, a thicker silverplating gives more body!_

 

Really? Why?

 If they measured the same the signal flowing through them would be the same. If the signal is the same there is no way they could sound different. That's the only fact to it.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here we go again. Yet again you can't back up what you are saying by any logical explanation let alone scientific reasoning. All you can do is through around childish insults. I would expect more from someone that claims to be an EE and have a good working knowledge of electricity.

 The fact of the matter is anything that can be heard can be measured. No magic to it. 

 The logic that a cable has to cost thousands of dollars to be considered quality is ludicrous and beyond reason._

 

do you know how electrical signal is propagated on a molecular level? 

 Here are some hints: valance electron, energy level, electron excitement, level jump. 

 If you can't figure out why Cu is a better conductor than Al? and Why is Ag a better conductor than Cu? I have nothing more to say. You lack basic engineering/scientific knowledge. 

 You need to explain this to me so I know you passed at least high school science class 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And while you are using Google for your answer you might as well look up propagation and phase delays.

 It's quite sad when the ones who lacked knowledge hold views that are incorrect, and yet are so stubborn that they ignore the ones with the knowledge.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 If you can't figure out why Cu is a better conductor than Al? and Why is Ag a better conductor than Cu? I have nothing more to say. You lack basic engineering/scientific knowledge. 
 

Just because it is a better conductor, does not mean it is going to sound better. I made an interconnect our of a paper clip and scotch tape and I would love to hear someone tell me it sounds different than silver or copper.

 Yes, I used my own ears and did not take measurements. It sounded exactly the same as a copper IC. Theoretically they should sound like night and day correct?


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_x2. I vote for ban on all cable related debates (in contrast with mere discussion)_

 

You're not debating, or discussing. You're patronizing, and it's getting really, really tiresome. If you are half as smart or educated as you claim to be, you should be able to put forth a cogent argument rather than just resorting to flinging insults anytime someone says something that you disagree with.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's quite sad when the ones who lacked knowledge hold views that are incorrect, and yet are so stubborn that they ignore the ones with the knowledge._

 

Maybe those with the knowledge have failed to provide a convincing argument, based in a real scientific explanation, to those stubborn, that lack of the proper knowledge...(instead of the same yada yada of that I hear this and that)


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're not debating, or discussing. You're patronizing, and it's getting really, really tiresome. If you are half as smart or educated as you claim to be, you should be able to put forth a cogent argument rather than just resorting to flinging insults anytime someone says something that you disagree with._

 

1. please identify any so called "insults" which you have accused me of.

 2. I have already put forth much parameters that could effect the sound. 

 3. There is no argument, there is only fact. Argument is a response to an issue, which inherently has two or more sides; yet what we have here is a problem with one correct answer.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_do you know how electrical signal is propagated on a molecular level? 

 Here are some hints: valance electron, energy level, electron excitement, level jump. 

 If you can't figure out why Cu is a better conductor than Al? and Why is Ag a better conductor than Cu? I have nothing more to say. You lack basic engineering/scientific knowledge. 

 You need to explain this to me so I know you passed at least high school science class 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 And while you are using Google for your answer you might as well look up propagation and phase delays.

 It's quite sad when the ones who lacked knowledge hold views that are incorrect, and yet are so stubborn that they ignore the ones with the knowledge._

 

They are better conductors. I never disagreed with that. But when the resistance is the same between two wires, regardless of composition, current flow will be the same. 

 Are you saying that a silver cable with a resistance of one ohm is different than a copper one that is also one ohm? That's like saying a pound of bricks is heavier than a pound of feathers. 

 Phase delay? The phase delay is there and can be calculated again with RLC (back to RLC again
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ). The fact of the matter is that the phase delay even for a very poorly designed cable is to small to be distinguished with human hearing. But yet again it can all be calculated. Yet again you are being childish.

 The effects of signal propagation are also all calculated by RLC. Also the effects of signal propagation and the need to properly match cables with input/output impedance isn't a factor until the frequency of the signal is over 100khz (roughly). Way beyond human hearing. And I though you knew this stuff?


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Maybe those with the knowledge have failed to provide a convincing argument, based in a real scientific explanation, to those stubborn, that lack of the proper knowledge...(instead of the same yada yada of that I hear this and that)_

 

answer these 3 questions before we continue:

 1. Sound is made up of superimposing of various electric wave at difference frequencies. Do you agree?

 2. If the there is a difference in electron prorogation, then there is a difference in the waveform. Do you agree?

 3. If there is a difference in waveform, then there is a difference in sound. Do you agree?






 I guess it doesn't hurt to do a little more explanations, but no equations because I don't remember them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I guess I can give you some of my background. since I don't do any actual engineering these days 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BSEE University of Michigan Ann Arbor
 Circuit/VLSI design IBM PowerPC Team (I don't work for IBM anymore)


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_answer these 3 questions before we continue:

 1. Sound is made up of superimposing of various electric wave at difference frequencies. Do you agree?

 2. If the there is a difference in electron prorogation, then there is a difference in the waveform. Do you agree?

 3. If there is a difference in waveform, then there is a difference in sound. Do you agree?_

 

Yes I agree in all 3, but that doesn't imply that those differences are necesarily big enough to be taken into consideration or heard...also temperature, weather conditions, humidity will affect them, that doesn't mean that you need a completelly controlled enviroment to listen music, OK? There certain levels of sanity in audio as well...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You probably know that the level of tolerances are not set by random, sometimes you will not get any better tangible result going any further once you reach certain level, or maybe is possible that some of those differences are more noticeable at other frequencias above or below the audio spectrum, not sure if this explains whay so many people do not believe in those differences...BTW in some way I do, OK?


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_answer these 3 questions before we continue:

 1. Sound is made up of superimposing of various electric wave at difference frequencies. Do you agree?

 2. If the there is a difference in electron prorogation, then there is a difference in the waveform. Do you agree?

 3. If there is a difference in waveform, then there is a difference in sound. Do you agree?






 I guess it doesn't hurt to do a little more explanations, but no equations because I don't remember them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

1. Or a wave of varying frequency and amplitude. 

 2. There sure is. But that difference is different for any given frequency and is dependent on the properties of the cable (RLC again) and impedance of the device being used. And those differences are amplitude and phase.

 3. Yes and no. There is a level at which human hearing (that's all humans. Evan those that think they have super hearing.) can't detect a difference in amplitude and phase.

 4. If a person can hear a difference in the sound it can be measured. 

 5. If they measure the same they will sound the same. If you take cable X that costs $10,000 dollars and sounds the best to person A and find another cable that measures the same as cable X but you found at Walmart, it will will sound the same to person A. Why? Because if two cables change the phase and amplitude the same the signal will be the same. 

 6. This still does nothing to explain how a power cable could change the output of a components power supply.

 7. This also doesn't bring into argument on what the amplitude and phase change a human can actually hear. 

 8. Maybe you should do some math on a cable to see what the changes are and if they are within a humans hearing ability.

 9. Why wouldn't a high end cable manufacturer publish all the specs of a cable? Is it because they don't want someone to copy their magic, or someone to figure out they are no better than any other cable.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The fact of the matter is anything that can be heard can be measured._

 

Is that a fact?
 How did you prove that?


----------



## Happy Camper

To the vets here, of course you are right. Your patience is appreciated. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was given my first lesson today with ICs. I was given 30 seconds of the same music with each cable a/b through a system. I did this a few times and couldn't hear any difference. I was listening for the instrument tones, background noise, any change of the sound.........everything but the music. 

 I was told to tap my foot to the rhythm. The timing of the instruments were skewed with the wrong cables. The recordings were hard to listen to as each instrument's timing was slightly off. The right cable had me tapping multiple rhythms like a conductor. The instruments blended into single notes in unison. Miles Davis and Eric Clapton was used to demonstrate so the live performances were outstanding. 

 Second was the emotion of the artist. My level of concentration did not recall the lyrics or emotional condition of the singer with the bad cable. Of Layla. A song I've listened to for most of my life. The right cable sounded like Eric was in the room with me. The presence grabbed my attention & I felt Eric was performing for me. Eric's painful sarcasm of Layla's indecisiveness. He is hopelessly in love and begging her to decide. How do you measure emotion?

 Most of us non-musicians listen to music differently. It's more of a sensory occupation while engaging in other tasks. What I call ear bubblegum. When your senses are in tune with the music, you are almost in a trance. Makes it hard to do anything else. So RLC differences do affect the sound IMO. Having the right IC will make a difference. But the wrong one will make a bigger difference. 

 He also suggested replacing the toslink cable so next week, I start testing my system with stock, computer and audio grade optical and three different makers entry ICs. Once I find a maker that has the most impact on the sound, I can try the vertical quality based on price. 

 On a short sidetrack. This is why the independent specialist earns his money and should be supported. Chain stores couldn't do this. They wouldn't know how. The specialist can teach you the listening skills to hear the differences. Kudos Lou. 

 Thank you good folks for making me aware of the possibilities. And damn you head-fi


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is that a fact?
 How did you prove that?_

 

How do you think music is recorded?


----------



## chesebert

*Fundamental Understanding of the Transmission line*

*Metallic bond and its effect on signal propagation*
 The propagation of signal through an element is directly affect by the atomic makeup of that element. Atoms are made up of the nucleolus and a cloud of electrons. The cloud of electrons are usually represented by energy levels, where the electrons with the highest energies hang out in the outer layer while the weaker ones are closer to the core. Valance electron is the electron that hangs in the outer most rim of the electron cloud. In order to conduct current, which is the transfer of energy from one electron to another, or you can call it drift current, the valance electron must be able to move around. Metallic bound, unlike covalent or ionic bound, do not restrict the movement of their valance electrons. Although semiconductors are the exception with covalent bound (that's another topic all together).

 So why is one metal a better conductor than the other? The simple answer is the more levels of energy a given metal has, the better it conducts electricity. The easier and less restrictive the movement of the electron the better it conduct electricity. One of the most important reasons is that when valance electrons are further from the core, there is less positive force pulling on it and since the valance electrons are usually the stronger ones that jumped from the level below, it has enough energy to 'swim' around the cloud. When an electric field is applied to the element, the energy is transferred from one electron to another and from one atom to another down the chain. Ag is a larger atom than Cu, but both have 2 valance, so they are pretty good conductors, with Ag being the better of the 2. Al, on the other hand, is pretty bad. It has 3 valance electrons and the atom is small. So the electric energy is freely passed in Ag and Cu, but is no so in Al.

 In theory, the speed of propagation is c (speed of light, 3x10^8m/s), but there is loss in energy when one electron hand over the energy to another electron and to another electron. Thus, the propagation delay is material dependent. Cu has a theoretical propagation of 66.667%c or (2x10^8m/s). This, of course, does not count any boundary electron jump between bonding materials (solder).

 So what is phase delay? Phase delay is a shift of the waveform in the time domain.

*Voltage drop across transmission line*
 To calculate voltage drop across a transmission line, the propagation delay and the frequency which the signal is traveling at is important.

 V1 = V0 cos(w(t-l/c)) where w= 2pif. And c is the speed which the energy travels. and l is the length of the cable

 The determining factor in voltage drop is wl/c. By comparing theoretical c to the c of the copper, the power loss is measurable. One also need to taken into account the dispersive effects of the material, which for cu, I am not sure what that is. Dispersive effects are generally thought as different frequency propagate at different speed, so not only do you have phase delay of the superposed waveform, there is a phase delay in different frequency components as well!

*How to properly calculate RLGC in Coaxial Cable*

 The Coaxial Cables are constructed with two coaxial conductors separated by dielectrics (of course conventional construction includes an outer layer of shielding).

 R = (Rs/(2pi))(1/a+1/b) where a=2r(inner) and b=2r(outer), and Rs= sqrt(pi(f)(uc)(qc)) where uc = magnetic permeability and qc = electric conductivity (sorry no roman letters

 As you can see, the resistance is a function of frequency and R is independent of V1 where V1 is the voltage drop due to propagation and again R is not dependent on phase delay and dispersion effects. Also notice the math does not involve any effect of the imperfect dielectric and electron deposition. 

 L = u/(2pi) x ln(b/a) Again no baring on phase delay

 G = (2pi*q)/(ln(b/a))

 C = (2pi(e))/ln(b/a)

 Notice none of the RLGC is responsible for power loss, phase delay and dispersion effects and R is a function of frequency.

 Now if you look the transmission line equation

 -dV/dz = (R+jwl)I(z) and -dI(z)/dz = (G+jwC)V(z)

 Now if differentiate both sides, you will arrive with (y) or complex propagation constant, which is y=alpha + jbeta

 Alpha = Re(sqrt((R+jwL)(G+jwC))
 Beta = Re(sqft((R+jwl)(G+jwC))

 So basically, after doing all the math, the traditional RLC measurements are not only inaccurate, its down right faulty as RLC is a function of frequency at which the wave travels, and is dependent on the electrical permittivity, magnetic permittivity, and electrical conductivity of the individual material. This however does not even consider the power loss or dispersive effects. 

 I hope the above analysis answers some questions regarding why a manufacturer may want to optimize multiple areas of the cable to give it a lower propagation delay, optimize RLGC with different material and also optimize RLGC with the use of novel geometries. _Of course you can ignore this entire discussion and just use your ear._


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Using that logic, a black cable sounds darker and a skinny cable sounds thin.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

You always sound silly, no matter what logic YOU use.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am not kidding. Due to patricks research and my own, i know thicker silverplating results in more body in the sound. The valkyrja has thinner silverplating, is more detailed but has less body. The valhalla has thicker silverplating and has even more body! Since the used cores are the same and only the silverplating is different, yes, i can conclude that the thicker the silverplating, the more body you get but you also loose some details.

 I also have other cables with silverplating wich is much thinner then Nordost is using and they sound considderably thinner!

 For powercables, the thicker the core, the more body you get, the thinner, the better the focus is but less body and warmth.

 I know you never tried anything at all.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Fundamental Understanding of the Transmission line*

*Metallic bond and its effect on signal propagation*
 The propagation of signal through an element is directly affect by the atomic makeup of that element. Atoms are made up of the nucleolus and a cloud of electrons. The cloud of electrons are usually represented by energy levels, where the electrons with the highest energies hang out in the outer layer while the weaker ones are closer to the core. Valance electron is the electron that hangs in the outer most rim of the electron cloud. In order to conduct current, which is the transfer of energy from one electron to another, or you can call it drift current, the valance electron must be able to move around. Metallic bound, unlike covalent or ionic bound, do not restrict the movement of their valance electrons. Although semiconductors are the exception with covalent bound (that's another topic all together).

 So why is one metal a better conductor than the other? The simple answer is the more levels of energy a given metal has, the better it conducts electricity. The easier and less restrictive the movement of the electron the better it conduct electricity. One of the most important reasons is that when valance electrons are further from the core, there is less positive force pulling on it and since the valance electrons are usually the stronger ones that jumped from the level below, it has enough energy to 'swim' around the cloud. When an electric field is applied to the element, the energy is transferred from one electron to another and from one atom to another down the chain. Ag is a larger atom than Cu, but both have 2 valance, so they are pretty good conductors, with Ag being the better of the 2. Al, on the other hand, is pretty bad. It has 3 valance electrons and the atom is small. So the electric energy is freely passed in Ag and Cu, but is no so in Al.

 In theory, the speed of propagation is c (speed of light, 3x10^8m/s), but there is loss in energy when one electron hand over the energy to another electron and to another electron. Thus, the propagation delay is material dependent. Cu has a theoretical propagation of 66.667%c or (2x10^8m/s). This, of course, does not count any boundary electron jump between bonding materials (solder).

 So what is phase delay? Phase delay is a shift of the waveform in the time domain.

*Voltage drop across transmission line*
 To calculate voltage drop across a transmission line, the propagation delay and the frequency which the signal is traveling at is important.

 V1 = V0 cos(w(t-l/c)) where w= 2pif. And c is the speed which the energy travels. and l is the length of the cable

 The determining factor in voltage drop is wl/c. By comparing theoretical c to the c of the copper, the power loss is measurable. One also need to taken into account the dispersive effects of the material, which for cu, I am not sure what that is. Dispersive effects are generally thought as different frequency propagate at different speed, so not only do you have phase delay of the superposed waveform, there is a phase delay in different frequency components as well!

*How to properly calculate RLGC in Coaxial Cable*

 The Coaxial Cables are constructed with two coaxial conductors separated by dielectrics (of course conventional construction includes an outer layer of shielding).

 R = (Rs/(2pi))(1/a+1/b) where a=2r(inner) and b=2r(outer), and Rs= sqrt(pi(f)(uc)(qc)) where uc = magnetic permeability and qc = electric conductivity (sorry no roman letters

 As you can see, the resistance is a function of frequency and R is independent of V1 where V1 is the voltage drop due to propagation and again R is not dependent on phase delay and dispersion effects. Also notice the math does not involve any effect of the imperfect dielectric and electron deposition. 

 L = u/(2pi) x ln(b/a) Again no baring on phase delay

 G = (2pi*q)/(ln(b/a))

 C = (2pi(e))/ln(b/a)

 Notice none of the RLGC is responsible for power loss, phase delay and dispersion effects and R is a function of frequency.

 Now if you look the transmission line equation

 -dV/dz = (R+jwl)I(z) and -dI(z)/dz = (G+jwC)V(z)

 Now if differentiate both sides, you will arrive with (y) or complex propagation constant, which is y=alpha + jbeta

 Alpha = Re(sqrt((R+jwL)(G+jwC))
 Beta = Re(sqft((R+jwl)(G+jwC))

 So basically, after doing all the math, the traditional RLC measurements are not only inaccurate, its down right faulty as RLC is a function of frequency at which the wave travels, and is dependent on the electrical permittivity, magnetic permittivity, and electrical conductivity of the individual material. This however does not even consider the power loss or dispersive effects. 

 I hope the above analysis answers some questions regarding why a manufacturer may want to optimize multiple areas of the cable to give it a lower propagation delay, optimize RLGC with different material and also optimize RLGC with the use of novel geometries. Of course you can ignore this entire discussion and just use your ear.



_

 

Interesting read!

 If you take the ohno single crystal process, then the flow of the current is even more efficient. The crystal structure is one single crystal and has no boundaries in the atom structure, because of this it measures even much better then a normal constructed coppercable. frequency loss is much less, resistance is much less.

 You understand that this technique is more expensive then ordinairy cables and you know why some high end cables are simlpy more expensive.....add good plugs like the silver eichmann's and you'll know why some sound much better!

 So, if you all know this, you know why it is so difficult to make really good IC's and needs lots of research and why the top end is sooo expensive.


----------



## jamesb

i really appreciate your efforts to explain this stuff cheesebert.
 having spent several years (before quiting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) as a physics undergrad i am aware of the mess coaxial cable can make of a signal, having done experiments with oscilloscopes etc. of course this was with signals in the 1 MHz range and quite long cables (30m+) (see you've made me go and read my old lab notebook - shame on you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

*anyone got any typical figures for those variables so we could do the calculations and see what order of magnitude the differences between cables are ?*

 i think we need to remember that the debate is not that there is no difference between cables - most cables have slightly different properties i would have thought- the issue is if those differences lead to differences in sound that could be detected by the human ear.
 (not talking about power cables, which is a different argument imho)

 to be honest i am undecided about the issue, and i dont have the money to investigate and try out cables, which is why i do find it a bit frustrating when people say 'just listen - you will hear the difference', especially since some people who have listened to cables were unable to hear a difference.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Fundamental Understanding of the Transmission line*

*Metallic bond and its effect on signal propagation*
 The propagation of signal through an element is directly affect by the atomic makeup of that element. Atoms are made up of the nucleolus and a cloud of electrons. The cloud of electrons are usually represented by energy levels, where the electrons with the highest energies hang out in the outer layer while the weaker ones are closer to the core. Valance electron is the electron that hangs in the outer most rim of the electron cloud. In order to conduct current, which is the transfer of energy from one electron to another, or you can call it drift current, the valance electron must be able to move around. Metallic bound, unlike covalent or ionic bound, do not restrict the movement of their valance electrons. Although semiconductors are the exception with covalent bound (that's another topic all together).

 So why is one metal a better conductor than the other? The simple answer is the more levels of energy a given metal has, the better it conducts electricity. The easier and less restrictive the movement of the electron the better it conduct electricity. One of the most important reasons is that when valance electrons are further from the core, there is less positive force pulling on it and since the valance electrons are usually the stronger ones that jumped from the level below, it has enough energy to 'swim' around the cloud. When an electric field is applied to the element, the energy is transferred from one electron to another and from one atom to another down the chain. Ag is a larger atom than Cu, but both have 2 valance, so they are pretty good conductors, with Ag being the better of the 2. Al, on the other hand, is pretty bad. It has 3 valance electrons and the atom is small. So the electric energy is freely passed in Ag and Cu, but is no so in Al.

 In theory, the speed of propagation is c (speed of light, 3x10^8m/s), but there is loss in energy when one electron hand over the energy to another electron and to another electron. Thus, the propagation delay is material dependent. Cu has a theoretical propagation of 66.667%c or (2x10^8m/s). This, of course, does not count any boundary electron jump between bonding materials (solder).

 So what is phase delay? Phase delay is a shift of the waveform in the time domain.

*Voltage drop across transmission line*
 To calculate voltage drop across a transmission line, the propagation delay and the frequency which the signal is traveling at is important.

 V1 = V0 cos(w(t-l/c)) where w= 2pif. And c is the speed which the energy travels. and l is the length of the cable

 The determining factor in voltage drop is wl/c. By comparing theoretical c to the c of the copper, the power loss is measurable. One also need to taken into account the dispersive effects of the material, which for cu, I am not sure what that is. Dispersive effects are generally thought as different frequency propagate at different speed, so not only do you have phase delay of the superposed waveform, there is a phase delay in different frequency components as well!

*How to properly calculate RLGC in Coaxial Cable*

 The Coaxial Cables are constructed with two coaxial conductors separated by dielectrics (of course conventional construction includes an outer layer of shielding).

 R = (Rs/(2pi))(1/a+1/b) where a=2r(inner) and b=2r(outer), and Rs= sqrt(pi(f)(uc)(qc)) where uc = magnetic permeability and qc = electric conductivity (sorry no roman letters

 As you can see, the resistance is a function of frequency and R is independent of V1 where V1 is the voltage drop due to propagation and again R is not dependent on phase delay and dispersion effects. Also notice the math does not involve any effect of the imperfect dielectric and electron deposition. 

 L = u/(2pi) x ln(b/a) Again no baring on phase delay

 G = (2pi*q)/(ln(b/a))

 C = (2pi(e))/ln(b/a)

 Notice none of the RLGC is responsible for power loss, phase delay and dispersion effects and R is a function of frequency.

 Now if you look the transmission line equation

 -dV/dz = (R+jwl)I(z) and -dI(z)/dz = (G+jwC)V(z)

 Now if differentiate both sides, you will arrive with (y) or complex propagation constant, which is y=alpha + jbeta

 Alpha = Re(sqrt((R+jwL)(G+jwC))
 Beta = Re(sqft((R+jwl)(G+jwC))

 So basically, after doing all the math, the traditional RLC measurements are not only inaccurate, its down right faulty as RLC is a function of frequency at which the wave travels, and is dependent on the electrical permittivity, magnetic permittivity, and electrical conductivity of the individual material. This however does not even consider the power loss or dispersive effects. 

 I hope the above analysis answers some questions regarding why a manufacturer may want to optimize multiple areas of the cable to give it a lower propagation delay, optimize RLGC with different material and also optimize RLGC with the use of novel geometries. Of course you can ignore this entire discussion and just use your ear.



_

 

Interesting read!

 If you take the ohno single crystal process, then the flow of the current is even more efficient. The crystal structure is one single crystal and has no boundaries in the atom structure, because of this it measures even much better then a normal constructed coppercable. frequency loss is much less, resistance is much less.

 You understand that this techneque is more expensive then ordinairy cables and you know why some high end cables are simlpy more expensive.....add good plugs like the silver eichmann's and you'll know why some sound much better!

 One of the other things to considder is the isolation material. Teflon is the best! We know that all material stores energy and releases it back into the core, if it cannot turn the energy into heat. Without exception every material behaves like this.Teflon leaks the least of all materials and is also really good for heat, both important aspects of an isolation material since you want less as possible leakage back into the core, wich results in phase shifts and frequency loss but the rest of the energy dissapated as heat. teflon can stand alot of heat and insures that the material won't get hot!

 If you add the best crystal structure, the best isolation materials and the best plugs, you'll end up with darn good IC or power cable.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jamesb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i really appreciate your efforts to explain this stuff cheesebert.
 having spent several years (before quiting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) as a physics undergrad i am aware of the mess coaxial cable can make of a signal, having done experiments with oscilloscopes etc. of course this was with signals in the 1 MHz range and quite long cables (30m+) (see you've made me go and read my old lab notebook - shame on you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

*anyone got any typical figures for those variables so we could do the calculations and see what order of magnitude the differences between cables are ?*

 i think we need to remember that the debate is not that there is no difference between cables - most cables have slightly different properties i would have thought- the issue is if those differences lead to differences in sound that could be detected by the human ear.
 (not talking about power cables, which is a different argument imho)

 to be honest i am undecided about the issue, and i dont have the money to investigate and try out cables, which is why i do find it a bit frustrating when people say 'just listen - you will hear the difference', especially since some people who have listened to cables were unable to hear a difference._

 

True, but if you investigate further, then almost always it turnes out they tried all cables in a certain pricerange! I would expect not a really big difference in a certain pricerange, as with sources, amps and even speakers.

 But if you compare a normal cable with a high end cable it would be quite different! And i have been through whole the line (cheap to high end!)

 Because in a certain pricerange there isn't much of a difference it doesn't exclude the possability that going to the top end of the line does make a huge difference as it would with sources, amps and speakers.

 This is still true for the top of the line cables. They are simply better then the low and mid cables. As is a top high end source, a top high end speaker and a top high end amp! They sound soo much better then mid range equipment!

 Some say that cheap cables squeeze the frequency out of the set, with a top cable it can match the quality of the rest of the system and it let the frequency flow as it should be, top and bottom, where the top end cables have more extension!

 My former cable(wich wasn't cheap) was limiting my set, now i have a high end cable, i have 50% more of everything. And that is not trivial!

 This said, a site measured commercial speaker cables and IC's and were sceptic first but turned around quite quickly once they saw the results of what they measured! The difference in cables are a magnitude compared to the differences in amps! For cables it is max. 800% and in amps at the most 110% So, looking at these numbers, it is starnge that everybody does hear quite easally a difference when using different amps BUT not when changing cables!

 As for not hearing differences, well, some people run harder, some have more braincells, some are more beautiful and some hear simply better. Humans are a product of nature and we all differ, also in hearing! This also might explain why one would describe a cable as cold, the other as warm, another as detailed and last but not least not so detailed.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am not kidding. Due to patricks research and my own, i know thicker silverplating results in more body in the sound. The valkyrja has thinner silverplating, is more detailed but has less body. The valhalla has thicker silverplating and has even more body! Since the used cores are the same and only the silverplating is different, yes, i can conclude that the thicker the silverplating, the more body you get but you also loose some details.

 I also have other cables with silverplating wich is much thinner then Nordost is using and they sound considderably thinner!_

 

With my power cords and interconnects I compared 78 microns silver plating against 60 microns with a wire of the same thickness. The detail was about the same, but the one with the thinner silver plating sounded flatter with less dynamics. 

 60 microns sounded more neutral but the detail wasn't in my face, everything sounded the same and I had to focus on the music more. 

 With 78 microns the detail was emphasized and everything sounded more distinct. The background appears blacker than it should be, it seems to remove some detail which makes the background appear blacker, but it emphasizes the detail which boosts it up to the same level as with 60 microns, it sounds both blacker and whiter which gives the illusion of greater dynamics. The edginess makes each sound sound more distinct. It's a great match for mp3 because it compensates for the smearing. It's also best for trance albums because it gives faster transients with more blackness in between each transient!


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For powercables, the thicker the core, the more body you get, the thinner, the better the focus is but less body and warmth._

 

When I modified my power cords thinner it sounded thinner and brighter (brightness was masking the detail). At first I thought it was worse but later after I had tweaked my system more it sounded too dark and heavy, so I tried the modification again and it worked, I got loads of detail! Thinner cable is more revealing. The body was reduced but ERS Paper boosted the body back up. ERS Paper removed most of the brightness which revealed low-level transients I never heard before.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jamesb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i really appreciate your efforts to explain this stuff cheesebert.
 having spent several years (before quiting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) as a physics undergrad i am aware of the mess coaxial cable can make of a signal, having done experiments with oscilloscopes etc. of course this was with signals in the 1 MHz range and quite long cables (30m+) (see you've made me go and read my old lab notebook - shame on you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

*anyone got any typical figures for those variables so we could do the calculations and see what order of magnitude the differences between cables are ?*

 i think we need to remember that the debate is not that there is no difference between cables - most cables have slightly different properties i would have thought- the issue is if those differences lead to differences in sound that could be detected by the human ear.
 (not talking about power cables, which is a different argument imho)

 to be honest i am undecided about the issue, and i dont have the money to investigate and try out cables, which is why i do find it a bit frustrating when people say 'just listen - you will hear the difference', especially since some people who have listened to cables were unable to hear a difference._

 

yes, posted them in another thread wich got closed, the differences are 600% and 800% in cables.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With my power cords and interconnects I compared 78 microns silver plating against 60 microns with a wire of the same thickness. The detail was about the same, but the one with the thinner silver plating sounded flatter with less dynamics. 

 60 microns sounded more neutral but the detail wasn't in my face, everything sounded the same and I had to focus on the music more. 

 With 78 microns the detail was emphasized and everything sounded more distinct. The background appears blacker than it should be, it seems to remove some detail which makes the background appear blacker, but it emphasizes the detail which boosts it up to the same level as with 60 microns, it sounds both blacker and whiter which gives the illusion of greater dynamics. The edginess makes each sound sound more distinct. It's a great match for mp3 because it compensates for the smearing. It's also best for trance albums because it gives faster transients with more blackness in between each transient!



 When I modified my power cords thinner it sounded thinner and brighter (brightness was masking the detail). At first I thought it was worse but later after I had tweaked my system more it sounded too dark and heavy, so I tried the modification again and it worked, I got loads of detail! Thinner cable is more revealing. The body was reduced but ERS Paper boosted the body back up. ERS Paper removed most of the brightness which revealed low-level transients I never heard before._

 


 In other words, all i experienced with my experiments with cables concur with what you experienced.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was told to tap my foot to the rhythm. The timing of the instruments were skewed with the wrong cables. The recordings were hard to listen to as each instrument's timing was slightly off._

 

Do you by any chance have a minidisc, or an iriver H120 or any other type of portable recorder? I would love if you could go back to that store and record clips of those songs with the different cables that you tried. It would be very, very interesting to take those recorded clips, put them into a digital audio editor, and observe exactly how much the timing changed.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really? Why?

 If they measured the same the signal flowing through them would be the same. If the signal is the same there is no way they could sound different. That's the only fact to it._

 


 Current doesn't measure frequency loss. silver has simply more extension in the upper and lower regions and hass less frequency loss in those regions, so at the end, you'll end up with a more detailed sound, even they measure the same current wise. *There IS no way that a cable will measure the same in all aspects!*


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thank you good folks for making me aware of the possibilities. And damn you head-fi
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Well, at least you're a happy camper!


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Fundamental Understanding of the Transmission line*

*Metallic bond and its effect on signal propagation*
 The propagation of signal through an element is directly affect by the atomic makeup of that element. Atoms are made up of the nucleolus and a cloud of electrons. The cloud of electrons are usually represented by energy levels, where the electrons with the highest energies hang out in the outer layer while the weaker ones are closer to the core. Valance electron is the electron that hangs in the outer most rim of the electron cloud. In order to conduct current, which is the transfer of energy from one electron to another, or you can call it drift current, the valance electron must be able to move around. Metallic bound, unlike covalent or ionic bound, do not restrict the movement of their valance electrons. Although semiconductors are the exception with covalent bound (that's another topic all together).

 So why is one metal a better conductor than the other? The simple answer is the more levels of energy a given metal has, the better it conducts electricity. The easier and less restrictive the movement of the electron the better it conduct electricity. One of the most important reasons is that when valance electrons are further from the core, there is less positive force pulling on it and since the valance electrons are usually the stronger ones that jumped from the level below, it has enough energy to 'swim' around the cloud. When an electric field is applied to the element, the energy is transferred from one electron to another and from one atom to another down the chain. Ag is a larger atom than Cu, but both have 2 valance, so they are pretty good conductors, with Ag being the better of the 2. Al, on the other hand, is pretty bad. It has 3 valance electrons and the atom is small. So the electric energy is freely passed in Ag and Cu, but is no so in Al.

 In theory, the speed of propagation is c (speed of light, 3x10^8m/s), but there is loss in energy when one electron hand over the energy to another electron and to another electron. Thus, the propagation delay is material dependent. Cu has a theoretical propagation of 66.667%c or (2x10^8m/s). This, of course, does not count any boundary electron jump between bonding materials (solder).

 So what is phase delay? Phase delay is a shift of the waveform in the time domain.

*Voltage drop across transmission line*
 To calculate voltage drop across a transmission line, the propagation delay and the frequency which the signal is traveling at is important.

 V1 = V0 cos(w(t-l/c)) where w= 2pif. And c is the speed which the energy travels. and l is the length of the cable

 The determining factor in voltage drop is wl/c. By comparing theoretical c to the c of the copper, the power loss is measurable. One also need to taken into account the dispersive effects of the material, which for cu, I am not sure what that is. Dispersive effects are generally thought as different frequency propagate at different speed, so not only do you have phase delay of the superposed waveform, there is a phase delay in different frequency components as well!

*How to properly calculate RLGC in Coaxial Cable*

 The Coaxial Cables are constructed with two coaxial conductors separated by dielectrics (of course conventional construction includes an outer layer of shielding).

 R = (Rs/(2pi))(1/a+1/b) where a=2r(inner) and b=2r(outer), and Rs= sqrt(pi(f)(uc)(qc)) where uc = magnetic permeability and qc = electric conductivity (sorry no roman letters

 As you can see, the resistance is a function of frequency and R is independent of V1 where V1 is the voltage drop due to propagation and again R is not dependent on phase delay and dispersion effects. Also notice the math does not involve any effect of the imperfect dielectric and electron deposition. 

 L = u/(2pi) x ln(b/a) Again no baring on phase delay

 G = (2pi*q)/(ln(b/a))

 C = (2pi(e))/ln(b/a)

 Notice none of the RLGC is responsible for power loss, phase delay and dispersion effects and R is a function of frequency.

 Now if you look the transmission line equation

 -dV/dz = (R+jwl)I(z) and -dI(z)/dz = (G+jwC)V(z)

 Now if differentiate both sides, you will arrive with (y) or complex propagation constant, which is y=alpha + jbeta

 Alpha = Re(sqrt((R+jwL)(G+jwC))
 Beta = Re(sqft((R+jwl)(G+jwC))

 So basically, after doing all the math, the traditional RLC measurements are not only inaccurate, its down right faulty as RLC is a function of frequency at which the wave travels, and is dependent on the electrical permittivity, magnetic permittivity, and electrical conductivity of the individual material. This however does not even consider the power loss or dispersive effects. 

 I hope the above analysis answers some questions regarding why a manufacturer may want to optimize multiple areas of the cable to give it a lower propagation delay, optimize RLGC with different material and also optimize RLGC with the use of novel geometries. Of course you can ignore this entire discussion and just use your ear.



_

 

Okay, this has an effect at >1Mhz. What bearing does this have at 20 to 20khz?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay, this has an effect at >1Mhz. What bearing does this have at 20 to 20khz?_

 


 Simple, harmonics extend way above 20khz...a 15 or 16khz extends to 30-32khz and contains information in that region as well. If you cut off at 20khz, wich cheap cables do, then you don't have the info of the extreem highs wich top end cables have and they give you more extreem high info! This why some people like records and record players better then cd players, no limitation in the high region. records extend way above 20khz.

 If your cables can transport frequencies that only go from 20hz to 20khz, compared to a high end cable that can transport frequencies from 10hz to 40khz, you have simply more info in the lower region and the extreem highs. This is exactly what people report!
 Same effect as going from cd to sacd, wich extends way beyond 20khz and IS much more detailed then any cd. Theoretically sacd can go up to 100khz. No loss in the high region = more detailed sound, better signal/noise ratio etc.

 And there is quite clear a difference in cables concerning frequency responce, since we all know that compter cables etc. use extended frequencies for improved information transportation! For a usb 1.1 and usb 2.0 high speed you need different cables since usb 2.0 needs a greater frequency in the cable to be able to transport the bigger data troughput.

 same difference as in high end versus cheap, better extension is the frequencies = more info.


----------



## imported_Matt_Carter

So you think cables have zero influence....

 If this is your belief, explain to us why different anolog pieces carry they’re own signatures…? 
 Amps for example…?




 Really... answer this, I dare you…


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Simple, harmonics extend way above 20khz...a 15 or 16khz extends to 30-32khz and contains information in that region as well. If you cut off at 20khz, wich cheap cables do, then you don't have the info of the extreem highs wich top end cables have and they give you more extreem high info!_

 

Can you give me any examples of cheap cables that "cut off at 20kHz"? I'm not aware of any cable that operates as a low-pass filter. But, it seems to me that if such a cable exists, then that low-pass characteristic is one that can be easily measured.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Simple, harmonics extend way above 20khz...a 15 or 16khz extends to 30-32khz and contains information in that region as well. If you cut off at 20khz, wich cheap cables do, then you don't have the info of the extreem highs wich top end cables have and they give you more extreem high info!

 So to be blunt: if your cables can transport freuqnuencies that only go from 20hz to 20khz, compared to a high end cable that can transport frequencies from 10hz to 40khz, you have simply more info in the lower region and the extreem highs. This is exactly what people report!
 Same effect as going from cd to sacd, wich extends way beyond 20khz and IS much more detailed then any cd. Theoretically sacd can go up to 100khz. No loss in the high region = more detailed sound, better signal/noise ratio etc._

 

Any non broken cable will easy "transport" 0-100khz, no problem.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Matt_Carter* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So you think cables have zero influence....

 If this is your belief, explain to us why different anolog pieces carry they’re own signatures…? 
 Amps for example…?




 Really... answer this, I dare you… 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I can tell you another story;
 I auditoned an amp in an audioshop and i returned the other day and it sounded quite different. I told the guy that the same amp sounded quite different then before! He said, you're right. I modded the amp with better cables inside! He didn't tell me on purpose to see if i could hear anything different and i clearly did!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 No psycho effect cause i didn't know something was done to amp before i listened to it! Yet i could clearly hear the difference and tell exactly what differences the cable brought to the amp.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can you give me any examples of cheap cables that "cut off at 20kHz"? I'm not aware of any cable that operates as a low-pass filter. But, it seems to me that if such a cable exists, then that low-pass characteristic is one that can be easily measured._

 

Then why has a high end cable much more extension in the lower and higher regions then cheap cable? The cheap one sounds cut off, the high end cable let all the frequencies flow easally.

 As stated before rcl has influence on frequency responce as well, the best measuring cables also have much better frequency responce and way less frequency loss in the high regions, where the fall off occurs!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any non broken cable will easy "transport" 0-100khz, no problem._

 

If any cable could do it so easally then why all the differences in cables?!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So, clearly one transports the frequencies much more efficient then the other!

 And in another thread i posted measurements of that site that measured commercial speakercables and IC's and the differences were huge! 600% and 800%, so clearly not all cables do it as easy as you would me like to think! Some cables have quite clearly much more frequency loss then others, especially in the high region!


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Matt_Carter* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So you think cables have zero influence....

 If this is your belief, explain to us why different anolog pieces carry they’re own signatures…? 
 Amps for example…?




 Really... answer this, I dare you… 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

This is a type of a social fungus.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then why has a high end cable much more extension in the lower and higher regions then cheap cable? The cheap one sounds cut off, the high end cable let all the frequencies flow easally._

 

You said earlier that there are cheap cables that have a 20kHz low-pass. I asked you to identify any such cables. You haven't responded to my question.


----------



## jamesb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Matt_Carter* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So you think cables have zero influence....

 If this is your belief, explain to us why different anolog pieces carry they’re own signatures…? 
 Amps for example…?




 Really... answer this, I dare you… 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

because most decent amps sound the same?
 (if similar spec. etc.)

 sshhhhh, dont tell anyone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 *runs*


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jamesb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i really appreciate your efforts to explain this stuff cheesebert.
 having spent several years (before quiting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ) as a physics undergrad i am aware of the mess coaxial cable can make of a signal, having done experiments with oscilloscopes etc. of course this was with signals in the 1 MHz range and quite long cables (30m+) (see you've made me go and read my old lab notebook - shame on you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

*anyone got any typical figures for those variables so we could do the calculations and see what order of magnitude the differences between cables are ?*

 i think we need to remember that the debate is not that there is no difference between cables - most cables have slightly different properties i would have thought- the issue is if those differences lead to differences in sound that could be detected by the human ear.
 (not talking about power cables, which is a different argument imho)

 to be honest i am undecided about the issue, and i dont have the money to investigate and try out cables, which is why i do find it a bit frustrating when people say 'just listen - you will hear the difference', especially since some people who have listened to cables were unable to hear a difference._

 

here you go:

 i posted this in several threads about cables:

 I quote from an independent site(so, not a cable manufacturer):
 Speaker cables and interconnects represent one of the most controversial subjects in audio/video. Do they make a difference in the quality of the signal being passed from one component to another? Are they worth the price? You will find audiophiles of all degrees of experience and expertise answering these two questions with yes's and no's. Why the controversy? At least part of the answer lies in what we have been told, rather than what we have heard for ourselves. Secondly, it is difficult to define precisely what to listen for when comparing cables, and third, any particular cable may sound quite different with one set of equipment than with another.

 During the last year, we began researching some of these questions for ourselves, believing at the outset that cables probably did not make any truly noticeable improvement in sound quality. We were wrong in our assumption, and how!

 Cables do make a difference, and in order to see why, it is first necessary to understand the characteristics that affect their ability to transmit a signal.

 The "personality" of a cable is determined by three basic electrical properties: resistance, capacitance, and inductance. Resistance is probably the smallest factor, because cables use good conductors (copper and silver). The real culprits in cable transmission are capacitance, measured in picofarads or pF (trillionths of a farad) per foot, and inductance, measured in microhenrys (millionths of a henry) per foot.

*Any time conductors are surrounded by an insulator (dielectric), capacitance occurs. You want this to happen with capacitors inside the amplifier, but not in the cables. Depending on the insulator, some of the electrical signal passing through the cable is transferred to the insulator, stored as energy (electrons), then released back into the cable where it causes a degradation in the sound quality. The type of insulator has a direct effect on the capacitance.* Various insulators are used in high fidelity cables, and, in increasing quality, they are PVC, followed by polyethylene, polypropylene, *and finally, Teflon, which is the best. Usually, Teflon insulated cables are the most expensive, partially because it is a difficult material to work with.* Typical values of capacitance with high quality audio cables vary from *6pF to 50pF per foot.* Inductance is the property of the signal in one conductor inducing current in another nearby conductor, and inhibiting current flow in the opposite direction. This is desirable in transformers, but not in cables. Since cables usually have two leads, each conducting in the opposite direction to complete the circuit, high inductance can cause the flow of current in one lead to interfere with the flow in the other lead. Inductance values for audio cables vary from about *0.1 microhenrys to 0.6 microhenrys per foot.*

 Some amplifiers are more sensitive than others to the load that the speaker cable places upon them. The higher the output impedance, the more likely capacitance and inductance of the cable will affect the sound quality. Tube amplifiers are probably most sensitive, since they tend to have higher output impedances (e.g., 1 Ohm) than solid state amplifiers (e.g., 0.01 Ohm). In any case, however, capacitance and inductance values are important in determining how the cables will perform in any sound system.


 By the looks of it...differences are higher in cables then in cdplayers and amps, yet in cables they don't hear any differences and they do in amps and cdplayers.... 

 Cables...
 inductance: 0,1 to 0,6PF = 600%
 capacitance from 6 to 50MH. = 833%

 amps THD: 0,02 to 0,0018 difference of 111%

 Variations in cables are much higher then in amps...yet the last one is recognized and the first one isn't. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So, for a meter IC tripple the figures. The measurements were done per foot= 30 cm. But the figures of differences still be the same and a magnitude bigger then in any amp or source!!!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jamesb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_because most decent amps sound the same?
 (if similar spec. etc.)

 sshhhhh, dont tell anyone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 *runs*_

 

True, look at my figures above, the difference between amps is max 110% as of difference in cables are max. 800%!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You said earlier that there are cheap cables that have a 20kHz low-pass. I asked you to identify any such cables. You haven't responded to my question._

 


 Compared to my high end cables, yes, the cheaper ones i owned and even expensive ones sound quite cut off at the extreem highs!

 You cannot lure me into naming any brands. This is not a bashing thread.

 figure it out for yourselfs and listen to multiple cables in price catagories and brands.

 Don't tell me they all sound the same or have the same extended highs.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_amps THD: 0,02 to 0,0018 difference of 111%_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_True, look at my figures above, the difference between amps is max 110% as of difference in cables are max. 800%!_

 

I think you might want to recheck your math. You're off by an order of magnitude.


----------

