I once had problems with noise in my phono system so I ended up bringing my table to the dealership. At the dealer, the noise problem did not occur, but, the dealer noted that the phonocable was unshielded. He had a cable that was supposedly identical, except that it was shielded (both made by Kimber). It turned out that the shield cable solved the noise problem. I asked the dealer why he sold me the table with the unshielded cable, and we ended up doing a comparison. The unshielded cable sounded better--more open on top, and greater ease in hearing subtle detail. He said he always starts with the unshielded cable and only goes to shielded when noise intrudes.
How essential is shielding?
Both my analog interconnects and my speaker cables are unshielded, yet my system is pretty much dead quiet. This is making me wonder whether the importance of shielding is sometimes exaggerated.
The majority of cable manufacturers seem to emphasize shielding as an essential feature of design. I don't doubt that there are many situations where shielding is both necessary and effective. But my results with unshielded cables makes me suspect that there are also situations where shielding is unnecessary or even detrimental, and that these situations may be more common than would be suggested by the dominance of shielded designs.
How essential do you think shielding is?
Thanks for any input,
Bryon
The majority of cable manufacturers seem to emphasize shielding as an essential feature of design. I don't doubt that there are many situations where shielding is both necessary and effective. But my results with unshielded cables makes me suspect that there are also situations where shielding is unnecessary or even detrimental, and that these situations may be more common than would be suggested by the dominance of shielded designs.
How essential do you think shielding is?
Thanks for any input,
Bryon