We can also measure the thickes, number of strands, purity of the conductor, permeablity of the dielectricum, etc, etc, but like measuring flavours it doesn’t tell anything how the listener perceives the sound.
Hans
Wow, undamaged electrons from virgin copper.
This means you can use a cable only once, then it is deflowered.
Hans
It has been a while that a did give a little hint in what direction some of the answers can be found as well.
Until now, people still seem to be only busy in their own little safe cocoon of knowledge, yet still expect to find all the answers.
At the same time other people seem to wonder why this is a never ending story.
...
Umm.. how exactly are you going to measure that?
We can measure chemical differences, but we cannot easily connect that to a subjective index like "flavour".
YMMV, but when my nephew shouts "Look mom, a neutrino!" I don't bother to look around.
That would be foolish if the cable is part of a system and using the broader definition of distortion:
MERRIAM-WEBSTER Definition of distortion
...2 : the quality or state of being distorted :
b : falsified reproduction of an audio ... signal caused by change in the wave form of the original signal
It is relatively easy with properly engineered cables to reduce their contribution of noise and distortion to below the noise floor of active components - no voodoo or pseudo-science required. Yet in my experience I have often been shocked by how much cable degradation people put up with in their hifi systems.
In the course of this thread there have been several documented physical electro-mechnical properties of cable construction that introduce changes in the waveform of the signal output with respect to the input in a system that is comprised of source → cable → load → output. Maybe you need to re-read from the beginning.
Degradations leading to distortion of the signal include (but are not limited to) mechanical noise (micro-phonics), injection of RFI/EMI (hum & buzz + intermodulation in source and/or load induced by ultrasonic interference), variation of dielectric properties of the insulator caused by stress, both mechanical (as in stress from flexing) and electrical (as in EMF across the dialectric), even shunt capacitance or series resistance altering the behaviour of the source or load causing the audio output of the system to be distorted.
None of these sources of distortion are contentious. Whether any or all of these mechanisms contribute to audible distortion is environment, system, cable and user dependent. I'd be extremely surprised if anyone playing with sound systems hasn't experience one or all. In analogue systems there is no magic line where cable effects suddenly disappear, better engineered cables suitably designed for the specific purpose they are used for simply follow the rule of diminishing returns.
Last edited:
We can also measure the thickes, number of strands, purity of the conductor, permeablity of the dielectricum, etc, etc, but like measuring flavours it doesn’t tell anything how the listener perceives the sound.
Hans
That makes no sense.
The equivalent of measuring the differences between two flavours would be measuring the differences in resistance, inductivity and capacitance between two cables.
In your expose it sounds as if the cable is the most endangered part in the whole audio system, it’s like a sales talk.
Question is how you are going to measure this all, because I guess that you simply analyse the sound with your ears based on experience.
Hans
I have tested cable under controlled conditions to produce repeatable and documented results on and off over a period spanning nearly 40 years. Professional audio engineers do this everyday as part of sound system testing and commissioning, or at least used to when I was working in the field. Both Sound Technology and Audio Precision make (or made) dedicated generator / receiver analysers that could be used for cables, as well as other systems like digital and microwave links; there are probably a lot of others as well.
Some years ago I was asked to analyse a number of commercially available hifi interconnects to make a recommendation to use for turntable connections. None of the commercial pre-made cables were particularly good, so I experimented with several different professional audio cables and connectors. A cable set made with Canare GS6 cable and Canare RCAP crimp connectors was the top performer in that sample set. Canare is a Japanese broadcast cable manufacturer of the utmost repute. The cables measured more than -20dB N+D better than anything commercial from the store that requested the analysis. Of course I was only comparing against a small sample, but that sample included expensive interconnects from well known purveyors of 'audiophile' cables.
In the clamber to deride people who claim to hear something others think they know doesn't exist, some people cut off their ears despite their heads.
That is not correct, the thread is about "cables" and whether the distortion they introduce is above the "audible threshold". The word "speaker" does not even rate a mention until the 21st post, and then in the 24th post I started to explain some of the physical electromagnet and mechanical properties of multi-conductor cables that cause speaker cables to alter the transfer function between source (amplifier) and sink (loudspeaker). Does making distortion measurement of cable make sense?
In post 28 I started to talk about investigations I did with John Dunlavy in the early 1980s using a dual channel FFT analyser to measure the signal at the amplifier end of a speaker cable and the signal at the loudspeaker end, and displaying the residual, AKA distortion, by subtracting one from the other. We were able to show significant differences in the order of distortion from different constructions. Does making distortion measurement of cable make sense?
This thread is like a game of 'Whack-a-mole' with skeptics regurgitating hackneyed anti-science, whilst demanding proof they are wrong but offering no proof for their own propositions, excepting dubious anecdotal evidence like coat-hanger comparisons. BTW in science, that ‘the absence of proof is not proof of absence’ is a fundamental principle.
And NO, am am not defending pseudo-science or voodoo cables as some people keep claiming, just referring to correctly applied known physics and engineering in cable construction to minimise the deleterious effect cables have on signal transfer.
And to add insult to injury you have no shame in distorting what was said in this thread.
I’m about to volunteer a week on read only mode against closing this thread.
I was gonna stay out of this thread, but bad habits can be hard to break.
Yes, but what make and model of giraffe?
I do have to wonder what kind of phono cables could possibly be so bad they could measure 20dB worse than a theoretically perfect cable. Perhaps they have the shield and center conductor swapped at the connectors, and there's a 50kw AM station within a half mile.
Yes, but what make and model of giraffe?
I do have to wonder what kind of phono cables could possibly be so bad they could measure 20dB worse than a theoretically perfect cable. Perhaps they have the shield and center conductor swapped at the connectors, and there's a 50kw AM station within a half mile.
Semantical? A cable, if its poorly made, may affect the *system* in a way that changes the sound - most probably deficiencies on the driving side (amp) or an unlucky combination of reactive components between cable and speaker - this may effect frequency response and could indeed inflict audible consequences.
But if you where able to drive the cable with proper source and a proper termination you will find that the cable itself will not generate any for the human ear, detectable distorsion.
Again, a system problem, not a component problem. Many users on this fine site need to start to understand that a "stereo" is built with a number of components that interact and that one unit may be OK in one situation but not in an other. One listens to the net sum of all components and not to one by one - as this is impossible.
More system thinking please!!!
//
Not worse than a theoretically perfect cable, but worse than a real cable under the same test conditions.
I am retired. I do not profit from making and selling cables. I am a professional engineer with more than 40 years experience in electro-acoustics and engineering sound systems, mostly professional, but also domestic. The tests above are easy enough for others to replicate.
Initially to minimise outlay I bought my samples of Canare and other professional cables and connectors for prototyping from eBay, but after this investigation I invested in the $1000 or so of Canare proprietary termination equipment to be able to make them consistently and easilly. That allows me to make high quality cables for friends and colleagues for which I charge the cost of materials, plus $20 to contribute towards the tool-up cost.
About 15 interconnects were tested and the test consisted of six measurements per cable:
- Electrical (EMI) noise measured a) open circuit, b) terminated by 1kΩ, c) terminated by 0Ω; and
- Mechanical noise measured a) open circuit, b) terminated by 1kΩ, c) terminated by 0Ω.
The commercial interconnect cables tested were brand new out of the packet supplied by the store that asked me to do the tests. The tests were not conducted in an RF lab, the signal was the EMI present at my home workshop in the city for electrical tests, and banging and twisting of the cable for microphonic tests. Obviously the mechanical test was somewhat uncontrolled, however the background EMI was surprisingly consistent making tests repeatable. If there was any doubt about a microphonics result the test could be and was repeated more carefully.
The preamplifier used was an iFi iPhono (noise spec >82dB A-weighted below 0.5mV), and the tests incorporated RIAA EQ because turntable interconnection was the intended use for the cables.
The results were measure with a CRO with peak capture, with what was being measured verified visually and by monitoring the audio. All of the cables generated noise above the noise floor of the iPhono preamplifier, even with a shorted input, therefore all of the cables added N+D and none were 'perfect'.
These tests were conducted as relative tests, i.e. they were not calibrated against a laboratory standard. The purpose of the test was to grade the cables relative to each other, not write up an AES paper. For each of the 6 tests for each cable, the signal level measured on the CRO was tabulated. I can categorically say that the best cable I made was >20dB better in at least one of the six tests against each of the commercial cables.
I made no attempt to subjectively grade the cables on audio quality. Frankly I think cable 'sound' irrelevant when a signal is contaminated with hum and buzz. What I can say is that quiet cables reveal more detail, so in that sense the best cable makes listening to music a better experience.
Well said. I will add that methods of blind testing of audio equipment have long been developed, where a group of listeners with professional experience, such as sound engineers of different age groups, evaluate the sound of systems in blind tests, and fill out special forms with their comments and ratings. For example, this technique was written in the Soviet book by I.A. Aldoshina, A.G. Voishvillo - 1985 High Quality Acoustic Systems and Drivers. Pay attention to the extensive list of references, where more than half of the books are in English.
https://saga-sibir.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/aldoshina-i.a.-vysokokachestvennye-akusticheskie-sistemy.pdf
Интервью Александра Войшвилло (JBL) - YouTube
Book by Irina Aldoshina "Fundamentals of Psychoacoustics".
https://digitalmusicacademy.ru/sites/default/files/content/aldoshina-psihoakustika.pdf
Aldoshina Irina Arkadyevna - Professor of the Department of Sound Engineering at the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Chairman of the St. Petersburg Section of AES, Honorary Member of the International Society of AES, Member of the Coordinating Council for Acoustics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Author of over two hundred scientific works (monographs, textbooks, articles, etc.). She has extensive experience in pedagogical and scientific work, for many years she was deputy. Director for Science and Head of Development of Electroacoustic Equipment at VNIIRPA named after A.S. Popova (Institute of Radio Reception and Acoustics).
Лучшие книги Алдошиной Ирины Аркадьевны
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.