Lets talk cables

[Jakob1863]

The better question is, "What would be a more suitable dielectric material?"

I thought it could be worth to lay out why Fitzcarraldo215 had a point with his line :

"Well, I would never shell out the money for a silver-Teflon cable. But, could it have been just a bad cable rather than the concept in general? "


The question what other insulator would be a better choice depends as usual on the many aspects that sometimes unfortunately ask for conflicting solutions.
I´d say a mix of materials will probably be the best solution while using best practice in mechanical/electrical construction and manufacturing.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

The specs from preamp manufacturers on input capacitance are often wildly incorrect. And incorrect on the low side. If a preamp has a common source FET or high mu triode input stage and shows anything below 200 pF in a spec as a minimum option, be very suspicious.

Maybe so. Fortunately, my vinyl days, and al the obsessive tweaking along with it, are long, long over.

 

[SIY]

I'm getting close. Once the rest of my LPs are ripped, it will all be sold off.

 

[Jakob1863]

I'll only pause to quote my friend Peter Aczel.
Little more needs to be said.

"Cables—that’s one subject I can’t discuss calmly. Even after all these years, I still fly into a rage when I read “$900 per foot” or “$5200 the pair.” That’s an obscenity, a despicable extortion exploiting the inability of moneyed audiophiles to deal with the laws of physics. The transmission of electrical signals through a wire is governed by resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C). That’s all, folks! (At least that’s all at audio frequencies. At radio frequencies the geometry of the cable begins to have certain effects.) An audio signal has no idea whether it is passing through expensive or inexpensive RLC. It retains its purity or impurity regardless. There may be some expensive cables that sound “different” because they have crazy RLC characteristics that cause significant changes in frequency response. That’s what you hear, not the $900 per foot. And what about the wiring inside your loudspeakers, inside your amplifiers, inside your other components? What you don’t see doesn’t count, doesn’t have to be upgraded for megabucks? What about the miles of AC wiring from the power station to your house and inside your walls? Only the six-foot length of the thousand-dollar power cord counts? The lack of common sense in the high-end audio market drives me to despair."

Does the RLC - Identity really helps?
If you know that it is all about RLC that´s fine, but you still don´t know which RLC - combination would be the best for your system.

Wrt mains cables, obviously he was somewhat obsessed with the price tag, but why not address that with arguments about the manufacturing processes and the difficulties to justify really high prices?
Instead the argument is made due to the high price of the last meter and the presumable lower price cable already carrying the power to the last meter, which is imo read by most people not only as a critique of the price itself but as an argument that the last meters can be neglected.
And that would really neglect common sense.

First of all you can´t do anything about the miles outside your house, but inside it might be worth to have a dedicated line that provides the energy to your hifi-system, and for good reasons - in the analog case - it is known to be better to use one outlet for your system to keep the loop areas low than to use different outlets seperated by several meters of cable. The latter will work too, but it´s surely not the best choice.

What about EM noise carried by the mains cables (usually below 30 Mhz), wouldn´t it be a good idea to have some filtering in the "last six-foot length" ?
Is it not a good idea (in most cases) to lower the impedance in the loops for the different device that are very often connected via asymmetrical interconnects?

It is quite easy (and often justified) to mock the price tags but as said before, prices are totally different topic and that shouldn´t be confused with technical discussions.

 

[TBone]

Washed car will go faster and have better handling characteristics due to less drag and better aerodynamic properties. Everyone knows that.

Don't know about that. I do know - however - washing & polishing the hull of a boat consistently reduces top speed.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

LRC would be more helpful, especially with tube gear with its special impedance matching issues, if only cable manufacturers published their measurements for these parameters. I suspect they increasingly avoid that so as not to start a meaningless specs race for lowest L, R or C among their cozy fraternity. Instead, they give us unsubstantiated theories about winding, skin effect, dielectrics, directionality, etc. with no measured evidence.

Years ago, JA at Stereophile went ape defending the cable guys, attempting to debunk simple LRC theory as the main cause of cable sonic differences. Instead, he offered the cable guys' usual defenses. Ironic that a supposedly measurements-oriented guy like he would arm wave about it rather than making some actual measurements .

Cable "reviews" in the mags are of course worse than useless. And, none of them provide LRC specs, which might be informative. So, yes, with hi end cables, there is little to go on other than, "try it, you will like it." Bulk cable guys, of course, must publish their specs.

Manufacturing quality also is mentioned, as if there were some huge complexity in cable manufacturing, duh. There isn't much simpler than a cable with two connectors, maybe some shrink wrap and a fancy jacket. Even my cheap ones don't come apart.

And, believe in fancy power cords if you wish. I'll believe in them too when someone provides a meaningful measurement of their effect on the audio signal. Calling Amir! Meanwhile, my power cords work just fine.

 

[FrantzM]

I thought it could be worth to lay out why Fitzcarraldo215 had a point with his line :

"Well, I would never shell out the money for a silver-Teflon cable. But, could it have been just a bad cable rather than the concept in general? "


The question what other insulator would be a better choice depends as usual on the many aspects that sometimes unfortunately ask for conflicting solutions.
I´d say a mix of materials will probably be the best solution while using best practice in mechanical/electrical construction and manufacturing.

My question: Solution to what problem?

 

[SIY]

My question: Solution to what problem?

Insufficient margins? Requirements for FUD?

Really, if LRC matters in a normal installation, you have an issue with the electronics.

 

[Jakob1863]

LRC would be more helpful, especially with tube gear with its special impedance matching issues, if only cable manufacturers published their measurements for these parameters. I suspect they increasingly avoid that so as not to start a meaningless specs race for lowest L, R or C among their cozy fraternity. Instead, they give us unsubstantiated theories about winding, skin effect, dielectrics, directionality, etc. with no measured evidence.

I totally agree that it would be much better to have the data available, not only for cables but for amplifiers and speakers as well.
Add some lectures about basic calculations and then people would be able to have at least an approximate impression about the effects when combining cables and devices.

Years ago, JA at Stereophile went ape defending the cable guys, attempting to debunk simple LRC theory as the main cause of cable sonic differences. Instead, he offered the cable guys' usual defenses. Ironic that a supposedly measurements-oriented guy like he would arm wave about it rather than making some actual measurements .

Or did he argue that way _because_ he made some measurements and didn´t find a correlation and therefore thought it must be something different?
Basically it is just a hypothesis that RLC difference are the main cause (if an effect overall exists) and i´m not aware of any hard data to back it.

Manufacturing quality also is mentioned, as if there were some huge complexity in cable manufacturing, duh. There isn't much simpler than a cable with two connectors, maybe some shrink wrap and a fancy jacket. Even my cheap ones don't come apart.

Which is a kind of argument that imo doesn´t make sense. Does it mean that quality doesn´t matter if complexity isn´t _that_ high? Or does it mean that high quality is guaranteed my some "magic" because it is so easy to reach that level? Not "falling apart" isn´t a synonym for "high quality" at least in my book. High quality means to meet consistently, reliable the specs in every detail.

As we were discussing triboelectric effects see for example the attached table for different materials and differently handled materials.
I think the consequences are quite obvious. Not to mention other parameters down the line like twisting, shield coverage, shield connections, solder processes and so on.

And, believe in fancy power cords if you wish. I'll believe in them too when someone provides a meaningful measurement of their effect on the audio signal. Calling Amir! Meanwhile, my power cords work just fine.

As usual i´ve some problems with the descriptors, "fancy" isn´t a reasonable electrotechnical category, and that´s a bit surprising as i wrote about some basic reasons why you shouldn´t underestimate the role of "mains cabling" given that quite often a whole system is involved, means several devices working together in an analog reproduction system.

I can´t disagree (nor agree) to your assertion of the "just fine working power cords" but i assume that you haven´t done any controlled listening tests ? (And of course a power cord that works just fine wasn´t what i was talking about)


"

(source: A.R. Akande and J. Lowell, Charge transfer in metal/polymer contacts, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp. 565-578 (1987) )

 

[Wombat]

I totally agree that it would be much better to have the data available, not only for cables but for amplifiers and speakers as well.
Add some lectures about basic calculations and then people would be able to have at least an approximate impression about the effect when combining cables and devices.



Or did he argue that way _because_ he made some measurements and didn´t find a correlation and therefore thought it must be something different?
Basically it is just a hypothesis that RLC difference are the main cause (if an effect overall exists) and i´m not aware of any hard data to back it.




Which is a kind of argument that imo doesn´t make sense. Does it mean that quality doesn´t matter if complexity isn´t _that_ high? Or does it mean that high quality is guaranteed my some "magic" because it is so easy to reach that level? Not "falling apart" isn´t a synonym for "high quality" at least in my book. High quality means to meet consistently, reliable the specs in every detail.

As we were discussing triboelectric effects see for example the attached table for different materials and differently handled materials.
I think the consequences are quite obvious. Not to mention other parameters down the line like twisting, shield coverage, shield connections, solder processes and so on.



As usual i´ve some problems with the descriptors, "fancy" isn´t a reasonable electrotechnical category, and that´s a bit surprising as i wrote about some basic reasons why you shouldn´t underestimate the role of "mains cabling" given that quite often a whole system is involved, means several devices working together in an analog reproduction system.

I can´t disagree (nor agree) to your assertion of the "just fine working power cords" but i assume that you haven´t done any controlled listening tests ? (And of course a power cord that works just fine wasn´t what i was talking about)


"View attachment 13150

Rather than asking others to disprove your lack of

I totally agree that it would be much better to have the data available, not only for cables but for amplifiers and speakers as well.
Add some lectures about basic calculations and then people would be able to have at least an approximate impression about the effect when combining cables and devices.



Or did he argue that way _because_ he made some measurements and didn´t find a correlation and therefore thought it must be something different?
Basically it is just a hypothesis that RLC difference are the main cause (if an effect overall exists) and i´m not aware of any hard data to back it.




Which is a kind of argument that imo doesn´t make sense. Does it mean that quality doesn´t matter if complexity isn´t _that_ high? Or does it mean that high quality is guaranteed my some "magic" because it is so easy to reach that level? Not "falling apart" isn´t a synonym for "high quality" at least in my book. High quality means to meet consistently, reliable the specs in every detail.

As we were discussing triboelectric effects see for example the attached table for different materials and differently handled materials.
I think the consequences are quite obvious. Not to mention other parameters down the line like twisting, shield coverage, shield connections, solder processes and so on.



As usual i´ve some problems with the descriptors, "fancy" isn´t a reasonable electrotechnical category, and that´s a bit surprising as i wrote about some basic reasons why you shouldn´t underestimate the role of "mains cabling" given that quite often a whole system is involved, means several devices working together in an analog reproduction system.

I can´t disagree (nor agree) to your assertion of the "just fine working power cords" but i assume that you haven´t done any controlled listening tests ? (And of course a power cord that works just fine wasn´t what i was talking about)


"View attachment 13150

Have you participated in controlled(repeatable and verifiable) tests to confirm your views?
Your posts show a lack of understanding of the physics of audio and transfer the burden of proof onto others.

Asking others to disprove your views is not what ASR is about.

Overly long posts that go nowhere are a sign of lack of substance of content.

 

[Jakob1863]

My question: Solution to what problem?

As we were discussing the problems related to triboelectricity, that would be part of the problem. See the table i´ve linked in my last post.

Phono stages do have high gain and, as SIY already mentioned, the quite high impedance of the typical MM inputs do not help in this regard.
In a typical configuration the phono amplifier provides the ground reference while the source (i.e. cartridge isn´t connected to ground; of course sometimes it is nevertheless) .

If you want to get the best immunity against interference then a twisted shielded cables, where the shield is only connected to ground at he amplifier input, is a good solution (true for the asymmetrical and the balanced connection that SIY already mentioned).
If you want the best, means low capacitance good shielding and still being good workable (think about high temperatures when soldering with leadless solder as required by regulations) then you get the conflicting problems i´ve mentioned.

Regarding triboelectricity introducing an additional layer of semiconducting material can be a solution or doping the main insulator used in the cable. If you want low capacitance and low losses air filled foam is a good choice but as most polymeres are bit sensitive to soldering temperatures it might be a good idea to bring in something like PTFE and work with different layers of different polymers.

 

[Wombat]

Sometimes, nevertheless.
If.
If.
If.
Can be.
It might.

Hedging.?

 

[Jakob1863]

@Wombat,

may i politely ask you to reread my posts?
Please try then to respond to what was actually written instead of some imagined content.

Please be specific where lack of understanding exists on my side and where i stated something that needed corrobation by controlled listening tests?

 

[Wombat]

@Wombat,

may i politely ask you to reread my posts?
Please try then to respond to what was actually written instead of some imagined content.

Please be specific where lack of understanding exists on my side and where i stated something that needed corrobation by controlled listening tests?

I did that prior to replying. Too many points and too much vagueness.

 

[Jakob1863]

I did that prior to replying. Too many points and too much vagueness.

Sure.
You don´t have to point out every one of the many (numerous?), but just three or four examples weren´t too much to ask, mhm?

Btw, you now introduced all of a sudden you introduced "vagueness" which isn´t compatible neither with "lack of understanding" nor with moving the burden of proof, but i suppose you know that already.

 

[Krunok]

An aquaintance of mine was absolutely convinced of the superiority of some particular expensive wiring after having a demo at the dealer.
He was so convinced he let somebody he knew doing a controlled test at a University borrow his cable to show them how big a difference it made.
He went to the test convinced he was going to show everybody how important cables are, but in fact he himself was unable to tell any difference when all the sighted suggestiveness was removed.
He recouped as much money as he could by selling them and continued wiser and poorer.
He says nothing about this to most audiophiles since he knows they absolutely believe cables sound different and he doesn't want an argument.

It would be really interesting to see if anybody would be able to tell which cable was made from coat hanger in a controlled test. I would put my money that nobody would be able to tell..

 

[SIY]

It would be really interesting to see if anybody would be able to tell which cable was made from coat hanger in a controlled test. I would put my money that nobody would be able to tell..

A buddy of mine tried that experiment with line level a few years ago, but using potatoes, bananas, and mud as the alternatives to copper, with appropriate level matching. The mud gave audibly more noise, the others were indistinguishable from copper. AFAIK, to date no one has presented counter evidence.

The most fun was the dancing and tale-spinning by people who were certain that the differences would be laughably huge.

 

[Krunok]

A buddy of mine tried that experiment with line level a few years ago, but using potatoes, bananas, and mud as the alternatives to copper, with appropriate level matching. The mud gave audibly more noise, the others were indistinguishable from copper. AFAIK, to date no one has presented counter evidence.

The most fun was the dancing and tale-spinning by people who were certain that the differences would be laughably huge.

LOOOL

I'm just re-reading the post #4 (https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/lets-talk-cables.3439/post-83308) in the light of what you said and to me it seems that Coax is definitely a code name for mud, but I'm still undecided which of the other two is potatoe and which is banana.

VDH: Slightly muddier lower freq but more volume, warmer highs and less space on the stage
LAN braids: Well balanced overall a bit less clarity and details
Coax: Very close to goertz on high freq range but muddier on low range, overall worst of all.

 

[TBone]

I've been using Goertz from pre-amp to ADC for a few months now, for ripping; and it certainly does not "accentuated higher frequency" content, either from a subjective viewpoint, or as indicated by measurements.

 

[Krunok]

I've been using Goertz from pre-amp to ADC for a few months now, for ripping; and it certainly does not "accentuated higher frequency" content, either from a subjective viewpoint, or as indicated by measurements.

Speaking of that, I'm always wandering how exactly is "accentuated higher frequency, tighter bass, overall clear and detailed sound" supposed to show on measurements?