What cables do you use in your systems?

[scott wurcer]

I have a bin in the basement full of those red/white RCA cables that you get with every CD/TV/DVD and I just grab one.

 

[Sashoir]

This post is intended as a reply to @Sashoir's post on the closed cable thread, but has nothing to do with the nonsense that got that thread closed.

Last time I had to replace my AVP for a review also I replaced the hodgepodge of in-cabinet line level wiring with this DIY snake.
View attachment 100391

The bed channels are Mogami 2944 from Redco. Redco sells this cable in small lots. I think even Markertek makes you buy a whole spool. I think this is the same cable used in Mogami snakes, but instead of black jackets with numbering no. 2944 is available in 10 colors, which is why I used individual cables instead of a prepackaged snake. Color selection is also the sole reason I chose this cable - the usual sources do not have another shielded twisted pair (star quad doesn't work with Neutrik's open-barrel crimp pins) available in so many colors. I tried to hew closely to the CTA color coding standard, but this standard appears to be dead letter. Cabling is literally not available in all the recommended colors for a 7.1.4-channel system, and even Neutrik does not make bushings in all the colors! (N.B. the responsible committee did not have a single member from a major cable, connector, or cable dressing manufacturer. Nobody from Belden or Mogami or Canare. Nobody from Neutrik or Switchcraft or Amphenol. Nobody from 3M or Raychem or Techflex. Without buy-in from the relevant industry, one shouldn't be surprised this standard never took off.) I labeled each cable with a sandwich: black heat shrink with a printed label on top, and then clear heatshrink with adhesive inside on top of the label.

Connectors are Neutrik "HA" crimp pin XLRs with color-coded rings. I hate soldering enough that I'd rather buy expensive German crimping tools than solder. The set below is by a gigantic margin my single largest audio cable "investment." It does everything: the Neutrik XLR crimp pins, Panduit terminals that Crown amp use, NL-Fastons for Speakon, ferrules, all quick disconnects for drive units, DB25 pins for multichannel line level, butt connectors to extend speaker wire, and likely other connectors I'm forgetting.
View attachment 100394

Height channels use a Canare MR202-4 4-channel snake cable. I like that Canare uses a colored stripe instead of a number to distinguish channels in a snake. Shielding is foil with drain wire, so they are easier to work with than Mogami’s spiral mesh shielding. However, Canare jackets are a little less heat tolerant than Mogami. I melted one a little bit when applying heat shrink over the label at the same heat gun temperature setting on my Steinel heat gun. At the gun’s lower setting there were no issues. Connectors are Neutrik's sadly discontinued "Easycon" XLR, which have IDC pins and require no tools except something to strip the outer cable jacket, though clicking everything together is easier with a pliers wrench.

Dear jhaider, thank you so much for your reply! I really appreciate the pains more knowledgeable members here take to help other people. I won't pretend I understand everything you've said, but now I've got a base to research and learn from!
Best,
S

 

[jhaider]

Dear jhaider, thank you so much for your reply! I really appreciate the pains more knowledgeable members here take to help other people. I won't pretend I understand everything you've said, but now I've got a base to research and learn from!
Best,
S

I think the main takeaway is that if you want multicolored cabling it’s doable. I DIYed mostly because I didn’t want to painstakingly measure the required lengths. In the US Redco will assemble custom cables of basically any type at very reasonable cost.

https://www.redco.com/Custom-Cable.html

 

[holbob]

I use van damme/neutrik for digital coaxial and dac to sub and then sub to amp. Speaker cables are van damme blue 2.5mm.

 

[Justin Ayers]

Can you tell the cables apart in a blind test?

Considering how dramatic the difference was in level (including it being rather difficult to get any from the thinner cable, depending on how it was jiggled) it seems hard to image I wouldn't be able to. It's pretty difficult to make the case, for instance, that no sound is similar to getting quite a bit of it.

However, I'm not sure I'm going to make the effort, since it would involve a second person. It really doesn't bother me much if people think it's all in my head. I'm not in the business of selling copper cabling and am just letting people know that things like oxidation and excessive cable thinness may be a significant factor, at least in the efficiency of the conduction. Perhaps the sound doesn't actually degrade much, if at all, and merely requires more amplification. That's not the impression I got, though. Given the low price of thicker copper wire (which seems to make the argument about using thin cable moot unless you're in the business of selling super-cheap WalMart-type stereos) the thing that is more of a question mark for me is to what extent gold connections are advantageous to combat oxidization at the connection point.

Copper oxides conduct heat extremely poorly in comparison to the unoxidized metal. I assume that the electrical conductivity of the oxides is also substantially worse. So, that's my main assumption for why the cabling made such a difference, although the thickness of the second cable likely also didn't hurt. It's also possible that the speaker ports themselves are so oxidized that they're not making good-enough contact with the thinner cable. New ends should be cut again for both cables to see how much that makes the two cables equal, although they weren't cut all that long ago.

There's also a reason cabling for high-power electrical connections (house wiring, solar arrays, etc.) being required to have wiring of a certain minimum thickness (which depends on the metal — aluminum wire requiring greater thickness). The longer the cabling needs to be the thicker it needs to be, all other things being equal. More amperage also increases the requirement. That's one of the drawbacks of having corded electric yard implements. One can't just daisy-chain dozens of extension cords to get extra geographical range because voltage drops too much.

Even aluminum cabling should offer identical sound quality and volume if it's thicker-enough versus copper, as far as I know — since aluminum is considered to be an acceptable alternative to copper for things like house wiring and solar, so long as it's thicker. (This is for a given amount of power input, of course. Thin wire can have more input to compensate for loss, to a point.) The main issues seem to be enough physical contact, oxides interfering with conduction, and cable thickness for a given length and level. Some have said some speaker types need shorter cables, like electrostatic models. I don't know if that's true or not but perhaps it has something to do with voltage droop (the issue with having cords that are too long and not thick enough in terms of things like electric yard tools).

 

[SIY]

It really doesn't bother me much if people think it's all in my head.

Some people are curious, some people are not. The latter seem to be the majority, which is good for me professionally- less competition for work in science.

Copper oxides conduct heat extremely poorly in comparison to the unoxidized metal. I assume that the electrical conductivity of the oxides is also substantially worse. So, that's my main assumption for why the cabling made such a difference, although the thickness of the second cable likely also didn't hurt. It's also possible that the speaker ports themselves are so oxidized that they're not making good-enough contact with the thinner cable. New ends should be cut again for both cables to see how much that makes the two cables equal, although they weren't cut all that long ago.

You hit the likely answer at the end- oxidation of the wires along their length has only a second order effect, but the cleanness of the connections is very significant. BTW, thermal and electrical conductivity are two VERY different matters. The best thermal conductor I'm aware of is diamond, which is highly insulating.

 

[Justin Ayers]

BTW, thermal and electrical conductivity are two VERY different matters. The best thermal conductor I'm aware of is diamond, which is highly insulating.

Well, are copper oxides conductive or insulating? We know that copper metal is highly thermally conductive and highly electrically conductive. It seems very reasonable to assume the oxides are worse in both regards.

Some people are curious, some people are not.

Absolutely!

 

[SIY]

Well, are copper oxides conductive or insulating? We know that copper metal is highly thermally conductive and highly electrically conductive. It seems very reasonable to assume the oxides are worse in both regards.

Electrically, low conductivity. But they're surface, not bulk, so they have little effect on the cable resistance except at the contacts at amp and speaker ends. Clean them off there and you're fine.

 

[Justin Ayers]

Electrically, low conductivity. But they're surface, not bulk, so they have little effect on the cable resistance except at the contacts at amp and speaker ends. Clean them off there and you're fine.

Yes, I considered that, as I posted back on the 26th of November:

Considering how old both the speakers and the amp are the connectors on them are likely to be pretty oxidized and weren't high-end engineering in the first place.

I still find it interesting that the oxidation problem apparently can be significantly overcome by switching cables.

 

[Julf]

I still find it interesting that the oxidation problem apparently can be significantly overcome by switching cables.

Very common. One of the most basic automobile electrician "tricks" is to disconnect and reconnect the connectors to a component that isn't working (sensor, relay etc.).

 

[Justin Ayers]

Very common. One of the most basic automobile electrician "tricks" is to disconnect and reconnect the connectors to a component that isn't working (sensor, relay etc.).

But it is a demonstration that cables can/do matter. That's what prompted me to post in this topic, since many want to claim that cables don't matter and that any claim that they do is rooted in psychological error.

I was surprised to notice a dramatic difference in both output and connection reliability. I had been using the thinner cables since the 1990s, assuming that all that's needed is to periodically trim the ends to get rid of the obvious oxidation.

 

[Julf]

But it is a demonstration that cables can/do matter.

Sure, cables matter - in very predictable, measurable ways. No magic here.

 

[Justin Ayers]

Sure, cables matter - in very predictable, measurable ways. No magic here.

Predictable and measurable if you have the knowledge pertaining to that. For others, they might say they "use copper" when asked what kind of speaker cable they use and others would nod and say that that's all one needs.

In my case, I found significant difference between two cables that just use copper.

 

[DonH56]

Swapping cables causing a "wiping" action to help remove oxidation at the connections.

 

[Justin Ayers]

Swapping cables causing a "wiping" action to help remove oxidation at the connections.

That's not the reason I noticed such a big increase in level because I went back to the thinner cable and it still gave me the original issues (reduced level, unsteady connection, perceived degraded frequency range). Also, if just doing that once would have made that much of a difference I would have likely noticed it from removing and re-inserting the original cable many times to try to stabilize the connection. But, I can see how what you mentioned can be effective in some situations.

My assumption is that the improved thickness of the second cable made it possible for the oxidized connections to provide adequate current while the extra thinness of the other cable didn't, particularly since it no longer had freshly-clipped ends. This seems to be a reasonable assumption since electrical cabling for other things operates on the same principle (thicker means more conductivity). I will need to get some kind of oxidation remover to see if the difference disappears when the oxidation is minimized at the connection points. It may be that the second cable is treated copper (such as with an antioxidant), which would improve the conductivity of the clipped end (since the antioxidant would reduce oxidation of the exposed copper), while the other cable is untreated.

 

[Katji]

In some situations...humid climate...problems with satellite decoder--AVR--TV fixed when tv technician comes and unplugs cables and plugs them in again.

 

[Sal1950]

That's not the reason I noticed such a big increase in level because I went back to the thinner cable and it still gave me the original issues (reduced level, unsteady connection, perceived degraded frequency range). Also, if just doing that once would have made that much of a difference I would have likely noticed it from removing and re-inserting the original cable many times to try to stabilize the connection. But, I can see how what you mentioned can be effective in some situations.

Bad/cold solder joint?
When discussing cable "sound" you have to take good quality connections and non-deteriorated conductors for granted.
Otherwise it's all just a waste of everyone's time.

 

[DonH56]

That's not the reason I noticed such a big increase in level because I went back to the thinner cable and it still gave me the original issues (reduced level, unsteady connection, perceived degraded frequency range). Also, if just doing that once would have made that much of a difference I would have likely noticed it from removing and re-inserting the original cable many times to try to stabilize the connection. But, I can see how what you mentioned can be effective in some situations.

My assumption is that the improved thickness of the second cable made it possible for the oxidized connections to provide adequate current while the extra thinness of the other cable didn't, particularly since it no longer had freshly-clipped ends. This seems to be a reasonable assumption since electrical cabling for other things operates on the same principle (thicker means more conductivity). I will need to get some kind of oxidation remover to see if the difference disappears when the oxidation is minimized at the connection points. It may be that the second cable is treated copper (such as with an antioxidant), which would improve the conductivity of the clipped end (since the antioxidant would reduce oxidation of the exposed copper), while the other cable is untreated.

I wasn't actually addressing you specifically, just a general comment on one of the reasons removing and a replacing a cable (even the same one) might make a difference. It is much more common than people might think. The automobile example is a good one, as is the case of unplugging and plugging back in any number of high-current appliances.

I have not been following closely, but if you had long'ish runs of thin wire with speakers that have large impedance variations, and replaced them with much thicker wires, it's possible the frequency response changed enough to notice. Or it could all be perceptual bias. I have fooled myself into thinking I heard a change that wasn't there far too often due to mood, time of day, headache or no, etc. Lost count of how many times I heard something new after a change, only to swap back for grins and find it was there all the time, I was just more focused after getting a new toy and expecting to hear something different. And of course always "better".

 

[pedrob]

I'll leave it to the reader to detect three truths and two lies... Or two truths and three lies:

Interconnects: Audibly transparent ones that are perfect beyond the human ear's ability to hear.

Speaker cable: Radiiemoreumanatum Calbaxxerakkriakateum Arceousauceatijipugapted cables. RCA for short.

Coax cable: I use optical TOSLINK, yes. It's transparent.

USB cable: Anything that works. Perfect again.

Power cable: Über ultra high end ones from an obscure company in Finland called Genelec. They came with my speakers. If you want to feel warm fuzzies about them, here's what my brains marketing team came up with:

Pure awesome-yeious ultium ultriumicated bivoenced crystaliiix purity cores with shliveregguut dragon gut sheathing for beutificatizationation equalizationination-soundstagiacionicatedness. It really colors the musical music and makes it less sterile. All of these words and technologeez are proprietary though.

Personally I never use optical when coax is available.

Converting a digital signal to optical, and at the other end converting it back to digital just adds additional circuitry and doesn't make sense. This illustration suggests optical is open to interference.

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/digital/chpt-14/optical-data-communication/

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/uploads/articles/optical-light-signal-interference-diagram.jpg

 

[Harmonie]

Personally I never use optical when coax is available.
/QUOTE]

Might be.

How is your ADSL provider serving you the data ?