Just to correct my CV:
- PhD in electronic engineering (although I did do research in quantum gravity many years ago, as my first degree was in physics)
- long amateur experience in RF (my first career was in IT, then a brief spell in scientific microwave instrumentation)
- been building tube gear for decades, but some of it is RF and I am a slow builder
I guess that all makes me the archetypal hard-nosed slide-rule-carrying datasheet-reading wooden-eared engineer, of the golden-eared brigade's worst nightmare!
Doesn't change Stuart's point, but I wouldn't want accidental misinformation to propagate!
- PhD in electronic engineering (although I did do research in quantum gravity many years ago, as my first degree was in physics)
- long amateur experience in RF (my first career was in IT, then a brief spell in scientific microwave instrumentation)
- been building tube gear for decades, but some of it is RF and I am a slow builder
I guess that all makes me the archetypal hard-nosed slide-rule-carrying datasheet-reading wooden-eared engineer, of the golden-eared brigade's worst nightmare!
Doesn't change Stuart's point, but I wouldn't want accidental misinformation to propagate!
Oehlbach NF1. You don't get overcharged much, they sound great no matter which source and they are well constructed. Get the one that is not shortest nor longest and you will be happy. Heck for the price they command experiment and get all lengths. Forget about reviews, use your ears. At least 70% of people are full of it so make up your own mind. It's actually easier that way.
Edit
They are German so add some shipping costs and expect to be charged anywhere between 25 and 50 euro each. A steal I tells you.
Edit
They are German so add some shipping costs and expect to be charged anywhere between 25 and 50 euro each. A steal I tells you.
Last edited:
Group tests and reviews are just another method for mass misleading. What you need is a ABX blind test. This test can prove two things. One - you clearly hear the difference. Two - you can't hear any difference. Three(there is a three) - in case you CAN hear the difference it might turn out that the least expensive cable sounds better to you
Maybe, although I always find EM theory hard work. I guess at least I am in a better position to read hard EM books than most on here - for a start I have them in my library.
I will admit that from time to time I do wonder if there could be any kernel of truth in the cable myths, because the anecdotes do seem persistent, but the nonsense written about them generally shows that the 'true believers' are ignorant (or hope we are ignorant) rather than insightful. My current view, in the absence of any real evidence to the contrary, is that any real cable differences arise mainly from either capacitance or screening. The former will give small frequency response variations if the source has high output impedance. The latter may allow in interference, which some seem to interpret as 'air'. A decent system with low impedance sources and reasonable RFI immunity will not notice what cables are used.
I will admit that from time to time I do wonder if there could be any kernel of truth in the cable myths, because the anecdotes do seem persistent, but the nonsense written about them generally shows that the 'true believers' are ignorant (or hope we are ignorant) rather than insightful. My current view, in the absence of any real evidence to the contrary, is that any real cable differences arise mainly from either capacitance or screening. The former will give small frequency response variations if the source has high output impedance. The latter may allow in interference, which some seem to interpret as 'air'. A decent system with low impedance sources and reasonable RFI immunity will not notice what cables are used.
In the 1970s I worked in the RF design group at Harris corp. We had all kinds of coaxial cable in our store room, so I made my audio interconnects out of low capacity coax. The cable was free, I only had to buy the RCA connectors, so the price was right. I couldn't hear any difference between my cheap cable and an expensive commercial cable I bought. After that I didn't believe the claims made by companies selling expensive cables.
Exactly ! And according to the advertisin architects, our lot are the ones NOT to be trusted, because our lot are able to see through all the hype!
( well now, I myself "only" hold a BSc in transmissions systems.... still, though.. )
Although someone above mentioned that a bad cable is still a bad cable - in the sense of a faulty cable......
Someone also had a ref. to Belden cables, - fair enough, but Belden is just one among many reputable cable manufacturers. What is the difference between a to the audiophools "useless for audio" cable, but good enough for pro use? Have the snake oil manufacturers solved some of Einsteins questions, that general science have not ?? I seriously don't think so!
Some 10-20 years ago, the then old reputable danish mag "High Fidelity" ( also mostly full of BS these days - I've stopped buying mag's) had one of these newfangled cables with these "dongles" in one end X-rayed......
guess what... NOTHING inside !!
Last edited:
Actually, Audio Critic got one of those speaker cables and sawed open the potted dongles on each end. On one end... nothing but the potting material. On the other end, a simple 150R resistor between + and -. The idea is that the resistor probably did nothing except to show that there was something measurable in there, and if it burned out, it wouldn't make any difference to the sound.
As long as your leads are less than 10% of the wavelength, the characteristic impedance doesn't matter. So keep them under a mile or so.
Ok so really for turntable cable all I'm really looking at is capacitance and shielding? The lower the capacitance (adjustable on my Holman preamp) and the better the shielding, the better the cable for my application?
We also have tons of RG-174/U I could use. I guess another concern I have is it seems like most of these RF coaxs say they use copper clad steel or silver plated copper clad steel center conductors.
I don't think audio has the skin effect like RF, so this should pose a concern, no?
Last edited:
More or less. If the cartridge is insensitive to load capacitance (true of most MCs), then the cable capacitance is less important. The other thing to consider besides shielding is the flexibility- you don't want stiff cables to compromise the mechanical isolation of the turntable.
The presence of steel in conductors is oft discussed, but there's no evidence that it's audible. And if, like me, you use tubes, there's plenty of magnetic material in the circuit.
The presence of steel in conductors is oft discussed, but there's no evidence that it's audible. And if, like me, you use tubes, there's plenty of magnetic material in the circuit.
Ah, yea the mechanical isolation is why I thought of the RG-174. I just measured a 3 foot piece and came up with around 120pf, much lower than my current cables. My cartridge is a V-15 III which likes 400-500pf but I may want to switch to a different MM cartridge in the future and want to have a wide variety of options. Right now my cables are 300PF and its kind of limiting.
I'm running home built chip amps with a APT Holman preamp currently but have been known to run a tube amp now and then
With MM cartridges (except Ortofon) you need to be careful not to let capacitance get too high so 75 ohm cable would be better - or even 90ohm if you can get it.
Just to clarify: the characteristic impedance at RF is relevant only in the sense that it sets the capacitance of a cable. The actual characteristic impedance for audio is quite different anyway, and largely irrelevant.
Just to clarify: the characteristic impedance at RF is relevant only in the sense that it sets the capacitance of a cable. The actual characteristic impedance for audio is quite different anyway, and largely irrelevant.
Last edited:
Is there any specific coax you could recommend? I'm using this with an SL-1800MK2 table so size matters as well as flexibility for the suspension in the table.
Any RG or Belden part number would be greatly appreciated.
Yea, I would too except someone replaced it before I got the table and I've got around 300PF per side. This is fine for now as my v-15 wants 400-500 so I just add 100pf at the preamp and all is happy.
But, if I ever go to a cart that wants 100-150pf I'm out of luck.
Yeah, I don't have a PhD in electronics and all that.
All I do is patch together a system for some avionics, dump it in an alloy shell with wings and propel it through the ether with some 400 people in it. That certainly has nothing to do with optimising systems, I mean, just imagine it would, that'd almost mean that planes are efficient, can't have that... Oh wait... they are...
So, does a PhD in electronics teach you about metallurgy and its effect on signals?
I'd like to see a discussion between you and Professor Van Den Hul. I'm guessing it could be quite interesting to hear both sides of the story.
Don't get me wrong, as I mentioned before, I am quite willing to accept that expensive cables don't always provide improvements in sound (which would be subjective anyway, because as many people pointed out before, quality of sound is very personal). But you cannot deny that, manufacturing flaws excluded, a better build cable (equals more expensively made) is, well, better build, than not so well bulld (equals cheaper made) cables.
Ok, so this statement of DF96 refers to interconnects. Does it apply to speaker cables as well? Afterall, speaker cables do the exact same thing: transfer signals at certain frequencies from A to B. True, at higher power ratings, but still...
All I do is patch together a system for some avionics, dump it in an alloy shell with wings and propel it through the ether with some 400 people in it. That certainly has nothing to do with optimising systems, I mean, just imagine it would, that'd almost mean that planes are efficient, can't have that... Oh wait... they are...
So, does a PhD in electronics teach you about metallurgy and its effect on signals?
I'd like to see a discussion between you and Professor Van Den Hul. I'm guessing it could be quite interesting to hear both sides of the story.
Don't get me wrong, as I mentioned before, I am quite willing to accept that expensive cables don't always provide improvements in sound (which would be subjective anyway, because as many people pointed out before, quality of sound is very personal). But you cannot deny that, manufacturing flaws excluded, a better build cable (equals more expensively made) is, well, better build, than not so well bulld (equals cheaper made) cables.
Ok, so this statement of DF96 refers to interconnects. Does it apply to speaker cables as well? Afterall, speaker cables do the exact same thing: transfer signals at certain frequencies from A to B. True, at higher power ratings, but still...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.