I would say that is a little over the line, wire nut would have been better to leave out the special sauce and voodoo references in his post. He does himself no favors there. But the boast is not uncommon. Better left for his own website or promotional material, IMO.
At least his post, photos and instructions are clear and to the point. That's more than can be said of many thread starters. Like the cables or not, he is showing how to actually DO something.
It can be useful to be told how to do something - unless what is to be done is unnecessary or harmful or based on misunderstanding. The first post contains several misunderstandings about audio cables so my conclusion is that the information would be better if it were moved to the 'funniest snake oil' thread - there is nothing like a real life example to bolster a valid argument.Pano said:
As someone (sreten?) said, it is not possible to make a 'better' cable. It is surprisingly easy to make a worse cable (e.g. unnecessarily expensive, too much RF pickup, too fragile, too stiff, too microphonic).
Hi,
I´m tempted to say the usual exaggerated claims without prof, but I won´t.
Anyway, hope that WireNut is still online here as I´d like to ask about some of the claims he posted in #1.
1. Phono signals are tiny and need smaller wire
Why should that be so?
Do You have any phyiscally trustworthy explanation all others don´t know of?
Especially low output MCs are very lowohmic sources generating tiny currents and voltages.
To keep transmission losses negligible the cable needs to be of lowest impedance value.
This requires the ohmic resistance to be lowest, hence asks for the best conductor material and large crossection area and the shortest possible length.
A lot of Tonearm cabling, especially the popular direct wiring shows ohmic values of 10% or more of the cartidge impedance.
Could it not be in this case that sonic differences between two cables are solely due to signal level differences at the preamps inputs?
2. Bass does not come out forcefully enough if there is not enough wire to carry the return signal
Isn´t that a contradiction to point no.1?
If there were a sweet spot for the wire size how could it be calculated?
On basis of which formulas or physical laws could one judge how much crossection is right or which is off?
Or is there a rule of thumb?
Which thumb would be the reference, a blacksmith´s or a pianist´s?
3. Phono cables need real shielding (I have tried lots materials with little success)
Manufacturers of coaxial cables typically spec the degree of shielding/overlay.
Up from which degree of overlay shall the shielding be regarded as ´real´?
Is 50% already sufficient, are 95% still not enough, will 100% suffice?
Or have You found the the magic voodoo formula that achieves real 150%?
The usual candidates for shields are plain wound wire, woven wire, metallized film, metal foil, carbonated plastics, combinations of 2 or 3 shields and maybe some more exotic things.
If a manufacturer specs 100% overlay, is he not telling the trueth regarding ´real shielding´?
4. Rectangular solid core wire renders exceptional clarity
Why should there a difference within the NF frequency range and up to say 100kHz?
Which parameter should make the difference?
Crossection area, surface area, electrical field distribution within the conductor and outside the conductor, or what?
I and many others could elaborate in length and detail the pros and cons of rectangular vs. round shaped conductors.
And I´m sure that in the end the round shape would combine more pros than a rectangular shape.
So what is the secret ingredient or parameter that gives rectangular wire its ´exceptionally clarity´?
2ea RCA ends (I like minimalist connectors where the pins are small- remember the signal is tiny- the CryoParts MPS is the least expensive of this type I know of. Other options are Eichmann and WBT Nextgen- personally and for my customers I use modified AQ 800’s.
The part "pins are small- remember the signal is tiny" follows no technical logic but is just a fuzzy gut feeling.
It also contradicts points no.2 and no.3 of Your principles list.
I´m sure we all aprreciated if for once a cable manufacturer would reveal clear physical arguments instead of the usual Marketing BS garnished with pseudo scientifical blabla.
jauu
Calvin
I´m tempted to say the usual exaggerated claims without prof, but I won´t.
Anyway, hope that WireNut is still online here as I´d like to ask about some of the claims he posted in #1.
1. Phono signals are tiny and need smaller wire
Why should that be so?
Do You have any phyiscally trustworthy explanation all others don´t know of?
Especially low output MCs are very lowohmic sources generating tiny currents and voltages.
To keep transmission losses negligible the cable needs to be of lowest impedance value.
This requires the ohmic resistance to be lowest, hence asks for the best conductor material and large crossection area and the shortest possible length.
A lot of Tonearm cabling, especially the popular direct wiring shows ohmic values of 10% or more of the cartidge impedance.
Could it not be in this case that sonic differences between two cables are solely due to signal level differences at the preamps inputs?
2. Bass does not come out forcefully enough if there is not enough wire to carry the return signal
Isn´t that a contradiction to point no.1?
If there were a sweet spot for the wire size how could it be calculated?
On basis of which formulas or physical laws could one judge how much crossection is right or which is off?
Or is there a rule of thumb?
Which thumb would be the reference, a blacksmith´s or a pianist´s?
3. Phono cables need real shielding (I have tried lots materials with little success)
Manufacturers of coaxial cables typically spec the degree of shielding/overlay.
Up from which degree of overlay shall the shielding be regarded as ´real´?
Is 50% already sufficient, are 95% still not enough, will 100% suffice?
Or have You found the the magic voodoo formula that achieves real 150%?
The usual candidates for shields are plain wound wire, woven wire, metallized film, metal foil, carbonated plastics, combinations of 2 or 3 shields and maybe some more exotic things.
If a manufacturer specs 100% overlay, is he not telling the trueth regarding ´real shielding´?
4. Rectangular solid core wire renders exceptional clarity
Why should there a difference within the NF frequency range and up to say 100kHz?
Which parameter should make the difference?
Crossection area, surface area, electrical field distribution within the conductor and outside the conductor, or what?
I and many others could elaborate in length and detail the pros and cons of rectangular vs. round shaped conductors.
And I´m sure that in the end the round shape would combine more pros than a rectangular shape.
So what is the secret ingredient or parameter that gives rectangular wire its ´exceptionally clarity´?
2ea RCA ends (I like minimalist connectors where the pins are small- remember the signal is tiny- the CryoParts MPS is the least expensive of this type I know of. Other options are Eichmann and WBT Nextgen- personally and for my customers I use modified AQ 800’s.
The part "pins are small- remember the signal is tiny" follows no technical logic but is just a fuzzy gut feeling.
It also contradicts points no.2 and no.3 of Your principles list.
I´m sure we all aprreciated if for once a cable manufacturer would reveal clear physical arguments instead of the usual Marketing BS garnished with pseudo scientifical blabla.
jauu
Calvin
Calvin, I have provided my input to a couple of your below points :
:Hi,
1. Phono signals are tiny and need smaller wire.
Why should that be so?
Do You have any phyiscally trustworthy explanation all others don´t know of?
Especially low output MCs are very lowohmic sources generating tiny currents and voltages.
To keep transmission losses negligible the cable needs to be of lowest impedance value.
This requires the ohmic resistance to be lowest, hence asks for the best conductor material and large crossection area and the shortest possible length.
A lot of Tonearm cabling, especially the popular direct wiring shows ohmic values of 10% or more of the cartidge impedance.
Could it not be in this case that sonic differences between two cables are solely due to signal level differences at the preamp's inputs?
IMO, there are 4 'opposing forces' here - and you have to consider all 4 of them:
#1: yes, LOMCs have a tiny output - so huge cross-sectional area in a phono cable is beneficial (to deliver low impedance).
#2: arms need to use wires which have a neglegible impact on vertical & horizontal movement - so thin wire is essential.
#3: you may not agree with this but I do - HFs are 'smeared' when they pass through too-thick wire. So, again, thin wires are used in tone-arms.
#4: but, yes, I agree there can be too much resistance and therefore too much signal loss when the same wire is carried through in a continuous run to the phono stage. But this removes a connector - which is always a good thing.
2. Bass does not come out forcefully enough if there is not enough wire to carry the return signal.
Isn´t that a contradiction to point no.1?
If there were a sweet spot for the wire size how could it be calculated?
On basis of which formulas or physical laws could one judge how much crossection is right or which is off?
Or is there a rule of thumb?
Which thumb would be the reference, a blacksmith´s or a pianist´s?
No, as I see it, it is not a contradiction. The signal is carried by the '+' (signal) wire; 'ground' is not strictly a 'return' wire - it simply carries the ground plane reference to the next component. Therefore thick is good.
jauu
Calvin
Last edited:
That is a different point. The OP claimed that phono signals need small wire because thay are small signals. You are saying that phono signals need small wire because they contain HF. Both these claims are untrue. The truth is contained in your second point:andyr said:
A coaxial phono cable carries the return current on the ground - Mr. Kirchoff requires this, as a consequence of charge conservation. Of course, on other planets with different physics this might no longer be the case.
It no longer surprises me when people make false statements about audio engineering - especially when they have something to sell. What does surprise me is how many fans then pop up to either support them or at least try to spread FUD over the attempts of others to bring some sound engineering science into the discussion.
Hi,
DF96 already told whats wrong with that claim.
So just to add a little food for thought
If You think voltage wise then Yes, the gnd is just a fixed reference potential and ideally I´d measure from the gnd reference to all other points labelled gnd 0V.
In praxis this isn´t the case and small voltages could be measured as the impedance of a trace or wire can´t be 0Ohm.
That a voltage drop is measurable is the proof that a current must flow.
So of course is ´gnd´ a return path of exactly the same current that is flowing through the ´+´ (signal) wire.
As the current is flowing through both, ´+´ and ´gnd´wire their impedances add.
From this follows that it doesn´t change anything -neither from the voltage between the preamp inputs nor the current- if the wires are of different impedance (or thickness).
As a cartridge is inherently a balanced source one can choose any potential for the returning wire off of the ´gnd´ reference potential.
This will change nothing, neither volt wise nor current wise if You measure between the two wires (two inputs of the Amp)
All four setups sketched in the attachement behave absolutely identical as long as the sum of W1 and W2 impedances is constant.
jauu
Calvin
DF96 already told whats wrong with that claim.
So just to add a little food for thought
If You think voltage wise then Yes, the gnd is just a fixed reference potential and ideally I´d measure from the gnd reference to all other points labelled gnd 0V.
In praxis this isn´t the case and small voltages could be measured as the impedance of a trace or wire can´t be 0Ohm.
That a voltage drop is measurable is the proof that a current must flow.
So of course is ´gnd´ a return path of exactly the same current that is flowing through the ´+´ (signal) wire.
As the current is flowing through both, ´+´ and ´gnd´wire their impedances add.
From this follows that it doesn´t change anything -neither from the voltage between the preamp inputs nor the current- if the wires are of different impedance (or thickness).
As a cartridge is inherently a balanced source one can choose any potential for the returning wire off of the ´gnd´ reference potential.
This will change nothing, neither volt wise nor current wise if You measure between the two wires (two inputs of the Amp)
All four setups sketched in the attachement behave absolutely identical as long as the sum of W1 and W2 impedances is constant.
jauu
Calvin
Attachments
Some of us don't use coax, DF96 (because it is stranded). Are we therefore breaking Kirchoff's Law?
How true and sad, a had VERY smart friends that also said HIV and AIDS are not connected.
Hi,
I said it is hard to make a better cable than a decent one
that does the job. Proper quality cartridge connectors are
a much better idea than arm rewiring in most cases.
rgds, sreten.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.