Are Blue Jeans Cable LC-1 that good or is this guy right?

[GabrielPhoto]

I mostly find great feedback about the lc-1 but then found this guy

Troll ?
Or what do you think?

He also said this

"It depends on the manufacturer. Some subwoofer cables use twisted pair which serves to eliminate hum. Monster, Audioquest and many others use this configuration. In addition some cables use a floating shield which further reduces noise. By contrast the Blue Jeans subwoofer cable is actually a coax video cable with video connectors, not an audio cable. Ironically enough, you can get a Monster subwoofer cable that is specifically engineered for subwoofers and uses premium materials for half the price of a Blue Jeans cable."


I did notice he only has 3 posts all in 2020 and 2 were jn that thread.

 

[fpitas]

I'll take, "Neither". There's no drama here. If you want well-constructed cables and you don't mind spending a little more, Blue Jeans is good. If you want bottom buck, go with Amazon Basics. Both work fine.

 

[thegeton]

I have a large number of BJC cables simply because I like the visual and physical qualities of them. WRT subwoofer cables, I have two BJC sub cables: BJC, LC-1 RCA Cable, 8 ft., white, Techflex, each costing about USD $68. I like them a lot and they work perfectly.

I also have another system which is using a KuyioHifi subwoofer Cable: 15 Ft Coaxial, 8mm, OFC, RCA Male to Male, shielded, nylon braided jacket, blue/black, costing about USD $17. This one is on my home theater sub and it too works perfectly.

I've swapped these back/forth with no resulting audible differences. (No double blind AxB, just my uneducated ears.)

The BJC cables are visually more attractive and physically (build quality) better than the KuyioHifi cable, but their observed performance is identical to me.

When opportunity present itself, I will change the KuyioHifi to BJC, but only because I want to, not because there is a reason to do so.

Buy what you want.

 

[DonH56]

Seems like a juxtaposition of several things. Unshielded twisted pair is no better and usually worse for noise sensitivity than coax, often has higher capacitance, and offers no benefits for single-ended connections. Differential, or at least balanced, connections need proper source and load circuits regardless of the cable used -- just using twisted pairs will not do it (you can still have hum). Without the benefit of a full shield, twisted pair is more sensitive to coupled noise. Adding another shield is not uncommon to reduce noise coupling into coax as well, but will not prevent a ground loop in a single-ended circuit. That has nothing to do with twisted-pair vs. coax vs. a couple of coat hangers for interconnects.

BJC's upcharge is (I think) largely due to their welded connectors, which are more costly to manufacture but should provide a better (more reliable, longer lasting, etc.) connection to the cable. Last I looked (not recently) you can specify the connectors you want.

Many, probably most, manufacturers use "video" (RF) coaxial cables for audio because they are inexpensive, well-shielded, easy to connect (plenty of machines to do it automatically), and are fairly rugged. I do not understand (or agree with) the implication that, because video cables have those attributes and can handle video signal bandwidths, somehow they are inferior to "quality audio cables".

BJC is much more expensive than the cheapest audio cables, but far less expensive than "high-end" audio cables, filling their niche for high quality at a moderate price.

Specialized cables for subwoofers, woofers, tweeters, etc. strikes me as snake oil.

IME/IMO - Don

 

[Speedskater]

The Belden LC-1 is very different than any 75 Ohm video or RF or digital audio cable. The LC-1 would be terrible in a long 75 Ohm circuit.
The LC-1's very heavy shield makes it a great choice for long RCA unbalanced analog interconnect runs.

 

[GabrielPhoto]

Seems like a juxtaposition of several things. Unshielded twisted pair is no better and usually worse for noise sensitivity than coax, often has higher capacitance, and offers no benefits for single-ended connections. Differential, or at least balanced, connections need proper source and load circuits regardless of the cable used -- just using twisted pairs will not do it (you can still have hum). Without the benefit of a full shield, twisted pair is more sensitive to coupled noise. Adding another shield is not uncommon to reduce noise coupling into coax as well, but will not prevent a ground loop in a single-ended circuit. That has nothing to do with twisted-pair vs. coax vs. a couple of coat hangers for interconnects.

BJC's upcharge is (I think) largely due to their welded connectors, which are more costly to manufacture but should provide a better (more reliable, longer lasting, etc.) connection to the cable. Last I looked (not recently) you can specify the connectors you want.

Many, probably most, manufacturers use "video" (RF) coaxial cables for audio because they are inexpensive, well-shielded, easy to connect (plenty of machines to do it automatically), and are fairly rugged. I do not understand (or agree with) the implication that, because video cables have those attributes and can handle video signal bandwidths, somehow they are inferior to "quality audio cables".

BJC is much more expensive than the cheapest audio cables, but far less expensive than "high-end" audio cables, filling their niche for high quality at a moderate price.

Specialized cables for subwoofers, woofers, tweeters, etc. strikes me as snake oil.

IME/IMO - Don

Just to clarify the LC-1 is not welded but crimped.

 

[ryanosaur]

For a Subwoofer cable of any length greater than maybe 6’, I like having a beefier conductor. Oh, and not paying too much.
Monoprice High Quality Subwoofer/digital coax is excellent. It is s little stiff, but the RG-6 rating assures an 18AWG conductor, beefy insulation, and shielding.
I have runs with these cables passing power strips and parallel to power cables and get no interference.
Why pay more unnecessarily?

 

[Speedskater]

For long RCA analog interconnect cables, it's the heavy braided shield that matters. The center conductor can be very small from an electrical point of view, the load is about 10,000 Ohms so almost no current flows. But it needs to be larger (say 26AWG) to prevent breakage.

 

[DonH56]

The Belden LC-1 is very different than any 75 Ohm video or RF or digital audio cable. The LC-1 would be terrible in a long 75 Ohm circuit.
The LC-1's very heavy shield makes it a great choice for long RCA unbalanced analog interconnect runs.

I looked at their product page. At ~12 pF/ft, it seems more like the 93-ohm cable I used for my phono preamp and tube preamp/amp interconnects "back in the day", with a smaller (25 AWG) center conductor. Double braided but no foil explains the 98% shield coverage -- excellent for braid, and just shy of 100% typical for foil (yet not as fragile as foil).

But in general I just can't convince myself I care about this thread that much...

 

[fpitas]

I just can't convince myself I care about this thread that much.

Tempest in a teapot

 

[thegeton]

Specialized cables for subwoofers, woofers, tweeters, etc. strikes me as snake oil.

Hear, hear!!!

 

[Chrispy]

He does have a point about the recently reviewed transformer https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ans-cable-isolation-transformer-review.46611/ . The bit about quality cable being somehow special for audio, meh.

 

[fpitas]

He does have a point about the recently reviewed transformer https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ans-cable-isolation-transformer-review.46611/ . The bit about quality cable being somehow special for audio, meh.

Yeah, they need to find a better xfmr. That really isn't that tough.

 

[Speedskater]

Now if the unit at the receive end of your RCA unbalanced interconnect is battery powered:
You could use about any coax, that your heart desired up to about one thousand feet long.
The exception being: some output stages might be unhappy with the total cable capacitance.