I would really love it if someone could give a persuading answer regarding analogue, line level cables...
Since noone can, why should we believe the ones selling the expensive ones and not the ones selling the cheaper cable? I guess because we have been brought up to believe that the more expensive the better. I strongly believe that just spending a load of money for a cable can make someone listen to BIG differences in favor of it.
Lately I replaced my expensive links - $400/ meter RCA interconnect (manufacturer who undeniably builds his own cable and performs his own research - quite respected cable model with consistently good reviews from experts and users) to a well made Canare OFC GS-6 (instrument) cable finished with F09 Canare plugs by a professional. That one cost $25...
Both cables were 1m long.
I only replaced one link (cd -> preamp) not too haze the impressions.
I really couldn' t care less about critical listening sessions and stuff like that.
I just replaced the cable, let the new one burn for a couple of days (without listening to it) and then loaded my usual favorite disks and listened to music.
Let me also say that I couldn't really care any less about differences. If I liked the expensive ones better I would just reinsert them and give the Canare away. No psychological implications to the hearing process then.
Did I notice differences: YES !!!
How big? B I G !!!
In what direction?
Not that easy to answer in a word: with the Canare in place I noticed that some "problems" were bettered.
I have always wished for a bit more body in the lower registers that seemed too controlled before. That one was fixed. No control lost, the body increased.
Mids are more real. Voices are more believable. I like them better.
Focus is more defined. There is a smaller sweet-spot, but it is... sweeter. WHen in it the scene unfolds in a more realistic manner and the instrument positions are easier to locate.
Dynamics are better. I always had the impression that the sound was "loud" even at the lowest of volumes. Not any more. You get low and loud in a distinct way now.
One example of this is Diana Krall's Quiet Nights recording, which features several trully quiet interpretations of songs we know. In several instances piano notes are struck when the recording is near silent. Well, there are so distinct and sudden with the Canare that make the whole experience more realistic.
Higher frequency & detail: I immediately felt the top end has less energy with the Canare. With some recordings it sounds muffled and dark @ lower volumes (normal in-house listening volume). With other disks this trait is a bliss.
The real question is whether the Canare is rolling off the highs or if the "other" cable accentuates them on purpose.
I have no means to verify this. I suspect the second but I can't prove it.
Looking at the Canare website, there is a graph of the frequency responce for the GS-6 and it is dead flat to 50khz.
Can one cable be flatter than flat? Dunno...
Can capacitance of the GS-6 (in one meter of a cable) prove lethal for the top end? Ask LAPD...
This is what I know: I can't seem to find a reason why I should ever reinstall my older cables. NONE!
The music flows better, it is more enjoyable - more true and less synthetic and mechanical.
If I ever miss those sharper Highs I will rise the volume by a db or two.
Doctor am I well, or should I apply to the local psychiatric intitute?
Since noone can, why should we believe the ones selling the expensive ones and not the ones selling the cheaper cable? I guess because we have been brought up to believe that the more expensive the better. I strongly believe that just spending a load of money for a cable can make someone listen to BIG differences in favor of it.
Lately I replaced my expensive links - $400/ meter RCA interconnect (manufacturer who undeniably builds his own cable and performs his own research - quite respected cable model with consistently good reviews from experts and users) to a well made Canare OFC GS-6 (instrument) cable finished with F09 Canare plugs by a professional. That one cost $25...
Both cables were 1m long.
I only replaced one link (cd -> preamp) not too haze the impressions.
I really couldn' t care less about critical listening sessions and stuff like that.
I just replaced the cable, let the new one burn for a couple of days (without listening to it) and then loaded my usual favorite disks and listened to music.
Let me also say that I couldn't really care any less about differences. If I liked the expensive ones better I would just reinsert them and give the Canare away. No psychological implications to the hearing process then.
Did I notice differences: YES !!!
How big? B I G !!!
In what direction?
Not that easy to answer in a word: with the Canare in place I noticed that some "problems" were bettered.
I have always wished for a bit more body in the lower registers that seemed too controlled before. That one was fixed. No control lost, the body increased.
Mids are more real. Voices are more believable. I like them better.
Focus is more defined. There is a smaller sweet-spot, but it is... sweeter. WHen in it the scene unfolds in a more realistic manner and the instrument positions are easier to locate.
Dynamics are better. I always had the impression that the sound was "loud" even at the lowest of volumes. Not any more. You get low and loud in a distinct way now.
One example of this is Diana Krall's Quiet Nights recording, which features several trully quiet interpretations of songs we know. In several instances piano notes are struck when the recording is near silent. Well, there are so distinct and sudden with the Canare that make the whole experience more realistic.
Higher frequency & detail: I immediately felt the top end has less energy with the Canare. With some recordings it sounds muffled and dark @ lower volumes (normal in-house listening volume). With other disks this trait is a bliss.
The real question is whether the Canare is rolling off the highs or if the "other" cable accentuates them on purpose.
I have no means to verify this. I suspect the second but I can't prove it.
Looking at the Canare website, there is a graph of the frequency responce for the GS-6 and it is dead flat to 50khz.
Can one cable be flatter than flat? Dunno...
Can capacitance of the GS-6 (in one meter of a cable) prove lethal for the top end? Ask LAPD...
This is what I know: I can't seem to find a reason why I should ever reinstall my older cables. NONE!
The music flows better, it is more enjoyable - more true and less synthetic and mechanical.
If I ever miss those sharper Highs I will rise the volume by a db or two.
Doctor am I well, or should I apply to the local psychiatric intitute?
If it makes your ears happy and you pocket full why not.
I gave up manufactured cables long time ago.
I gave up manufactured cables long time ago.
I would love to know if anyone else has used instrument cable as an interconnect...
Belden, Mogami, Canare....
Second question of mine is whether the electrical characteristics of the cable as displayed by the manufacturer may offer a reliable insight to how it will sound...
Belden, Mogami, Canare....
Second question of mine is whether the electrical characteristics of the cable as displayed by the manufacturer may offer a reliable insight to how it will sound...
Congratulations, you're a human!
The hearing process is almost entirely psychological. At least if you're human.
Does a cable have a frequency response? The triple (source impedance, cable, load impedance) has a frequency response, but each element interacts with the result dominated by the source resistance and cable capacitance (which depends mainly on length). 'Cable frequency response' is meaningless.CENTRAL said:
Exactly. If the cable manufacturer wants to state a frequency response, he should specify the in / out impedances. If it's an instrument cable, it's meant to be used in a hi-Z environment: good instrument loads are over 1M, and passive instruments usually outputs something in the order of 10k (varying a lot with model, electronics and knob settings - can go over 100k without regret).
A cable is essentially a 2nd-order lowpass filter (OK, more complex than that, but anyway). With lower Z in and out, resonances, if any, go better dampened (keep in mind they're way above the audible spectrum). Some claim the dielectrics can be nonlinear, and I have no clue on whether this can make a difference. But, if any, lower Z also lower this effect. Some also claim the conductive path (connectors, wires and solders) can be noisy and nonlinear too, but I'm still more clueless about this, so I'll stop here.
Also, a different cable can either be better or have deviations which kinda correct your system's deviations. If your system (sources, processors, amp, speakers and room) is too bright, and your cable is dull, it's a good match (not a perfect one, but a good one). I don't know your system, I'm talking only of a possibility.
In the bottomline, your ears and your hearing pleasure are the real goal. If the cheaper sounded better, keep it. But remember to check again should you change any part of your system. Also, results can vary depending on which cables are changed - may be a good idea to test other interconnects.
Best regards,
Emerson
Last edited:
So, if I understand correctly there’s very little chance that any one manufacturer knows what his cable will behave like…
BUT, being system dependent, chances are some people will like the end result – and hence go all over the place and write glowing reviews and then even more people will buy it some of who will really like it and go all over and write nice reviews and so on…
I think I will enter the cable business asap!
BUT, being system dependent, chances are some people will like the end result – and hence go all over the place and write glowing reviews and then even more people will buy it some of who will really like it and go all over and write nice reviews and so on…
I think I will enter the cable business asap!
I dont know about a "persuading answer", but the truth as I understand it goes as follows:CENTRAL said:
1. A typical interconnect is so short (less than 10's of metres) that you can ignore transmission line effects such as impedance matching etc. This is extremely helpful, because as an audio transmission line almost any interconnect would be very poor if sufficiently long because of attenuation and serious levels of dispersion. The characteristic impedance and wave propagation speed are frequency dependent over most of the audio band. From the HF end of audio and up the cable will begin to behave like an ordinary RF cable.
2. As it is short, the main things which matter are total capacitance and screening effectiveness. Capacitance matters because it forms a low pass filter with the output resistance of the source. Screening matters because you don't want to inject loads of interference into the load. The LPF is only a problem if the source has high output impedance.
3. If the cable is on the long side, and if the source has highish output impedance, and if the cable insulation is a significantly non-linear dielectric then there could be some distortion at higher frequencies. This will be low-order, normally third (unless the dielectric has somehow become poled or there is DC present too, in which case it will be second). You could get a similar effect if the source output impedance is both high and non-linear.
4. Cables don't affect bass, but by affecting treble (in extreme cases) they may give the appearance of affecting bass in the opposite way.
Consequences of the above:
a. a short bog-standard but well-made cable coming after a normal well-engineered source with low output impedance will deliver the signal undamaged to the load.
b. beware of very long or exotic cables - as capacitance and RF pickup may be worse,
c. beware of exotic sources - some may have high output impedance.
If you hear a change when you swap cables then either it is the placebo effect, or you have just introduced or corrected one of the above problems. Cable differences are more likely to be heard with expensive equipment. Most people believe this, but they get the explanation completely wrong. It is not because it is better but because normal engineering principles may have been ignored e.g. low output impedance, RF filter on input.
Other people have different views!
One thing too often overlooked is that signal "ground" isn't carried exclusively by the interconnect cables (in a typical unbalanced system) but is instead spread among all channels' signal grounds and all equipments' earth safety grounds. Good grounding practices are more important than magic wires but are usually ignored. DIY gives us a chance to remedy (sorta) this if we choose.
All good fortune,
Chris
All good fortune,
Chris
While DIYer's do have the option of selecting unbalanced interconnect cable with heavy shields/returns and suitable shield construction for possible interference, few do!
I set up my input selector so that both cable and ground are selected when you switch between sources. Anything not selected is left completely open. It takes 4 decks to do this, but the switches are available.
I am further inclined to believe that since selling a cable is mainly business, there must be some audible difference to justify the purchase of an expensive cable.
I guess that companies know this and I find it impossible to believe they would ever rely solely on “placebo” effects to make money.
So I guess they attempt to “secure the sale" in a way. How could they do this? By providing some audible “difference”.
Given the computing power available, it should be relatively easy to mix & match the electric characteristics of any cable and to end up with something audibly different.
If I were the one selling it, I would not mind if it really (what really is “really” here who knows) did sound better or not. Chances are that given the myriad of different systems my cable will sound fair, good, excellent, fantastic or whatever, given the system. In the case it plays ugly I will blame “system matching” and offer my customer another one of my cables to fix this.
So, life goes on and millions of dollars circulate the market!
I guess that companies know this and I find it impossible to believe they would ever rely solely on “placebo” effects to make money.
So I guess they attempt to “secure the sale" in a way. How could they do this? By providing some audible “difference”.
Given the computing power available, it should be relatively easy to mix & match the electric characteristics of any cable and to end up with something audibly different.
If I were the one selling it, I would not mind if it really (what really is “really” here who knows) did sound better or not. Chances are that given the myriad of different systems my cable will sound fair, good, excellent, fantastic or whatever, given the system. In the case it plays ugly I will blame “system matching” and offer my customer another one of my cables to fix this.
So, life goes on and millions of dollars circulate the market!
Why is that impossible to believe? This is true in lots of markets, not just audio.
Did I mention that I tried to OD on a homeopathic remedy? I didn't take it.
Yes, I should have mentioned this. The transition between 'ground return currents follow path of least resistance' and 'ground return currents try to stay close to signal current' is in the audio band in most cases. However, proper use of ground lifts could ensure that both paths are the same.Chris Hornbeck said:
Placebo medicine works best when the doctor believes in it too. Next best is when the doctor is good at pretending to believe in it.CENTRAL said:
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.