Automotive ignition cables are specified as carbon AFAIK to prevent the emission of RFI. Could there be something in this for us? Might this work in reverse, a reduction in excess noise or something?poobah said:
My network cables/phone jacks/serial connectors etc tend to oxidise and temporarily fail at least once per year.
the biggest con being bi-wiring or tri-wiring...
Bi amping maybe, but how can a wire split a signal.... in short it cant, all it does is ulitmately double the thickness of your cable and in some instances that might have an effect
Bi amping maybe, but how can a wire split a signal.... in short it cant, all it does is ulitmately double the thickness of your cable and in some instances that might have an effect
TB said:
As far as I understand it, the 47 Labs interconnect is poorly designed from an engineering POV. I believe it's used between the transport and DAC (i.e. SPDIF) as well. Maybe the 47 Labs interconnect tells us just how irrelevant cables really are.
Monster Cable too. Many others. It seems that any of their 75 ohm cables for component video or digital S/PDIF are hand soldered. From a transmission line POV, this is a no-no. The moment the physical layout of the center conductor, dialectric, and shield are screwed with, you've created a discontinuity in your transmission line. You've just messed up your VSWR. The penalty is jitter and possible loss of data (in digital) or a ghost image (video luminance ). It's best to have connections where the cable dimension can be maintained.
Why on earth would you have to match signal levels to compare interconnects? How could the fraction of an ohm in an interconnect cannot affect the level of a 22Kohm termination?
I don't use ABX testing. The best way to listen to wires is to plug them in and use them in the long term (hours at least). Long-term listening is more effective than an ABX test because it's closer to reality. ABX testing is an artificial construct and should not be used to replace the real deal. The real deal in this case being long-term listening in an intimately familiar environment (i.e. my system, my room, my music).
I don't use ABX testing. The best way to listen to wires is to plug them in and use them in the long term (hours at least). Long-term listening is more effective than an ABX test because it's closer to reality. ABX testing is an artificial construct and should not be used to replace the real deal. The real deal in this case being long-term listening in an intimately familiar environment (i.e. my system, my room, my music).
If you are referring to me, I mis-spoke. It was important when comparing DAC's, pre-amps and the like.
Yeah, I don't know. Moods change, hearing changes (fatigue), and the knowledge of knowing what cable you're listening to is definitely sloppy experimentation. Let's just say you looped a 30 second CD selection. Every time the selection looped, it displayed some number on a display. A good relay randomly selects an interconnect every time the selection starts and the display, displays a unique number. You could perform this experiment over days, get thousands of guesses. Sure, you'd get bored to death, but you'd get a large sample size, you'd be listening during different mood swings. Your ear would be used through differents parts of the day, during different ambient conditions (noise, temperature, humidity). Truth should be the goal. Knowing which wire you're listening to sounds like a flagrant foul in getting to the truth.
They all laughed when I used 1/4" copper tubing with a liquid nitrogen flow to achieve near superconductivity....😀
El_Hefty said:
Hmmm. Please explain mathematically why that is so.
astouffer said:
77K only gets you down 1 to 1.5 orders of magnitude, and only for very pure copper. I bet you only got 50%..
Cheers, John
mrshow4u said:
The best and simplest way to compare interconnects would be to have someone else change for you. I don't see the need for an elaborate setup.
OTOH I don't really see the need to do blind testing for my own personal use. I listened to these two sets of interconnects (Cardas Neutral Reference vs SonicWaves) over the course of a month and I'm quite confident that I prefer the cheaper cords. I wanted to have a reason to justify the expensive wires, because my audiophile friends won't get it, and I've already spent the money. But alas the cheap wires were better.
Agreed
ABX is a terrible protocol for audio testing. I think long term is the only way to fly. ABX has its place, but real determinations must be used long term.
audiobomber said:
ABX is a terrible protocol for audio testing. I think long term is the only way to fly. ABX has its place, but real determinations must be used long term.
If by ABX testing you mean as normally understood and defined in this Wikipedia entry about codecs:
I agree.
I agree.
You mean your ears so your ears have time to adapt? How then would you perceive any differences?
I find it strange people advocating this routine when it is well known that our signal processing can adapt to the quality of input and still extract the pertinent information, and that after a while the original heard quality differences (if they ever were audible) just are not perceived anymore.
In this instance - what would the protocol be? Two months, years or centuries with cable a, the same with cable b and then make an assessment of the differences?
I have numerous line stages to choose from as well as amplifiers and speakers.
For this test I used an Aikido line stage with 6FQ7/5687 tubes with a set of modified Quicksilver 8417 tube amplifiers driving a pair of cloned Klipsch Cornwall speakers. Note* The clone speakers measure almost ruler flat for response.
I also tried this with a modified Dynaco stereo 70 amplifier and numerous Solid state amplifiers of which I have stacks of.
My opinion of the high priced over rated cables hasn't changed as of yet.
mrshow4u said:
The infamous Transparent sells "air/spiral" Teflon-insulated SPDIF cables terminated with RCA connectors. It will be inferior to any cheapo 75Ohm antenna cable terminated with a pair BNCs. But why should anyone be surprised at Transparent's stupidity? They evidently cater to people more stupid than themselves. That's the way of all businesses--you only have to be smarter than your customers.
Alasdair Patrick of Audioquest summed it up best: "Of course, you can choose not to believe, but you'd be missing out on so much."
In plain English, there's no difference between cables and religion. It's all about faith. Of course, faith is the opposite of truth.
There's no hope for this unbeliever.
badman said:
If you anti-ABX people only would be consistent, then other people might take you seriously.
This bozo picked up on the improvement right away.
"One thing you learn in the professional music business (I've been in the National Symphony for 21 years) is that artistic honesty and integrity are everything. Without it, you're just a hack. Well, I confess: I screwed up. After finishing all my listening comparisons during the preparation of this review, I went through the snakepit of cables behind my two equipment cabinets and, to my chagrin, discovered that the Mark Levinson No.26S preamp had been plugged into a non-dedicated circuit via an el cheapo power cord, going through an Adcom ACE-515 AC Enhancer. With all due haste, I reconfigured the AC connection from the No.26S with the correct Tiffany cord, into a 15 amp dedicated circuit.
What a difference! The sound was more open, more dynamic, and more listenable, lending credibility to the argument that dedicated circuits and high-quality power cables really can make a difference. I started out with a new slate. To hell with the fact that I'd already spent hundreds of hours listening and comparing the Cello with the Mark Levinson, or that my NSO colleagues had given so much of their time to help me out. They were gracious enough, after hearing about my mistake, to give me another long listening session, along with their invaluable input. All the comments on the sound of the No.26S in the text refer to it used in the correct manner (footnote 9)."
Source
hahahahahaha Love it!! Yeah, maybe there is an improvement!? Maybe with the poor 75 ohm terminations, there's bit errors forcing the DAC's interpolation algorithm to kick in, thus improving the audio
Oh man, and don't get me started on AC cords
Oh man, and don't get me started on AC cords
mrshow4u said:
:bs:
Really now? You best get right on the horn to Andrews, Cablewave and a hundred other manufacturers providing connectors for the RF industry with soldered centre pins. Over the last half century they seemed to have worked just dandy in transmission line applications as diverse as my 10 watt 2.2 GHz microwave hop and passing 300 watts at 98.3 MHz to my FM broadcast antenna.
Let me know when the science starts guys.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.