I am sick of seeing high-end catalogues selling 1 meter of IC cable for prices soaring up to and above $500... and not only that; all of their designs are different, yet they all claim to have some kind of edge that makes their cables better(not to mention "worth" those aforementioned outrageous prices)... Most of the reasons given sound about as solidly founded in physics as voodoo; in fact, I'm surprised I haven't seen any cables that claim to have a "voodoo curse that makes them sound mysteriously better!"
Look, I am in no way an electronics engineer; I do, however, work in the electromechanical industry, and as such I do have a close familiarity with ohm's law. And for me this is the bottom line; these are the only factors that I can perceive having an effect on IC performance:
1) Impedence- less resistance=less signal lost(obviously)
2)Capacitance- People say this is an important IC factor- I am not 100% sure why; someone please tell me(I'm guessing capacitance can have an effect on RF intereference reception?)
3)Cable sheilding
4)Placement- you obviously would not want your cables around an AC transformer.
Am I off base? If so- reply; I am willing to listen(by my own admission I am not an engineer). But if you think that I am completely wrong and want to tell me off, please, give me a scientific explantion(and more importantly...will I be able to hear the difference?) and I will humiliate myself and step off my soapbox.
I only ask, for I would like to experiment with making my own cables to see if I really can get better sound out of my system; and if capacitance does matter, then what would the ideal capacitance be? for a line output? for a phono output?
Thank you,
Trevor
Look, I am in no way an electronics engineer; I do, however, work in the electromechanical industry, and as such I do have a close familiarity with ohm's law. And for me this is the bottom line; these are the only factors that I can perceive having an effect on IC performance:
1) Impedence- less resistance=less signal lost(obviously)
2)Capacitance- People say this is an important IC factor- I am not 100% sure why; someone please tell me(I'm guessing capacitance can have an effect on RF intereference reception?)
3)Cable sheilding
4)Placement- you obviously would not want your cables around an AC transformer.
Am I off base? If so- reply; I am willing to listen(by my own admission I am not an engineer). But if you think that I am completely wrong and want to tell me off, please, give me a scientific explantion(and more importantly...will I be able to hear the difference?) and I will humiliate myself and step off my soapbox.
I only ask, for I would like to experiment with making my own cables to see if I really can get better sound out of my system; and if capacitance does matter, then what would the ideal capacitance be? for a line output? for a phono output?
Thank you,
Trevor
Uh Oh! ....here we go again!
I better get in before it degenerates.
I guess we need to set some limits for consideration i.e. the cable will be less than a metre long and only carry audio signals (up to 20khz or so).
The first thing I look for in an inter-connect is the quality of the shield. This in my view is the most important thing. My general rule of thumb = more is better, but up to a point. A dual layer shield is preferable.
Next I look for build quality and flexibility. This includes the quality of connectors at each end.
That's about it for me.
I consider impedance, capacitance, directionality plus any claims about soundstage, transperancy, tight bass, accurate highs etc to be nonsense.
My opinion.
Cheers
I better get in before it degenerates.
I guess we need to set some limits for consideration i.e. the cable will be less than a metre long and only carry audio signals (up to 20khz or so).
The first thing I look for in an inter-connect is the quality of the shield. This in my view is the most important thing. My general rule of thumb = more is better, but up to a point. A dual layer shield is preferable.
Next I look for build quality and flexibility. This includes the quality of connectors at each end.
That's about it for me.
I consider impedance, capacitance, directionality plus any claims about soundstage, transperancy, tight bass, accurate highs etc to be nonsense.
My opinion.
Cheers
http://www.sound.westhost.com/articles.htm
find here cables.
read all three to dispel all misconceptions bout so called audio grade cables.
very very informative.
find here cables.
read all three to dispel all misconceptions bout so called audio grade cables.
very very informative.
Where's the factor for material types (related to electrons movement MAYBE)? There's no difference in impedance or capacitance between silver or copper or gold-plated whatever. Anybody want the RCA socket from zero impedance aluminium? 
Honestly, my favourite brand is QED. It's not expensive, but is good in many situation.
Honestly, my favourite brand is QED. It's not expensive, but is good in many situation.
If 'they' can't do it, how can you make your cable sound better in your system?
If one were to study the crystaline structure of hi-end cables, the purity of the metal, dielectric absorbtion, skin effect etc., apart from the obvious parameters of Ohms law, Cable Science does make sense.
When you have gained a bit of experience and knowledge constructing your own cables from scratch, you can control the characteristics of the cable through geometry and material used. Those who have not tried these things and therefore, have not experienced success or failure, will also not know about industry manufactured products.
Finally, your system should resolve and your hearing mechanism perceive the change in the character of sound before you begin to move from unbelief to belief.
All the best for your cable making attempt!!
"If one were to study the crystaline structure of hi-end cables, the purity of the metal, dielectric absorbtion, skin effect etc., apart from the obvious parameters of Ohms law, Cable Science does make sense."
No one has been able to demonstrate the "crystaline structure, metal purity, dielectric absorbtion and skin effect" of metallic cables and the effect it has on an audio signal in terms of attenuation (dB) distortion (%) or any other meaningful dimension in a scientific and logical way without artistic claims.
Remember we are talking about a 1 to 2 metre length of interconnect with capacitance of a few hundred picofarads max. very low inductance and irrelevant resistance.
Many people get frustrated when their claims of cables are ignored, yet are unable to provide explanations within terms of reference that include scientific and measurable results.
On AA I read someones claim that they could audibly detect the difference a one foot length of speaker cable can make.......and at the same time try to retain credibility on cable expertise.
No one has been able to demonstrate the "crystaline structure, metal purity, dielectric absorbtion and skin effect" of metallic cables and the effect it has on an audio signal in terms of attenuation (dB) distortion (%) or any other meaningful dimension in a scientific and logical way without artistic claims.
Remember we are talking about a 1 to 2 metre length of interconnect with capacitance of a few hundred picofarads max. very low inductance and irrelevant resistance.
Many people get frustrated when their claims of cables are ignored, yet are unable to provide explanations within terms of reference that include scientific and measurable results.
On AA I read someones claim that they could audibly detect the difference a one foot length of speaker cable can make.......and at the same time try to retain credibility on cable expertise.
Hmm. A few views. These are my views BTW, and I don't attempt to dictate to anyone -not my way. They are however, supported by a good deal of scientific evidence.
Dielectric absorption is indeed a measurable factor in a cable. However, it's so minuscule it might as well not exist in audio runs -it's only really relevant going to a run 1/2 a mile long +. Crystalline structure and the purity of the conductors in electrical terms are irrelevant in that no cable introduces non-linear distortion. In fact, no metallic conductor introduces non-linear distortion. So, not a problem. Skin effect does not become measureable until circa 100KHZ minimum in most speaker cables, and this doesn't change much for interconnects either. Have a look at the measurements and articles on Audioholics too (Rod Eliot has contributed a couple there too I believe.)
Cables to be fair can indeed make differences to the sound of a system -it depends on their electrical characteristics, and the nature of the rest of the system. For example, I use 24AWG magnet wire as speaker cable in one of my systems, because it provides the additional series resistance my Fostex FF165K full-range units require when TQWT loaded. It raises the electrical Q, and thus lifts the bass when powered from a high-damping factor solid-state amp. That's measureable, not subjective by the way, and the reason I use it. It would not be appropriate for most other setups. I could just as easily have used 12AWG zip cable with a resistor, but why bother? Interconnects in my experience all sound the same, providing they're fit for the job. I see far too many unshielded cables being used in this application. Not good in an RFI rich environment, and less-easy to route.
Dielectric absorption is indeed a measurable factor in a cable. However, it's so minuscule it might as well not exist in audio runs -it's only really relevant going to a run 1/2 a mile long +. Crystalline structure and the purity of the conductors in electrical terms are irrelevant in that no cable introduces non-linear distortion. In fact, no metallic conductor introduces non-linear distortion. So, not a problem. Skin effect does not become measureable until circa 100KHZ minimum in most speaker cables, and this doesn't change much for interconnects either. Have a look at the measurements and articles on Audioholics too (Rod Eliot has contributed a couple there too I believe.)
Cables to be fair can indeed make differences to the sound of a system -it depends on their electrical characteristics, and the nature of the rest of the system. For example, I use 24AWG magnet wire as speaker cable in one of my systems, because it provides the additional series resistance my Fostex FF165K full-range units require when TQWT loaded. It raises the electrical Q, and thus lifts the bass when powered from a high-damping factor solid-state amp. That's measureable, not subjective by the way, and the reason I use it. It would not be appropriate for most other setups. I could just as easily have used 12AWG zip cable with a resistor, but why bother? Interconnects in my experience all sound the same, providing they're fit for the job. I see far too many unshielded cables being used in this application. Not good in an RFI rich environment, and less-easy to route.
I was able to change the frequency response of my system by exchanging the interconnect of my turntable. Ok, this is not difficult. I tried CAT5 and satalite cable and others.
I think with you could influence the frequency response of the audio chain with cables. And you will find people who tell you that the one sounds better or worse than the other. If that effect meets with some shortcomings of the system or the room, then you get better sound in the end, otherwise ...
But to spend big money on something like that? It would be cheaper to by a DSP.
stephan
I think with you could influence the frequency response of the audio chain with cables. And you will find people who tell you that the one sounds better or worse than the other. If that effect meets with some shortcomings of the system or the room, then you get better sound in the end, otherwise ...
But to spend big money on something like that? It would be cheaper to by a DSP.
stephan
Sorry But!
I agree that there are a lot of manufacturers of 'Snake Oil' but there are some really excellent sounding cables out there and the best sound like an amplifier upgrade theres that much improvement! I am an Electronics engineer and I have access to some very expensive state of the art test equipment, it is possible to test cables in a way that does show differences, but measurments do not indicate how it will sound. I have to smirk at some manufacturers with a large range of cables using diverse techniques this certainly shows they dont have a clue what they are doing.
If you have not tried really good cable you'll never know, as to the screen being the most important part, words fail me. The best cables I have tried are un-screened Audio Research had un-screened and screened cables (might still do) and claimed (rightly) the un-screened version was better.
I wish audio cables did not make a difference being a canny Scot I dont want to spend money I dont need to but the better cables really are much better, I've demonstrated this to both Audiophiles and non-audio types (normal people?) and every time its simply better and easily audible, to claim otherwise is just an untruth.
There may be people who cannot hear the difference (I'm very envious of these folk) but thats down to their 'on board instrumentation' (Ears and Brain).
In closing I would urge you all to try a decent interconnect as soon as you can you really have not heard what your equipment is capable of yet!
RC
I agree that there are a lot of manufacturers of 'Snake Oil' but there are some really excellent sounding cables out there and the best sound like an amplifier upgrade theres that much improvement! I am an Electronics engineer and I have access to some very expensive state of the art test equipment, it is possible to test cables in a way that does show differences, but measurments do not indicate how it will sound. I have to smirk at some manufacturers with a large range of cables using diverse techniques this certainly shows they dont have a clue what they are doing.
If you have not tried really good cable you'll never know, as to the screen being the most important part, words fail me. The best cables I have tried are un-screened Audio Research had un-screened and screened cables (might still do) and claimed (rightly) the un-screened version was better.
I wish audio cables did not make a difference being a canny Scot I dont want to spend money I dont need to but the better cables really are much better, I've demonstrated this to both Audiophiles and non-audio types (normal people?) and every time its simply better and easily audible, to claim otherwise is just an untruth.
There may be people who cannot hear the difference (I'm very envious of these folk) but thats down to their 'on board instrumentation' (Ears and Brain).
In closing I would urge you all to try a decent interconnect as soon as you can you really have not heard what your equipment is capable of yet!
RC
The screen...
If you consider the following logic;
1. The ideal distance an audio signal should travel in an amplifier etc. is zero
2. The ideal length of an inter-connect is also zero.
Because this is not possible manufacturers of quality audio electronics go to great lengths to screen the signal paths of audio signals. The screening is applied to prevent hum and other noise (EMI) from entering the audio signal. This noise usually presents itself as overlayed noise and distortion which can be measured and often heard.
This not only includes the audio sections but also any switching paths and power supplies. This screening is almost always connected to the central 0v point of the power supply because in theory no currents flow here or the sum of currents = zero. The logical extension for this screening is to extend beyond the housing of say the pre-amplifier and shield the audio signal to it's connection point at the power amplifier.
In unscreened interconnects it is possible that minimal amounts of this induced noise and distortion can make a audio signal appear more musical, and this could explain the differences many people claim to hear.
After all the claims no-one has yet aligned a perceived audible difference with an objective measurement. Then people can explain why their unshielded cable sounds better instead of "it just does". Until this is done their claim remains just that.
If you consider the following logic;
1. The ideal distance an audio signal should travel in an amplifier etc. is zero
2. The ideal length of an inter-connect is also zero.
Because this is not possible manufacturers of quality audio electronics go to great lengths to screen the signal paths of audio signals. The screening is applied to prevent hum and other noise (EMI) from entering the audio signal. This noise usually presents itself as overlayed noise and distortion which can be measured and often heard.
This not only includes the audio sections but also any switching paths and power supplies. This screening is almost always connected to the central 0v point of the power supply because in theory no currents flow here or the sum of currents = zero. The logical extension for this screening is to extend beyond the housing of say the pre-amplifier and shield the audio signal to it's connection point at the power amplifier.
In unscreened interconnects it is possible that minimal amounts of this induced noise and distortion can make a audio signal appear more musical, and this could explain the differences many people claim to hear.
After all the claims no-one has yet aligned a perceived audible difference with an objective measurement. Then people can explain why their unshielded cable sounds better instead of "it just does". Until this is done their claim remains just that.
Who said the screen was the most important part of an interconnect? I certainly didn't. What I did say was that, if you live, like 99% of the population, in an area where RFI is a problem, then an unshielded interconnect is in my view not fit for the purpose, and should be discarded. Even if external RFI from taxi cabs, pirate radio stations, Ham radio enthusiasts etc is not an issue, then careful routing of unshielded cables is still necessary to obviate what is mentioned above in quasi's post.
A thought for the day. How much do you actually think it costs Nordost to make a 1m length of their infamous Valhalla, which in the UK costs circa £2500. (As an aside, if a person can afford to spend that much on a piece of wire, then I do hope they put an equal amount yearly into charity boxes, as they clearly can afford to do so.) There's not much material there -no shield, minimal dilectric, and not a whole lot of metal either, so once your braiding etc machines are paid for, which shouldn't take long selling at those prices, you have little in the way of overheads... I'd guess manufacturing costs would run to, oh £50 or so. Sorry, but I can't quite buy into the notion that it costs even remotely like as much to make as, say, an equivalently priced amplifier, cd player, turntable, tuner, TV et al. What I do see is lagre profit margins. Still, blonde Tibetan virgins, upon whose thighs (impregnated with oil of mamba) are getting quite rare to find these days...
I imagine some of us will choose to agree to disagree on this issue, as always, which is fair enough.
Enjoy the music
Scott
A thought for the day. How much do you actually think it costs Nordost to make a 1m length of their infamous Valhalla, which in the UK costs circa £2500. (As an aside, if a person can afford to spend that much on a piece of wire, then I do hope they put an equal amount yearly into charity boxes, as they clearly can afford to do so.) There's not much material there -no shield, minimal dilectric, and not a whole lot of metal either, so once your braiding etc machines are paid for, which shouldn't take long selling at those prices, you have little in the way of overheads... I'd guess manufacturing costs would run to, oh £50 or so. Sorry, but I can't quite buy into the notion that it costs even remotely like as much to make as, say, an equivalently priced amplifier, cd player, turntable, tuner, TV et al. What I do see is lagre profit margins. Still, blonde Tibetan virgins, upon whose thighs (impregnated with oil of mamba) are getting quite rare to find these days...
I imagine some of us will choose to agree to disagree on this issue, as always, which is fair enough.
Enjoy the music
Scott
quasi said:
thanks quasi for such simple but very useful points to consider b4 buying cables.
Mr. Elliot's site is probably the most sucessful diy site on the web.this man is genius and whatever he states is backed by solid scientific base.Sir Trefor said:
the rest of the articles on his site r also a must read.
Samuel Jayaraj said:
hi jay,
what all cable parameters u r mentioning r 'visible' at freq. >=microwave freq.there is little(neglible) or no effect of these parameters at audio freq.
so plz quantify your statements by some evidence(if there is any).
A few..for now
Black is the text copied..blue is my response. (just in case Steve Eddy is around..
)
From the Innersound white paper:
Impedance is the resistance to the flow of current in a cable.
No, it is not. Resistance is..Impedance is the square root of L over C.
Because the conductors need to be close together for low inductance, but wide apart for low capacitance, simultaneously obtaining low inductance and low capacitance seems impossible. But surprisingly, there is a solution to this problem. Coaxial cable construction runs one conductor inside the other. So electricity "sees" the conductors in the same place. This results in very low inductance.
This explanation is weird, electricity sees? The beauty of a coaxial design is all the magnetic field is constrained to be inside the outer conductor. External to the outer conductor, the magnetic field produced by the inner and the outer are completely cancelled.
InnerSound's coaxial, low-inductance design is enhanced by spiral-winding the conductors in opposite directions. This further cancels inductance.
No, it increases it. Any deviation of current direction away from a purely axial direction results in additional inductance.
But what about capacitance? Doesn't a coaxial design place the conductors close together forming a high-capacitance cable?
Not necessarily. The conductors can be physically separated by a significant distance using a thick, high-value dielectric to produce very low capacitance while maintaining ultra-low inductance.
The capacitance and inductance of a coax is related by the equation: L * C = 1034 *DC, dc being the dielectric coefficient of the insulator. L is nanohenries, C is picofarads.
ALL cable sets, of any construction geometry possible, will never go below this equation relation. In other words, if you use tefzel insulation with a DC of 2.7, any coaxial cable created using that insulation will have L times C = 2791. This can not be improved upon if the insulation is not changed. Coax will have this number, anything else will have an effective DC that is higher, never lower, making that 2791 even higher.
The impedance is determined by the size and length of the conductor
The resistance is. The impedance is determined by the geometry and the materials.
From Rod's the truth article:
Power leads will rarely (if ever) have any effect on the sound, provided they are of reasonable construction and are not inducing noise into (unshielded) interconnects
Apparently he has never correctly identified why a ground loop actually picks up hum.
From Rod's cable impedance article.
One thing the cable vendors have completely neglected to point out, is that the characteristic impedance is only important (and relevant) when the source impedance, cable impedance and load impedance are all matched
When the Z of the cable matches the load, the storage of energy within the cable is at a minima. this is independent of frequency.
At DC, the characteristic impedance of all cables is infinite (for all intents and purposes), and the rated impedance is usually not reached until the signal frequency is well above the audio band
At DC, the characteristic impedance of a cable is the square root of L/C.
Cheers, John
Black is the text copied..blue is my response. (just in case Steve Eddy is around..
)From the Innersound white paper:
Impedance is the resistance to the flow of current in a cable.
No, it is not. Resistance is..Impedance is the square root of L over C.
Because the conductors need to be close together for low inductance, but wide apart for low capacitance, simultaneously obtaining low inductance and low capacitance seems impossible. But surprisingly, there is a solution to this problem. Coaxial cable construction runs one conductor inside the other. So electricity "sees" the conductors in the same place. This results in very low inductance.
This explanation is weird, electricity sees? The beauty of a coaxial design is all the magnetic field is constrained to be inside the outer conductor. External to the outer conductor, the magnetic field produced by the inner and the outer are completely cancelled.
InnerSound's coaxial, low-inductance design is enhanced by spiral-winding the conductors in opposite directions. This further cancels inductance.
No, it increases it. Any deviation of current direction away from a purely axial direction results in additional inductance.
But what about capacitance? Doesn't a coaxial design place the conductors close together forming a high-capacitance cable?
Not necessarily. The conductors can be physically separated by a significant distance using a thick, high-value dielectric to produce very low capacitance while maintaining ultra-low inductance.
The capacitance and inductance of a coax is related by the equation: L * C = 1034 *DC, dc being the dielectric coefficient of the insulator. L is nanohenries, C is picofarads.
ALL cable sets, of any construction geometry possible, will never go below this equation relation. In other words, if you use tefzel insulation with a DC of 2.7, any coaxial cable created using that insulation will have L times C = 2791. This can not be improved upon if the insulation is not changed. Coax will have this number, anything else will have an effective DC that is higher, never lower, making that 2791 even higher.
The impedance is determined by the size and length of the conductor
The resistance is. The impedance is determined by the geometry and the materials.
From Rod's the truth article:
Power leads will rarely (if ever) have any effect on the sound, provided they are of reasonable construction and are not inducing noise into (unshielded) interconnects
Apparently he has never correctly identified why a ground loop actually picks up hum.
From Rod's cable impedance article.
One thing the cable vendors have completely neglected to point out, is that the characteristic impedance is only important (and relevant) when the source impedance, cable impedance and load impedance are all matched
When the Z of the cable matches the load, the storage of energy within the cable is at a minima. this is independent of frequency.
At DC, the characteristic impedance of all cables is infinite (for all intents and purposes), and the rated impedance is usually not reached until the signal frequency is well above the audio band
At DC, the characteristic impedance of a cable is the square root of L/C.
Cheers, John
John, keep it up. Very good rebuttal to unscientific writings.
Those of you who say that cables do not make a difference to the way you system sounds, let me pose a question.
Do you think that whatever instrument measurements have become the industry standard like distortion, slew rate etc., are just electrical parameters or actually constitute a measurement of a known psycho-acoustic phenomenon?
If the present general conclusion is that we are measuring parameters that do not significantly determine musical performance and enjoyment, we need to better understand the phenomenon of the human hearing mechanism and come up with instruments/measurements which are based on these more accurate models.
If you still contest the above, then why are you here in a diy forum to pursue the holy grail of hi-fidelity sound in your home (or wherever else) through 'active' electronics while denying the act of the 'passive', whereas any commercial amp/speaker system which measures well should have made you happy?
Moreover, just because your system does not resolve enough and you do not 'hear', on what basis do you judge that others cannot hear and their systems are equivalent to your own?
Those of you who say that cables do not make a difference to the way you system sounds, let me pose a question.
Do you think that whatever instrument measurements have become the industry standard like distortion, slew rate etc., are just electrical parameters or actually constitute a measurement of a known psycho-acoustic phenomenon?
If the present general conclusion is that we are measuring parameters that do not significantly determine musical performance and enjoyment, we need to better understand the phenomenon of the human hearing mechanism and come up with instruments/measurements which are based on these more accurate models.
If you still contest the above, then why are you here in a diy forum to pursue the holy grail of hi-fidelity sound in your home (or wherever else) through 'active' electronics while denying the act of the 'passive', whereas any commercial amp/speaker system which measures well should have made you happy?
Moreover, just because your system does not resolve enough and you do not 'hear', on what basis do you judge that others cannot hear and their systems are equivalent to your own?
Samuel Jayaraj said:
The large part of the articles are rather good, Rod is indeed quite smart and very good, with some very good scientific writing. I am glad he has that site. I just wanted to point out errors I see.
The characterization of human localization capabilities via ITD and IID is new and fertile ground, unfortunately most people are deer in the headlights at the concepts. That will change, as will the testing regimens currently available.
Cheers, John
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.