jannek
Active Member
They would have to think and understand, not just pay.
Basically any CD player is capable of exact bit reproduction of the data on the CD drive. If they couldn't then $20 computer cd drives would have produced garbage data and computers would have crashed.
Vinyl records are currently the best selling physical music medium so there is a chance this cable is used for that (vinyl isn't the niche market anymore it was 25 years ago)
Your assuming source impedance is low and sink impedance is high.
(this is not the case for Phone cartridges and some mc preamps)
Well with this assumption every wet string and rusty paperclip is a good cable.I think it's a fair assumption.
This is not only true for turntables. turntables are just an extreme example, in realty its true for every non ideal device.does not state anywhere that this cable is designed explicitly with turntables in mind
JVC also resold this cable. Same exact cable stock (even sane color insulation) but with JVC branding. There is a spool of it on eBay right now if anyone is interested.At first I was going to joke that it was nice of them to throw in a free audiophile-grade cable, but it looks like there's actually a fanbase for Hitachi LC-OFC cables. The LC-OFC (linear crystal oxygen free copper) process was patented by Hitachi:
"So the story goes... 1975, Hitachi developed their own method for reducing grain or crystal boundaries. LC-OFC is Hitachi's patented process and their exclusive product. After extrusion, the copper wire is re-heated, or annealed, which reduces impurities between the crystal boundaries as the copper crystal grows and leads to a longer grain length. A typical crystal (or grain) in a 1mm diameter LC-OFC conductor is 130 mm long."
https://theaudiostandard.net/thread/1117/lc-ofc
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4582545
So you actually have a rare and desirable free cable.
Yes, REW is free to download. But users in good conscience should send a donation to the developer John Mulcahy for all the work he pours into this program year after year.What actually flabbergasts me is that there are people who really spend that much money on a fake cable, while REW is... free?
I specifically said MM/MI cartridges. (and these are also the most used (or sold) cartridges(this is not the case for Phone cartridges and some mc preamps)
?I think it's a fair assumption. AudioQuest does not state anywhere that this cable is designed explicitly with turntables in mind.
It's actually several notches above most of the cables I've gotten with other audio products. OFCSure. Here is a shot of it:
View attachment 89773
Zooming in, I was surprised that it is made in Japan, Hitachi cable!
View attachment 89774
It is even directional for bloody sake!
I wonder if it came with one of my high-end Sony DVD or SACD players of the time. It certainly has been a durable cable and I often use for S/PDIF connections.
I bought a set of RCA's off Amazon by Worlds Best Audio Cables and was surprised to find they are "directional". Is this a thing? They appear to be very well built cables and "sound" fine but directional?
A cheap chinese interlink with high capacitance can cause effects in the frequency plot as low as 7khz, and in phase shift even lower.
...
It also might be interesting as the maker of this cable calls it "Dielectric Bias System". Does it do something with the Dielectric? Only way to find out is to examine the capacitairy properties imho.
Directionality in this case should indicate wich end the shield is connected. Usually host end.I bought a set of RCA's off Amazon by Worlds Best Audio Cables and was surprised to find they are "directional". Is this a thing? They appear to be very well built cables and "sound" fine but directional?
I bought a set of RCA's off Amazon by Worlds Best Audio Cables and was surprised to find they are "directional". Is this a thing? They appear to be very well built cables and "sound" fine but directional?
By removing as much insulation material as possible.How does the country of origin or price affect capacitance?
Directionality in this case should indicate wich end the shield is connected. Usually host end.
Don't know which test you're talking about, but the one I'm most familiar with was not with a digital cable. It was coat hangers versus Monster speaker cable: https://gizmodo.com/audiophile-deathmatch-monster-cables-vs-a-coat-hanger-363154That test was for a digital signal though, not analogue. To debunk the insanely priced "pro" or "audiophile" digital cables. Same article also debunked "CD Transports". Basically any CD player is capable of exact bit reproduction of the data on the CD drive. If they couldn't then $20 computer cd drives would have produced garbage data and computers would have crashed. Only the DAC matters really, and these days it costs next to nothing to have DACs that outperform any audible noise, jitter etc. So only three things left to make meaningful difference: amp, speakers and room correction/EQ.
By removing as much insulation material as possible.
Do you know which interlinks I'm talking about? the really thin ones. Have you ever measured any with low capacitance? I haven't.
So they are rubbish to use with turntables. Or at least, they will alter the sound. They act as an equalizer (you can use that as an advantage if that's the sound you're looking for of course)
That the "Dielectric Bias System" doesn't give any evidence doesnt mean it doesnt do anything... or nothing for that matter. That's what research in a review is about imho. Why else do an audiosciencereview?
Because that's where those interlinks are made nowadays.How does the country of origin affect the diameter?
The cable got reviewed here, didn't it? So Amir apparently thought it was worth spending his time. He made the review, not you.You're so right! Scientists (and science-based reviewers) ought to spend their time chasing bullshit presented with no plausible correspondence to physics and no supporting evidence. Because that's what "research" is.