I am in agreement with a lot of Irv's comments about the Analysis Plus papers, shown here and here. However, I would rate the quality, intelligence, and technical persuasiveness of those presentations MUCH higher than that of the vast majority of cable-related marketing literature I have seen, which in many other cases drives my BS meter to full scale or beyond. One major reason for that, among several, is that the factors they discuss are generally presented in a QUANTITATIVE manner, as opposed to just describing an effect and saying that they have found it to make a significant difference. (Irv, with respect to your question about the frequency of the square waves shown in Figures 5 and 6 of the first reference, the number "10" shown above the figures is presumably microseconds per division, so they are 20 kHz square waves. The figure at the bottom of page 2 of the second reference, the pdf document, appears to confirm that interpretation). Regarding the resistance figure shown for 100 feet of 12 gauge wire, 200 milliohms (0.2 ohms) is in the right ballpark. It is actually about 0.16 ohms according to this wire gauge table. More generally, I would make the following points about the resistance rise at high frequencies which they depict as resulting from "current bunching" and skin effect. 1)Although they indicate that all of their cables are designed based on similar philosophies, that resistance rise has no relevance to analog interconnect cables, for which cable resistance is utterly insignificant with respect to the load impedance. And in most cases it will also be insignificant in relation to the output impedance of the component driving the cable (to which it adds, since the two impedances are in series). 2)For speaker cables, I suppose it is conceivable that a rise from 0.2 ohms per 100 feet to 0.5 ohms per 100 feet at 20 kHz, which their cable avoids, when extrapolated down to more typical lengths might make a VERY slight difference in the upper treble region in some systems, especially if speaker impedance is low at high frequencies (as in the case of many electrostatics). The impedance of dynamic speakers, on the other hand, generally rises significantly in the upper treble region and beyond, and in those cases I can't see how a rise of 0.3 ohms per 100 feet at 20 kHz would make the slightest difference. 3)It should be kept in mind that resistance, and therefore the significance of a given percent variation of that resistance as a function of frequency, can be reduced by simply going to a heavier wire gauge. 4)It should be kept in mind that the effects resistance might have in a speaker cable or analog interconnect cable, if any, will be directly proportional to the length of the cable. The shorter the cable the lower the resistance, at 20 kHz and other frequencies as well as at DC. All of that said, as I indicated earlier in this post I do give their papers excellent marks compared to those of most or all of their competition, and if I personally were shopping for cables in their price range (which I'm not) I would certainly put them at the top of my list of candidates. Mapman, thanks for the kind comment in one of your recent posts. Regards, -- Al |
I would commend to everyone's attention a highly informative post by Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere in this thread, that is relevant to what is being discussed here. Interconnect cable differences could be completely eliminated if components were designed in accordance with low impedance balanced line principles which date back to the early days of hifi. Unfortunately, components usually are not designed in that manner. Ralph provides what IMO is persuasive proof of that contention. Regards, -- Al |
Danaroo, as with the original question posed in the thread I doubt that a consensus can be reached concerning your question. One reason for that, IMO, being that the answer will be dependent on the designs of the specific components that are involved, and in ways that don't have much if any predictability. The answer is also likely to often be dependent on the lengths of the various cables in the system. See my post here for discussion of some of those dependencies. My post here, earlier in this thread, may also be of interest. Without knowing anything about your system beyond what is stated in your post above, though, my guess is that what may make the biggest difference would likely be changing the optical cable you mentioned to a coaxial S/PDIF or AES/EBU cable (depending on what your DAC can accept). With the odds being in favor of that difference being for the better, although not necessarily. Regards, -- Al |
09-11-15: GarebearFor some thoughts on why a high degree of correlation between cable price and cable performance should not be expected, see the posts by me and others in this thread. Also, see the two links I provided in my post above dated 9-8-15, which are here and here. Also, see the current thread " Looking for really fine cables at really low price", in which several highly experienced audiophiles have reported that they prefer the sound of cables made from Belden 8402 and vintage Western Electric wire, those cables costing not a great deal more than Radio Shack cables, to cables costing multi-thousands of dollars. Regards, -- Al |
I have a good deal of respect for Mr. Schroeder's reviews, and certainly for his sincerity. However, when a single isolated experiment yields results which fly in the face of both technical understanding and the overwhelming preponderance of reported experience-based belief, there are two possibilities: 1)The applicable technical understanding and reported experience-based belief are flawed, for reasons that are unexplained and probably unexplainable. 2)The experiment was flawed, for reasons that are unexplained and perhaps unexplainable. Which is more likely? Best regards, -- Al |
02-17-13: TobbThe reason for that is NOT necessarily that your system (or your ears) are lacking in (musical) resolution. Quoting from myself in this thread: The degree to which cables will make a difference depends not only on the intrinsic characteristics and quality of the cable, and on the quality and musical resolution of the system, but perhaps just as significantly or even more so on interactions between the technical characteristics of the cable and those of what it is connecting. Impedances, for instance, among many other dependencies that could be cited which have no direct relation to the sonic quality of the system.Regards, -- Al |
02-23-13: AudiolabyrinthRok2id makes a valid point here, IMO. From a technical standpoint, see my post in this thread dated 2-18-13, and the second of the two links I provided in that thread. From an anecdotal standpoint, findings that cable performance tends to be system dependent have been cited in a great many past threads here and elsewhere, by people whose ideological views on cables fall well within the "believer" part of the spectrum. Concerning the broader issue that is being, um, discussed here, I would point out that a belief that cables can sound different, to which I subscribe, says nothing about the degree of correlation that can be expected between cable performance and cable price. The aforementioned system dependency, which as I said can be supported both technically and anecdotally, would seem to be one reason (among many others that could be cited) to expect that correlation to be a loose one. Regards, -- Al |
The following was written before seeing Irv’s most recent post, the last paragraph of which touches on aspects of this controversy that are somewhat similar: In the midst of all the disagreement, I think that there is one thing pretty much everyone would agree on. If in fact there are audibly significant differences among cables, those differences are not fully explainable on the basis of generally recognized science. On the one hand, the effects that resistance, inductance, and capacitance will have under some circumstances are readily explainable, and can be analyzed quantitatively. The role that cables may play in ground loop effects, emi/rfi pickup, and (at least in the case of digital cables) impedance mismatch effects, are readily explainable, although not readily predictable or quantifiable. On the other hand, various explanations of the claimed benefits of high priced cables, involving things like strand jumping, metal purity, dielectric absorption, skin effect, time alignment, etc., while perhaps providing the basis for effective marketing literature, are either speculative or do not have established thresholds that quantitatively define the point separating what may be sonically significant from what is insignificant. All of which raises an interesting question, that seems to be rarely if ever discussed. If cable differences are not fully explainable on the basis of generally recognized science, upon what principles and upon what basis do the cable designers design the cables? The likely answer, as I see it: Upon some combination of trial and error, using a relatively limited number of systems; pet theories, whose applicability across a wide variety of systems is unproven; and, perhaps most significantly in the case of expensive cables, by overkilling every parameter that the cable designer considers to possibly be relevant. With the degree of overkill increasing as the price of the cable increases. In earlier posts in this thread I addressed how system dependency, especially the dependency of many cable effects on technical characteristics of the components that are being connected, can be expected to loosen the correlation between cable performance and cable price. Each of the three approaches to cable design and development that are listed in the preceding paragraph can be expected to further loosen that correlation. Regards, -- Al |
03-10-13: Zd542I'd like to add to Zd's characteristically knowledgeable and level-headed post the self-evident point that analysis also has its place in the scientific method. To cite a few examples, the first two of which are somewhat extreme but not completely unrealistic: It is easily possible to demonstrate by analysis that the difference between 10 foot interconnect cables having capacitances of 50 pf/ft and 10 pf/ft is likely be audible to those with unimpaired hearing if used at the output of a resistor-based passive preamp having typically high output impedance. It is easily possible to demonstrate by analysis that the difference between a 20 foot speaker cable having high inductance and one having low inductance is likely to be audible to those with unimpaired hearing if used with electrostatic speakers whose impedance descends to 1 ohm or so at 20 kHz (which is not uncommon). It is easily possible to demonstrate by analysis that differences in phono cable capacitance will have a profound effect on the sonics of moving magnet cartridges. So cable differences can be audible. The question then becomes how much less extreme can the circumstances become before reports of claimed differences are sufficiently implausible that they are more likely to be the result of the placebo effect or failure to recognize and control extraneous variables. Obviously the answer will vary considerably from system to system and from listener to listener, and each listener will have to make his or her own judgment about that. My bottom-line feeling, however, is that as with most things in life the best answer is likely to fall somewhere in the middle ground between the ideological extremes. Issues such as whether one think cables are priced fairly or how much of a difference they make, is for another thread. That stuff is just personal opinion; everyones answer is valid.Not sure that those should necessarily be treated as separate issues. It often seems to be implicit in the arguments of those at the "believer" end of the spectrum that the existence of differences suggests that "more expensive" has a high likelihood of being "better." And the basic motivation of those at the "skeptic" end of the spectrum often seems to be to dispel that belief. For the several reasons I expressed in my earlier posts in this thread, and perhaps for other more cynical reasons that could be cited, my belief is that the correlation between performance and price, while significantly greater than zero, should not be expected to be a strong one. Best regards, -- Al |
03-23-13: WaxwavesIf, as you and I and most of the rest of us agree, cable performance is system dependent, and if, as many of us agree, cable effects cannot be fully explained or predicted by generally recognized science, and if we truly want to keep an open mind, it would seem logical that equal opportunity and equal focus should be given to ALL price points, from the top of our individual affordability range on down. For example, the fact that Mogami proved to be nothing special in your system says little or nothing about the results it would provide in other systems. And I can recall more than a few posts in past threads here and elsewhere in which people have expressed surprise about how good the results were after they changed their high priced cabling to vastly less expensive Mogami. Not in every reported case in which that has been tried, but in many and probably most of them. Earlier in this thread, in my posts dated 3-8-13, 2-23-13, and 2-18-13, I cited several reasons why a high degree of correlation between cable performance and cable price, which is implicit in the opinion expressed in your post, should not be expected. IMO. Regards, -- Al |
07-03-13: NoromanceInteresting philosophical question. My guess is that in those cases where a difference is perceivable between the two alternatives (which is not to say that a difference will always or even usually be perceivable), more often than not the good quality receptacle + $10,000 power cord will be preferable. The main reason being better rejection of EMI/RFI that may be coupled to or from the power cord and other parts of the system. That would include rejection of noise that would otherwise be generated within the connected component, fed back into its power cord, and radiated from there to other components, with unpredictable sonic effects. Other variables, such as differences in resistance and voltage drop, and differences in responsiveness to abrupt changes in demand for current, would seem likely to be negligible between the two alternatives. And if there were any differences between the two alternatives with respect to those variables, the resulting sonic effects would certainly figure to be dependent on the designs of the specific components that are involved, IMO. Of course, power cords providing quality shielding and noise rejection can be had for vastly less than $10,000. Regards, -- Al |
