I'll try to explain
Hi again,
I believe there is some confusion here. If you look at the graph in my original post (#5695), the top curve (cheap cable) show losses which are some 93db below the input signal of 2V.
For the bottom curve (expensive cable) losse are 112bB below the same input signal. We can truthfully say that losses are almost 20dB higher in the low-cost cable.
Please do not think that the input-to-output losses are 20 dB for the cheap cable...
Best,
R
Hi again,
I believe there is some confusion here. If you look at the graph in my original post (#5695), the top curve (cheap cable) show losses which are some 93db below the input signal of 2V.
For the bottom curve (expensive cable) losse are 112bB below the same input signal. We can truthfully say that losses are almost 20dB higher in the low-cost cable.
Please do not think that the input-to-output losses are 20 dB for the cheap cable...
Best,
R
Thanks for that info. Let's do a quick reality check. You have for the Interlink cable at midband a -102dB reading. That would seem to correspond to about 80 milliohms of series resistance. Then the Magic Link at -111dB would correspond to a series resistance of 22 milliohms.
Plug these back in. With a 10k load, the loss from the Interlink is 0.00007dB. The loss from the Magic Link is 0.000035 dB. The frequency response variations are likewise well below any conceivable threshold.
I think the way you present your data makes a very trivial effect look a lot larger.
Plug these back in. With a 10k load, the loss from the Interlink is 0.00007dB. The loss from the Magic Link is 0.000035 dB. The frequency response variations are likewise well below any conceivable threshold.
I think the way you present your data makes a very trivial effect look a lot larger.
For texaslonghorn
Hi and thanks for your words,
The chart simply shows that the losses for the low-cost cable (top trace) are 93dB below the input signal, while the ones for the expensive cable are 112dB below the input signal (so, losses are much lower for the expensive cable).
Losses are pretty small in both cases... but nonetheless, there is a 19dB difference between them. Losses in the low-cost cable are almost ten times as large.
Please let me know if you need any further clarification.
Best,
Ricardo
Hi and thanks for your words,
The chart simply shows that the losses for the low-cost cable (top trace) are 93dB below the input signal, while the ones for the expensive cable are 112dB below the input signal (so, losses are much lower for the expensive cable).
Losses are pretty small in both cases... but nonetheless, there is a 19dB difference between them. Losses in the low-cost cable are almost ten times as large.
Please let me know if you need any further clarification.
Best,
Ricardo
Please keep in mind that I ain't too smart, so think of my mental capacity being equal to mud pie (which it is). The way I read the graph, it seems that if I used the best cable you tested between my source and pre, the signal going into my pre with that cable would be 19dB BETTER than the crappy cable between my source and signal, meaning that the signal loss of the good cable is 19dB LESS than the crappy one. Is that correct? And that the Magic Link experiences MORE signal loss as the frequency nears/exceed 20khz? If a cable was to test perfectly in your system - i.e., Zero loss - where would that line plot - right on top of your reference line or way at the bottom (I think at the bottom, correct?)
Maybe it is the reference signal that is confusing me. Did you create the red reference signal line to be pretty silent (ie -95dB), then see how "silent" the ICs are in comparison? I think that may be getting to the voltage question raised earlier???
I don't know - I am so confused. But I know for a fact that I have another beer in the refrigerator.
Maybe it is the reference signal that is confusing me. Did you create the red reference signal line to be pretty silent (ie -95dB), then see how "silent" the ICs are in comparison? I think that may be getting to the voltage question raised earlier???
I don't know - I am so confused. But I know for a fact that I have another beer in the refrigerator.
Well in my testing I have actually found that yes a simple resistor or capacitor is actually more detrimental to the audio than the DAC/ADC chain - at least my soundcard. I think it is a matter of "passive loss".
The real question isn't about that at all though. And I am not even sure what specifics we are talking about here. But what delivery format that has been invented can do better than a modern DAC/ADC? I can't think of anything that benchmarks better.
I have no idea what the losses equate to on an purely electrical level. When I test cables they are allow to stay in my system for at least one week of listening, with a set of specific recordings that I am very familiar with from past listening. After this time I change back to what I was previously using. If I hear no changes in the sound of the music, I move on.
If I believe that I may hear a positive improvement from the test cables, I go back to the previous cables and give them a more extended listen. This cycle then repeats. Over this period I can discern if the cabling has made a positive or negative impact on "my" system. Scientific, no not in the eyes of many. Does it work. It does for me.
I listen to music and look for an emotional connection with it. It is the quality of the recorded performance that I look for in my personal listening tastes. This does not mean that all of my recordings are single mic, audiophile type recordings either.
Does this make the scientific crowd happy. I doubt it, but this is my system that I am trying to make it better, not theirs or anyone else's. I allow my brain to tell me if a majority of my recordings have improved with a cable change over a period of time, and checking my results bu putting back my known cabling, not a spectrum analyzer or LCR meter. My brain knows what recordings it prefers to listen to without the need for test equipment, so I trust it to tell me if I have improved the sound of these recordings, according to my perception of what real unamplified instruments sound like to me. I do admit to a personal bias toward tube equipment. Solid state has never thrilled me or moved me personally. I appreciate that the best is stellar, but it has never fit my listening style with my music.
This is not a slap at anyone that does not believe as I do. It is what works for me personally, based upon many years of critical listening. Do I think that I am special in any way? Absolutely not! I have many friends that use similar methods to tune their systems. Maybe we are all delusional, as many here deem. It is funny as someone speculated that marketing has brainwashed everyone in audio. I was never able to sell cabling (or any equipment) to anyone in my 20+ years of sales that did not listen intently to what they were considering, in their own systems, in their homes. They had the choice to return it and go on their merry way, which some did. I have never twisted anyone's arm in an effort to brainwash or influence them. If something did not offer value, to me it was not something that we wanted to offer our customers. It was never rocket science to me.
This debate will go on for ever between those that do not believe that people hear anything and those that feel that they do. Is either right or wrong? It is not my worry or nor do I care what anyone believes or does not believe. I am only interested in listening to my music. I am not a scientist trying to explain why or why not about everything in life. Personally I don't care. I do appreciate all of the effort invested by many that have allowed me the opportunity to enjoy what I have in my life. All that I care about in terms of stereo, is what I hear and whether I have improved my system and what I call a more musical connection with the performances. Nothing more and nothing less.
Last edited:
For derwhalfisch
Hi derwhalfisch,
Yes, my measurements confirm that losses are very small, but quite different from cable to cable.
Human hearing is amazingly sensitive, so I'm not surprised by the fact that many individuals can hear this (it's like changing passive components in a DAC or preamp, which has a tiny impact on measured performance, but makes a clearly audible difference when playing music).
Cheers,
Ricardo
Hi derwhalfisch,
Yes, my measurements confirm that losses are very small, but quite different from cable to cable.
Human hearing is amazingly sensitive, so I'm not surprised by the fact that many individuals can hear this (it's like changing passive components in a DAC or preamp, which has a tiny impact on measured performance, but makes a clearly audible difference when playing music).
Cheers,
Ricardo
For texaslonghorn
Hi texaslonghorn,
I'll be happy to explain, and it's actually pretty easy: My measurements simply show that losses in some cables can be about ten times larger (19 or 20dB, rougly) than those in other cables. It also shows that those losses can be highly frequency-dependent.
You are right, the top curve is for the "bad" interconnect, which has the highest losses of the bunch.
Differences among most electronic components (DACs, preamps, etc.) are of the same order of magnitude of what I'm measuring here.
Cheers,
Ricardo
Hi texaslonghorn,
I'll be happy to explain, and it's actually pretty easy: My measurements simply show that losses in some cables can be about ten times larger (19 or 20dB, rougly) than those in other cables. It also shows that those losses can be highly frequency-dependent.
You are right, the top curve is for the "bad" interconnect, which has the highest losses of the bunch.
Differences among most electronic components (DACs, preamps, etc.) are of the same order of magnitude of what I'm measuring here.
Cheers,
Ricardo
For Curly Woods
I'm with you. I also think that, at the end, the only thing that matters is how music reaches our hearts. I was a music lover before I was an engineer.
The purpose of my measurements is to show that, when comparing two interconnects, the measured difference can be pretty large, which can explain why we like some better than others. This is a tool to help people create better cables for those who really care about music.
Cheers,
R
I'm with you. I also think that, at the end, the only thing that matters is how music reaches our hearts. I was a music lover before I was an engineer.
The purpose of my measurements is to show that, when comparing two interconnects, the measured difference can be pretty large, which can explain why we like some better than others. This is a tool to help people create better cables for those who really care about music.
Cheers,
R
Maybe there are other issues here other than just frequency response, that are not seen or understood just yet. What about phase issues under dynamic conditions through cabling? Just a question. How are harmonics affected across the frequency bands, when subjected to changing conditions? Dielectric memory and inductance?
Just looking for reasons that may not have been thoroughly looked at yet that might explain some of the mystery. Again I am not here to declare anything. I am interested in seeing if there are reasons that have as of yet, not have been discussed/ researched thoroughly. Curious.
Curly,
There are other issues. One that I can easily measure is microphonism (sensitivity to vibrations), which varies greatly from cable to cable. It's just a matter of connecting the cable to the instrument, tapping it with your fingers, and listening to what it does. For some cables, the magnitude of microphonism is about the same as that of losses.
Of course there is a lot we still have to learn about cables...
Cheers,
R
<broken record> Microphonics (sometimes triboelectrics) are a significant problem in some Teflon-silver interconnects. Never found it to be an issue in the cheaper cables. I've told my sad story about this many times before. </broken record>
But I'm still not understanding the significance of those sub 0.001dB variations.
I don't quite know what your questions mean. Could you explain them better? It sounds like you're asking about plain vanilla frequency response (that's what determines harmonic balance and phase), which Passion's test, with completely expected results, shows doesn't vary more than a thousandth of a dB.
True, with a high impedance source, the differences in interconnect capacitance matters more for HF bandwidth, but that's not exactly a profound revelation. Competent preamps have low source impedance, as Passion's data indicate.
But I'm still not understanding the significance of those sub 0.001dB variations.
I don't quite know what your questions mean. Could you explain them better? It sounds like you're asking about plain vanilla frequency response (that's what determines harmonic balance and phase), which Passion's test, with completely expected results, shows doesn't vary more than a thousandth of a dB.
True, with a high impedance source, the differences in interconnect capacitance matters more for HF bandwidth, but that's not exactly a profound revelation. Competent preamps have low source impedance, as Passion's data indicate.
Passion,
Do you really think your measurements represent reality?? They are plain wrong and very misleading!
It is like using a rangefinder to take two measurements, one gives 1.001Km and the other 1.002Km and then confidently stating that the two measurements are a meter apart!
Surely as an "audio engineer" you have a feel for what a 20dB difference is? This aint it
Cliff
Do you really think your measurements represent reality?? They are plain wrong and very misleading!
It is like using a rangefinder to take two measurements, one gives 1.001Km and the other 1.002Km and then confidently stating that the two measurements are a meter apart!
Surely as an "audio engineer" you have a feel for what a 20dB difference is? This aint it
Cliff
cbdb, this is quite funny, when I first read Hawksford's paper, his 'explanations' coincided with listening tests I've done on many different cables without me knowing of his work. Then some clown that doesn't have the guts to state his name came along with the statement that you've quoted and you are amazed by that, very scientific indeed. Do you really think that "boundaries, grains and all that junk" are irrelevant?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.