Kimber KS 1036 Silver RCA Cable Review

[RetroStereo]

I wrote Amir about this several years ago; but it's worth retelling:

Back in the '80's, I was a consultant doing some computer networking for a small engineering firm in northern Virginia. This firm had an international reputation for rooting out even the most improbable causes of faults in chemical, electrical and mechanical systems. They were approached by the manufacturers of a brand of high-end audio cables to evaluate their products.

The audio cable company (which is still in business selling very expensive cables) presented the engineering firm with about 2 dozen of their own products and similar products from a competing company. They wanted proof that theirs were better.

The engineering firm accepted the task but slightly changed the testing parameters: they went to Radio Shack and bought a third set of similar cables for comparison.

Long story short: with 2 exceptions, there were essentially no differences in the electrical signals being conveyed by any of the cables among all the tested samples, regardless of brand. The 2 exceptions? Two of the cable company's interconnects intended for phono cartridges had such high capacitance that they actually degraded the signal.

The company was not happy with the results and refused to pay. The engineer said that that was fine; he would write up the testing as a white paper and publish it in an IEEE journal. The company fell all over itself, offering to pay the original fee and a bonus if the engineering company would sign a nondisclosure agreement. End of story.

 

[RigorDude]

Not as I understand it. I’m certainly not an expert on this subject, however the seminal work was by Malcolm Hawksford on EM wave propagation in cables. Stereophile published an overview by Hawksford in 1995. The gist is that cable geometry and materials can cause nontrivial differences in wave transmission velocity across the audio band. Others have picked up this thread, and the usual lingo is that these aspects of cables are “reactive” (capacitative and inductive).

Hence the use of said specs by some cable makers, Kimber among them. In any event, it’s not HF roll off that is the issue, but time-domain accuracy. Amir appears to be satisfied that the rise-time plot shows there is no difference between the Kimber and Amazon cables. I’m somewhat skeptical about that, and would like to see an explanation for the inference. As the title of the Hawksford article slyly puts it, the effect is akin to an echo. And an echo isn’t going to show up as a rise-time anomaly, or so one would think.

 

[xray]

. The company fell all over itself, offering to pay the original fee and a bonus if the engineering company would sign a nondisclosure agreement.

Too bad there is an NDA, would be interested to know which company. Given they feared disclosure of their snake oil I'm surprised they commissioned the testing in the first place.

 

[Hart]

Enjoythemusic.com has to be one the most popular purveyors of witchcraft in audio. Check out the review parameters these chaps think they are hearing with interconnects or speaker cable. Remarkable...

If you don't have your amp sitting on mini-pyramid feet, or running 6 gauge wire to a speaker wired with 20 gauge wire, or if your speaker wires do not contain a box that sorts electrons halfway to the speaker, then you might want to take a moment to take stock of yourself.

 

[Mart68]

however the seminal work was by Malcolm Hawksford on EM wave propagation in cables. Stereophile published an overview by Hawksford in 1995. The gist is that cable geometry and materials can cause nontrivial differences in wave transmission velocity across the audio band. Others have picked up this thread, and the usual lingo is that these aspects of cables are “reactive” (capacitative and inductive).

Familiar with that and the maths is beyond me but my understanding is that a) the maths are wrong and b) the cable would need to be extraordinarily long for an effect to be consequential.

The other problem is that in blind testing, people can't pick the cables apart regardless. Which is why cable companies don't publish their blind tests, if they even perform any, nor do they offer any measured performance data to support their marketing claims (which are carefully worded in any case).

 

[Devnull]

Not as I understand it. I’m certainly not an expert on this subject, however the seminal work was by Malcolm Hawksford on EM wave propagation in cables. Stereophile published an overview by Hawksford in 1995. The gist is that cable geometry and materials can cause nontrivial differences in wave transmission velocity across the audio band. Others have picked up this thread, and the usual lingo is that these aspects of cables are “reactive” (capacitative and inductive).

Hence the use of said specs by some cable makers, Kimber among them. In any event, it’s not HF roll off that is the issue, but time-domain accuracy. Amir appears to be satisfied that the rise-time plot shows there is no difference between the Kimber and Amazon cables. I’m somewhat skeptical about that, and would like to see an explanation for the inference. As the title of the Hawksford article slyly puts it, the effect is akin to an echo. And an echo isn’t going to show up as a rise-time anomaly, or so one would think.

Time domain and frequency domain analysis are complimentary. If you have one you can use math to get the other.

High and low frequencies do propagate at different speeds. However at audio frequencies and at reasonable distances the difference between a 20hz signal and a 20khz signal arriving at the far end of a cable is going to be measured in nanoseconds.

Edit added here .....
It's not an echo by any stretch of the imagination. An echo would be a reflection coming from the termination towards the source, from improper termination impedance.

 

[G|force]

Too bad there is an NDA, would be interested to know which company. Given they feared disclosure of their snake oil I'm surprised they commissioned the testing in the first place.

Given the time frame and refusal to honor the contract in such a shi++y fashion, I'm going to take a wild guess:
Monster Cable

 

[sergeauckland]

Familiar with that and the maths is beyond me but my understanding is that a) the maths are wrong and b) the cable would need to be extraordinarily long for an effect to be consequential.

The other problem is that in blind testing, people can't pick the cables apart regardless. Which is why cable companies don't publish their blind tests, if they even perform any, nor do they offer any measured performance data to support their marketing claims (which are carefully worded in any case).

I remember the Hawksford tests being roundly ridiculed at the time, as being plain wrong when considering audio frequencies. As I recall, and it was a looong time ago, they relied on transmission line considerations, which apply either to radio frequencies, or to very long cables, many miles/km, not the few metres of a home system, or even the few hundred metres of a large studio system.

S

 

[Mnyb]

Afiak only first order problems like L C and R matters for audio frequencies ie analog interconnects and speaker cables .

For decades some cable companies have promoted other effects that’s an issue in radio tv and radar as somewhow a problem for audio frequencies ( which are practically dc ) . There no shortage of this FUD .

Skin effect , propagation velocity, characteristics impedance and reflection due to impedance mismatch, mechanical forces between conductors or strands , bend radius’s stored charge in insulation. In all transmission line theory ? Telefon companies for example bell pioneered research as they had cables across oceans for telegraphs way back .

The original audio research works where done by telephone companies in the early 1900’s they faced all audio problems for the first time .
And had to figure it out . Telephone companies twisted their cables long before “twisted pair” was an engineering shorthand , they figured cable geometry 100 years ago

 

[VientoB]

Too bad there is an NDA, would be interested to know which company. Given they feared disclosure of their snake oil I'm surprised they commissioned the testing in the first place.

I have two main suspects. One begins with A and the other begins with N.

 

[VientoB]

Given the time frame and refusal to honor the contract in such a shi++y fashion, I'm going to take a wild guess:
Monster Cable

Audioquest was founded in 1980.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

I do find it interesting The amount of responses there are about a review which we know the outcome already. And also, this will not change anyone’s mind who would be obsessed enough to buy something like this. Even if you could hear the difference, how could you come up with the value judgment that it makes sense to spend that much money for a cable? Is the sound difference if you perceive life-changing? I think that’s another question that we should ask. These cables will make your system sound better OK, so you’re gonna spend thousands on them. How does that improve your life? Something is missing if that’s what you need to get happy.

 

[G|force]

Audioquest was founded in 1980.

I figure they were the 'brand B' but I hold no high esteem for Fraudioquest either.

 

[amirm]

Seconding this motion. Capacitance, inductance, and resistance are the measurable parameters that potentially affect signal transmission, and these data are sometimes provided by cable makers — even Kimber does this, though not for their really pricey stuff.

Have you tried measuring preterminated short lengths of cable like this? It is hugely non-trivial to do. Simple thing like clamping pressure changes resistance when it is in milliohm rang. I have done it with specialized gear and protocol but that was with speaker wire. With RCA, just the connection method itself could dominate resistance and capacitance.

So why not measure that, @amirm, instead of harmonic distortion and rise time?

On the former, because we can measure the actual effect, then thing we hear, with my method. In sharp contrast, component measurements don't directly relate to how the output of the gear is impacted. On the latter, it is actually the proper method to measure the sum impedance of a circuit.

 

[amirm]

Not as I understand it. I’m certainly not an expert on this subject, however the seminal work was by Malcolm Hawksford on EM wave propagation in cables. Stereophile published an overview by Hawksford in 1995. The gist is that cable geometry and materials can cause nontrivial differences in wave transmission velocity across the audio band. Others have picked up this thread, and the usual lingo is that these aspects of cables are “reactive” (capacitative and inductive).

I have tested one such cable that attempted to equalize propagation delay for the full audio bandwidth: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/belden-iconoclast-xlr-cable-review.33929/

There, I play music and perform a null test:

As you see, there is no difference with actual music. If what you quoted is true, then cable companies could have run with it. But they have not. Even the people who created the Iconoclast did not bother to measure the full system effect.

 

[amirm]

Hence the use of said specs by some cable makers, Kimber among them. In any event, it’s not HF roll off that is the issue, but time-domain accuracy. Amir appears to be satisfied that the rise-time plot shows there is no difference between the Kimber and Amazon cables. I’m somewhat skeptical about that, and would like to see an explanation for the inference.

The bandwidth of the system in my measurement was 500 kHz. You can compute the rise time of the system from that. The measurement shows that any difference between the cables, when band limited to 500 kHz, does not exist.

You can of course send down 100 MHz pulse in there and see all kinds of degradations, effects and variations. But that is not audio. Even my 500 kHz is hugely past 20 kHz bandwidth of audio.

All of this follows basics of engineering so there is nothing unexpected from what I showed if one understands cables and their applications.

 

[VientoB]

Audioholics have some nice cable debunking videos too. Gene is an electrical engineer who used to do transmission line work so he knows all about this stuff. Anyone who still believes cables make a difference should watch this video too:

 

[RigorDude]

The values of capacitance. Inductance and resistant that are acceptable are well known. If a cable falls outside these values it will be detrimental in some way, but in the acceptable range you are not going to hear a different. There isn't much value in measuring these things unless the cable sounds bad.

So, what is the “acceptable range” for inductance and capacitance? If you have a reference on that, let’s have a look at it. And while we’re at it, what is the value in measuring as Amir is doing it?

 

[VientoB]

So, what is the “acceptable range” for inductance and capacitance? If you have a reference on that, let’s have a look at it. And while we’re at it, what is the value in measuring as Amir is doing it?

Just watch the Audioholics video I posted. There are other Audioholics videos on Youtube as well which talk about resistance, capacitance and inductance. Do a little research there yourself and you'll find out. That's what I did.

 

[RigorDude]

Familiar with that and the maths is beyond me but my understanding is that a) the maths are wrong and b) the cable would need to be extraordinarily long for an effect to be consequential.

The other problem is that in blind testing, people can't pick the cables apart regardless. Which is why cable companies don't publish their blind tests, if they even perform any, nor do they offer any measured performance data to support their marketing claims (which are carefully worded in any case).

If you have a reference on how Hawksford got the maths wrong, please share it. But it’s also true that John Atkinson republished the article in 1995 and again in 2005, and Hawksford was the 2017 recipient of the AES gold medal, the society’s highest honor. He is emeritus professor of EE at a respectable British university. Does that sound like someone whose work was debunked?

It’s enough to earn the benefit of the doubt from me — unless someone actually can produce the refutation. Where is it? Out of curiosity I typed “Hawksford debunked” into a search engine. There are plenty of hits that essentially like your comment - people on various forums (including ASR a year ago!) asserting that Hawksford’s ideas were “disproven” or “all wrong,” without saying how or by whom.