I have seen the argument over and over again on why cables matter and the that wire is just wire and how scientifically it’s impossible for them to make a difference. The thing that surprises me the most is that different materials are used. Different shielding is used. Different connectors are used. Different braiding methods of the cables are used. Materials are sourced from different manufacturers and put through different creative processes but I always get some guy who comes on and says. WIRE IS WIRE AND YOU ARE NOT HEARING WHAT YOU ARE HEARING? To me it’s pure arrogance to think you know more than everybody else to the point where you tell me what we are hearing through my ears and we are not smart enough to know when are minds are playing trick on us. But using all these different materials, process and shielding and creative processes don’t make a difference. I spent the last 15 years trying all the cables I could try. Thoughts anyone?
We need to separate discussion of speaker and interconnects, which if crap can and do sound different degrading the signal, with things like Ethernet cables and power cords which you may HEAR a difference, but it is impossible by the laws of physics that the actual SOUND is different. Remember, sound is a real physical property. Hearing is what your brain tells you and it lies like a dog. Excluding defective cables and there are some out there.
If what you hear is better to you, then better is great for you as you enjoy your system more. Just please don't try to convince others who may be happy with their system that some magic thousands of dollars in snake oil is a must and their system is garbage without it. That is where the damage is. They could better use the money on better speakers ( the weak link in all systems). Analog cables can only damage the signal, they can't improve it. You may like that damage. Just recognize that is what is happening. I like my MOSFET amp, some like their tubes.
In the mean time, I am waiting for someone to demonstrate their exotic cable to beat a Belden 1800F for RCA's or 5000UP for speakers in a domestic system. for accuracy. Different does not mean better! Better, for real, may just mean the cable you had was garbage, not the magic-crystal, micro-diode, voltage-biased shield with colored braid is any better than a "good" $9 cable. Good: L and C balanced and reasonably low. Enough shielding for spurious RF, and correctly twisted pair to reduce any possible hum pickup. Cables less than a meter, Belden 1505F is pretty hard to beat. Good does not mean expensive as I have heard and measured for real, boutique cables that were crap. Length can make a difference. Some boutique cables may be fine at 1M with their high C, but 2M into a low Z input actually roll off the top. I have seen higher than 47p per foot! That adds up compared to 1800f or 1505f! In very long runs, geometry like "star quad" do work to the advantage over just a single pair or coax. Understood science. Not magic.
Carried away with shielding? Kimber, one of the companies with actual engineers, remains selling braided unshielded interconnects to balance their L and C. Never heard of any RF or hum problem from them. Proper science, not magic.
Wire itself being directional? Better look up what "AC" means. Shielding can be terminated to be directional, but not the wire. Just plain not possible.
Ethernet causing micro timing errors? "Air" "Weight" "Impact" Not possible. Your interface retransmits it into a buffer. That is the way it works. Look it up. Actually, Ethernet reflection issues are more like 75 feet minimum but by the design of the layer One, it is totally irrelevant. Level one of the IP stack, BITS ARE BITS. Look it up, don't believe me. I don't care what some advertising sheet says was "empirically tested" . BS. They make an extraordinary claim like that, OK, let's see the data! What your equipment does with those bits is a different matter. Not the cable. There is no minimum spec on cables, though in the 10G realm, some have additional termination within the cable to keep the BER below 10 ee-13 reducing the need for re-transmit of errors.
Still using synchronous mode over USB? Stop doing that and any noise and jitter caused by the cable is irrelevant. The DAC takes care of that. Newer ones, very well indeed.
Power cable adding "weight" or "air"? I am not saying you don't hear it, I am saying it is not real sound as it is impossible in this universe.
What you hear is up to you, it is when you cross over from the not well understood and maybe innovation, to the impossible, then I have an issue and will call it out. When you claim the impossible, the producer of such magic are making an extraordinary claim and need to make extraordinary proof. Not what you hear, as your brain is lying to you. They lie to all of us. Music reproduction is all about convincing you that lie is real.
Now I know, no one wants to hear they have been had. We are all humans and our lying brain does not like that and will jump though hoops denying that lie. So be it. Please just make the effort not to propagate the impossible and focus on the at least probable and more people can actually improve the real sound of their system.
The problem with naysayers is that they ask for proof, aka too lazy to look and research for themselves. They want us to do the work for them. They sit on their knowledge of “limited facts” claiming “prove me wrong”. However, for the rest on this thread, I’ll post some info:
”…Respectfully, it's not a "digital signal"; that is only how the data is encoded. The actual signal is an analog voltage "square wave", and as such is susceptible to number of "noise factors", all of which have, and do, exert an audible impact on what is heard. The other important point for folks to understand, is that a lot of folks (most, probably), think that the "noise" rides "down low", at the bottom of the "signal + noise" component of the source "information" being amplified. This is not true: the noise actually rides "on top" of the signal...as such, its deteriorates and degrades the integrity of signal itself As shown here with a digital signal source.”
”The reason that optical fiber provides a benefit is that it does not pass low- and high-source impedance leakage current, and this leakage current results in threshold jitter. Not to get too deep into the weeds here, but even the cores for the isolation transformers in the R45 jacks in an Ethernet switch can have an audible effect.
”Remember, the signal is an electromagnetic wave that propogates down the cable (it is not electrons flowing through the cable like water in a hose or marbles in a tube). The Vp(propogation velocity) of the signal is frequency-dependent, and an electromagnetic "signal" wave can reach the end of the cable and "reflect back", just like water in a tub or pool. This means different frequencies propagate down and reach the end of the cable at different times. And, because the Vp is different for different frequencies, there will be a number of "back reflections" occuring at...different times†.
This is just some foundational info to understand, that particularly with respect to digital sources, our brains are very, very sensitive to the impact of timing. For digital audio, for example, we can actually hear the influence of timing errors in the picosecond range, which is why we use femtoclocks for components like DACs, streamers, network switches, network bridges, etc. The Sonore EtherREGEN uses a Crystek CCHD-575 clock, and this crystal oscillator was chosen specifically for it's audio quality. This is why components like the Cybershaft master clocks, etc., have such a positive impact, and why EtherREGEN also has an external 50 Ohm clock input*.
The 1.5 M minimal length that Shunyata uses for Ethernet cables and USB cables, for example, was empirically determined as the shortest length that can be used to minimize the impact of signal wave "reflections" on audio quality.
It's physics, so yeah, it's a real thing”
Masterbuilt Cables were designed by the same government scientists involved in superconductors. When a heated debate on WBF including scientists and engineers over some marketing material, they were all silenced when the supercomputer scientists answered/explained their claims which went way over my head. Even scientists, engineers, etc are trumped by experts in a particular field.
If you want measurements in your cables, perhaps Iconoclast Cables. They have excellent white papers here and here that can educate on the problems and chosen solutions. Excellent read to learn about audio cables.
While a very few want proof aka understanding on how/why cables are better before purchasing, cable manufacturers rarely tell us the secret sauce so others can copy. Most of us are simply interested in price/performance, seeking better sonics.
Cables and power cords are complicated. Cables that sound great in one system may not sound so good in another. Stereo gear didn’t always come with IEC connectors. I did some diy in the past removing the stock power cords wired into my amps and preamps and soldering in upgraded power cords. Manufacturers added the IEC connector so that people could try different power cords. But HiFi manufacturers have also done much to reject noise coming in through the power cord. For example, I had an ARC SP-6b back in the late 1980s (with the fixed stock power cord). I had a dedicated line going into my listening room. I still had to remove all of the dimmers in the house because if a light with a dimmer was on, I could hear a quiet buzz in my speakers. My later preamps did a much better job rejecting dimmer noise.
The biggest change I have heard with better power cords is actually what I don’t hear. The background gets blacker- quieter. I don’t know how they do it and I thought the background was quiet before I put in the better power cord. That translates to a bigger and more 3D soundstage- more clarity and more focus to the images. The highs get smoother and clearer too. Even just a couple of years ago after I bought a Niagara 5000 power conditioner which made a large improvement, I thought to myself no need for better power cords on my DAC and preamps. I was wrong. I finally tried better power cords and found they improved the sound of my DAC and my preamps.
I don’t like paying for them because they aren’t shiny and pretty like a speaker or amp or one of those hifi turntables* with the foot thick platter, but power cords matter to the sound by a lot.
* I’d love to have one of those grand looking turntables with two, counter-rotating platters. It just looks so cool. But I spent my money on cables.
It seems none of these manufacturers seem to know how to make a proper power cord for their electronics. It makes me question every other design decision they make. If a short power cord makes a difference, imagine what a long power cord might do? Why not use long versions of these amazing power cords to transmit power to a separate, stand alone building that's otherwise off the grid?
I went through the trouble of auditioning interconnects and speaker cables 30 years ago when I assembled my system. My speakers are fairly resolving and I heard differences in every brand/model. As many have suggested, matching to your system is important. The most expensive were not best for me. But the interconnects and speaker cables that I preferred were a bit above my budget at the time. Being patient allowed me to find the cables I preferred either used or for especially good prices.
After upgrading my CDC transport, I saw enough feedback about coaxial digital interconnects that I decided to try one (going against the old lore that the only thing that mattered was that the cable was 75 ohms). I was surprised at the improvement. Then this year, I finally got over the activation barrier and tried power cords. I know they are not in the signal path, but the level of improvement for my preamp and my DAC still leave me amazed. I can’t believe how much I have been enjoying my system including my CDs that I was resigned could never sound as good as my vinyl.
I’ve head A British Audiophile say that he doesn’t like to spend time playing with cables and tweets and prefers to keep upgrading his equipment. From my perspective, I don’t really know how my components sound if I haven’t put some care into making sure they are functioning as well as possible and that hey are connected together optimally. For me, cables are the icing on the cake. Overbuying equipment when there are other weaknesses in the system has not been satisfying. The recent experience with two $100 power cables still leaves me a bit shocked. I was that close to a great system where digital is competitive with analog for 30 years and had missed out because I was swayed by those who insisted power cables couldn’t make a difference. IMO, everything has made a difference.
There is no such requirement because nobody here owes you anything at all. You can continue to characterize empirical evidence as "extraordinary claims," but - as you may have noticed - it isn't going to get you anywhere.
If anyone can suggest a parameter of Ethernet layer one that can translate to a difference in the bits when unpacked, re-assembled, and delivered by layers 2 through 7, please suggest them so they can be investigated.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I fully accept defective cables, defective switches, and really bad installation practices could cause an issue if using UDP; not likely using TCP. The basic layer one has error rates better than 10 ee-13. That is before TCP error correction. Once bits are delivered to the MAC and Data link layer, all bets are off.
Bill Whitlock ( Jensen Transformers) has pretty much covered the power cable issue, building to node.
Sometimes zip cord is better than high end cables, certainly compared to the defunct High Fidelity Cables. Cables require system matching, especially interconnects. I’ve noted the vast differences between my friend GroverHuffman boutique patented power cables with a 2 hour build time (complicated EMI/RF materials and construction as well as the manipulation of the wires themselves) versus Pangea mass produced on a $1/2 million system my electronics engineer neighbor was using, refusing until he heard just one (of six in his system) fundamentally alter and greatly improve his system, for cheap ($750 6’ and bought 6 for his system).
Digital cables are causing me the biggest problem though which really they shouldn’t. Also note that some high enders have replaced their $18K speaker cable with Silversmith Fidelium cables for only $1,300. So, it is both quality and system dependent decision and takes some quality listening and one’s personal listening preferences (sound and music) to determine which cables fit best.
If you ask me then I will tell you that different cables absolutely do have different characteristics and do affect the sound. The problem is that those who say that this is not true are usually the ones who have not made the comparison by listening to different cables in the same system and hearing those differences for themselves. I have no idea why they would be so sure that they are right without having tested it out for themselves.
... when a set of speaker cables cost $27,000 and the manufacturer misapplies physics in the marketing of the design, no credibility remains.
To which manufacturer do you refer? What model cables are you referencing, what misapplication of physics are you claiming? Without specifics, as you say, "no credibility."
I tend towards the skeptical because there have been faulty physics claims in advertising of cables and famous cable designers in ads show no physics or engineering training at the graduate level. Here are three examples of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. At higher frequencies, skin effect diminishes the cross-sectional area of a speaker cable. But how much difference does it make? for 8-gauge solid wire about 10 feet long, the effective resistance due to skin effect diminishes by a minuscule fraction of a decibel ay 20 kHz vs direct current. If a cable designer does something like litz construction or ribbon shaped cable, that tells me the designer either is unaware of this, having never calculated it, or knows it is bullshit but uses it for marketing purposes. Another manufacturer claimed litz construction solves the problem of the signal taking multipaths through regular wire and smearing the sound. But the signal travels at the speed of light and a difference of less than a millimeter in differences in path lengths between the signal crossing to the other side of a wire and not crossing to the other side at the speed of light is about 1/3 times 10^-11 seconds. Can anybody hear that? Stories about grain structure acting like little semiconductors in cable is not exactly how resistance of conductors generate Johnson-Nyquist thermal noise works. For loudspeakers, if you could hear this thermal noise in speakers, you would hear it when the amplifier is turned off.
I am not claiming that poor cable construction is as good as good cable construction. But when a set of speaker cables cost $27,000 and the manufacturer misapplies physics in the marketing of the design, no credibility remains.
A amplifier driving a set of speakers sees not only the impedance of the speakers that varies with frequency but also the whole circuit including the cables. Thin cables represent a resistance and impedance and thus would degrade dynamics and introduce coloration. However thick, low resistance cables would would be a transparent load for an amplifier - so the sonic difference should be IMO - zero.
I have been a cable enthusiast for the last 50 years. I started using 1000 strand welding cable as one of my first cables. About 40 years ago I brought some cables to work to show one of my fellow workers the different cables that were available. I brought in a Monster Powerline 1000 strand cable and a Kimber 4pr. The head electrical engineer came by and saw the cables. Said cables can not make a difference and us stereo people just liked wasting money. I asked him if he would be willing to take a cable home with him to try. He said sure, I’ll be happy to prove you wrong. The next day (which was a Friday) I gave him 1 Kimber 4pr. He said we’re is the other cable? I told him since it would not make a difference just hookup the one cable to see if makes a difference. The following Monday he came to my desk threw the cable on my desk and said, it made no difference. He then went 2 cubicles down to the lead instrumentation engineer. He said GD that Joe. I was flabbergasted that a cable could make such a difference. He came back to my desk and apologized to me and asked if I would make him a set. Which I did.
I have found that the best way to compare cables is 1 type of cable on one speaker and another on the other. This goes for interconnect cables also.
I don’t understand why people who can’t hear have so much to say on these audio forums.
Years ago I had a buddy, a musician with perfect pitch. He came over and tuned my piano with a single tuning fork. Even then he didn’t really need the tuning fork. It was for my benefit to show that A was the right pitch. No chromatic tuner, no measuring equipment needed. Best the piano ever sounded.
If someone needs measurements to confirm for themselves what they are hearing, that’s fine; but why claim others are deluding themselves for not relying on measurements?
Let's be clear. I am NOT saying there is no difference above the "bad" level. I am not telling you if you hear something or not. I am not saying the simplistic measurements sometimes quoted are the whole story. I do want to be clear we can measure all parameters of a cable. We just don't know how to quantify them as a minimum " good enough" combination for one person, let alone everyone's personal preferences.
No, I believe what I hear. I know it may be real or may be in my head. I believe in the laws of physics so those things I know are impossible, I know are impossible. Being an engineer, I know how these things work to a reasonable scale so I know when the invented logic of snake oil salesmen or well meaning people making false logical jumps without the technical understanding come up with pure BS. BS is actually very good. Makes clay soils much better. Not my stereo though.
I also know from soft science, we do not understand very well how our brain converts reality to what we hear. We have some clues. Small linear distortions and small timing differences we seem to detect. We seem to detect timing differences across frequencies our brain does not recognize as natural. We also know our brain "maps" our environment and makes adjustments over time. If anyone can point to some papers quantifying these issues, I would love to read it. Better yet, if you are a grad student looking for a project, there is a lot to be learned.
We know a preconceived negative expectation can create a difference in our head even though no actual difference exists. We know a positive bias will also generate a positive response. We know our brain likes to play tricks on us and flip what we hear from reality. We know these biases may not hear a difference even when there is one large enough that we should. Everything we do is biased. If you ask a random person if they hear a difference, we know a large portion will hear a difference even if there is not one because we biased them with the expectation of a difference. This has been demonstrated many times to statistically valid levels. We know group think and reinforcement will strongly bias our perception. This is why witness evidence is recognized as the least reliable in court.
So, by understanding both hard and soft science, I can take a much shorter route to better sound and avoid the clear snake oil ethereal made up attribute magic crap. I can make a reasonable guess where to stop as we leave engineering into magic.
Follow the old 90% rule. Find your biggest problem and fix 90% of it. Then find your next biggest and fix 90% of that. That last 10% may or may not even be achievable and you get lost in a rabbit hole without improving the situation as a whole. In theory, that first last 10% will become the largest remaining problem, and you then attack it. In reality, it never happens. Not only are the very best speakers still pretty poor, the source material is even worse. In other words, don't expect a cable to fix either.
Today we have an advantage we did not have way back in the 70's. We have instrumentation thousands of times better. We can do things like hook a cable up and measure the signal at both ends, subtracting one from another to quantify the difference. Qualifying it is harder. There is no longer a reason to use pure subjective imagination to look for differences. Alas, the SINAD chasers are stuck in a very limited set of measurements and the subjectivists are completely controlled by their unconscious bias. I hope real engineers keep an open mind and if a statically valid subjective test shows a difference, we should look to measure and quantify it. Quite a mess. If the esoteric hucksters could prove their cable is better, they have the money to do so. Not even publishing the R-L-C parameters and explain why their balance is better. No data on rejection vs frequency. ( go look at a Belden data sheet. You find a lot more parameters! ) Some on geometry and engineers can make an educated guess why one many be better at some particular issue than another. Things any engineer wants to know when selecting a cable. Nope, hucksters just make up slick-page hyperbole and tell you how great it all is. A lot of exotic products are perfectly fine. Just not magical. Some people still believe the world if flat and we did not land on the moon. That is religion and is not easily swayed.
So in the middle. I use my understanding of physics to rule out the total BS. I can look at measurements on some things to rule out the obvious crap. Then I have to listen. 100% accurate? Heck no, but neither are any of the supposed double blind tests I have read as none of them reach the 3 sigma level to pay attention to, let alone 5. I have won 20 games of solitaire in a row. Taken as a sample, I am so great I win 100% of the time! No it means I still only average 40% over sets of 100. A statistical anomaly is all. A lot of reviewers need to study statistics before them make claims on tests.
Now, the really hard part. Do you want your cable to be part of the signal shaping distortion adding part of reproduction, or do you want it to just convey the signal? BOTH are valid. Same argument of SS vs tubes. I happen to prefer my MOSFET amp to a Benchmark. Is it some added distortion I like, some higher distortion masking something I do not? Some more complex distortion not typically measured? Not a clue but I know what I prefer and there are real measurable parameters that could explain the differences. I just don't know which ones.
Or do you want to let your belief that nirvana is just within reach with one more tweak? Subconsciously, if it costs more it has to be better? Music is all in your mind, so how you get there is up to you. I am not filthy rich, so I take the shorter path that falls within the expectations of reality. My budget is to save for a new roof before it is needed, not a set of speaker cables.
FEDX should deliver my new amp today. I have an appointment with a parlor next week to see if I can hear a meaningful difference between my DAC and a Chord or the other mega-buck ones he has. I go in with a bias. Half says my DACs have reached the as good-as-I-can-hear and the specs are better than the Mojo or Qurest, the other half of my bias is there is still some "digititus" to be smoothed by a more expensive product. Should be fun.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I’m getting the impression that not all of us hear these differences as important, if we hear them at all. I haven’t gone as far as you with trying cables because I did not immediately notice the incremental improvements, or any change at all most of the time. On the few occasions I did think I heard something it wasn’t clear to me whether I liked it better or not. It just seemed slightly different in tone, although I wasn’t even sure about that. The one time I actually managed to get a blind test done I was unable to tell an expensive cable from a very cheap one, even though on sighted listening I thought the difference was quite obvious.
When real, significant sonic changes occur, I suspect it largely comes down to the equipment you are using, not necessarily the quality of it, but the interaction characteristics between the components you are connecting. If they interact well, plain old cheap cords might work absolutely brilliantly and give you a sound that you will be hard pressed to improve upon with further cable changes. If not, you may need a cord with some peculiar characteristics to help things out. In my experience, mainstream brands at the upper end of their standard consumer offerings tend to be engineered extremely well and work as they should without the need for peculiarly high quality cables. Exotic stuff is more likely to have weird issues. I’ve noticed the same thing with bicycle parts. The weird issues with audio equipment make things more interesting, giving you some room to create changes with the sound that are maybe out of spec, but perhaps desirable. With bicycle parts there’s often no upside to it except lower weight. If you can get the stuff to shift and brake half way decently you get a lighter, maybe slightly faster, and much more expensive and harder to maintain bike. Or maybe you get a specialty lever that works with your hand size or some odd type of handlebar you want to use, or lets you use a cassette from a different manufacturer that has the gears you want. Interface problems.
Come to think of it, when I worked on bikes I was stickler for good shifting and braking, and it sometimes put me at odds with my employer, who felt that as long as it would go into all the gears it was fine. I wanted it to go in quickly and precisely, one click one shift, without the user having to fudge with it. Similarly, some people may be much more sensitive to subtle differences that cables make, while others of us find a cheap cable close enough. Our ear can fudge for us. One of my co-workers who was a semi-pro racer admitted to me that he was so skilled at shifting bikes that sometimes needed a deft touch to get into gear that he hard time noticing the things I was talking about.
I would recomend this test to anyone interested in actually hearing for themselves if there is any decernable difference in cable quality and decide for themselves if the difference is worth their hard earned money. Here is what I did, starting from a very sceptical viewpoint, I decided I wanted to prove this issue for myself once and for all. I started small with a USB cable connecting my computer to a Parasound P6 Pre amplifier. My purpose was converting all my favorite music to digital so I could stream it wherever I wanted. I decided I was willing to spend way more money than I would consider reasonable under normal circumstances to see if there was any noticeable improvement as I went up in quality and price. I settled on Audio Quest cables for my higher end cables and purchased a few Amazon selections at the lower end, but I was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY going to spend the rediculously high amounts that were available from Audio Quest's top tier, (at first Anyway). So I started with an Amazon Basics cable for about $12 and another higher end brand but not Audio Quest for about $25 to start my test. To my surprise, I could hear noticeable improvement from each of them above your standard freebe cable. So there was my first proof that there was something to this cable hype after all. Now things got interesting, there was a lot of choices between $25 and the top of the line 1.5 meter USB cable which if my memory serves peacked out at $850.00. To save money, I decided not to test every little step up the ladder, I went with their Pearl level next at $40 and then went up to $100 for a Cinnamon, and each step up in price yielded an ever better improvement in sound quality, better stereo seperation and resolution, started hearing details in the music that were not there with the lower quality cables.
Now I had a problem, where was I going to draw the line price wise, in order to really do this test correctly I now knew I had to go to at least the second best cable to test the law of diminishing returns, that meant I had to get the Coffee version and that was a whopping $480.00 for a 1.5 meter cable, but I had to prove to myself that there wasn't enough of an improvement with that cable so I could rest assured that I wasn't missing anything significant in sound quality and be content with something that struck a good balance between price and audio fidelity. So I bit the bullet and ordered a Coffee, and the worst thing possible happened, not only was there not a diminishing return cost to quality improvement, it was a huge improvement in sound quality. Where the Coffee excelled was in bringing in the lower frequencies up to the same levels as the higher fequencies, it was balanced big and bold, the bass was totaly missing from all the prior cables, I knew I was hooked I knew I could not settle for anything less than a Coffee level but, the good news was, I felt like this was good enough, it was perfect, as perfect as it needed to be anyway, I did not feel the need to take that last step to the pinnacle, the Diamond line. As with most things in life one step below the top of the line is usually where the best quality to value proposition can be found. I subsequently purchased numerous other Audio Quest cables after this test and even got a couple of free upgrades to the diamond line from the seller becuase they were out of stock (supposedly) of the Coffee's that I ordered. I have a suspicion they did the free upgrade to let my ears hear the difference of the Diamond line and get me to order more. I will say there was an improvement in the Diamond line over the Coffee but the Coffee at half the price delivers I would say 90 to 92% of what the Diamond has to offer so I believe that is where the law of diminishing return exists. But if money is no option there is a very noticeable difference between the two, more details more bass, more mids, and more highs but all very balanced and natural sounding. The closest thing to being there in the same room with the performers is the best way to describe it, the lower end cables start out with the performers being in another room and the sound just gets closer to the performers as you move up the line. I really hoped all the cable naysayer's were right, unfortunately for my bank account, I can say with certainty they are wrong, but do the test for yourself if you dare, but you have been warned, it will end up costing you if you do. My feeling after this test is you should probably spend about as much on cables of all kinds from power all the way to interconnects as your system components cost. You are wasting your money on equipment if your cables can't bring out what the components are able to deliver.
Most articles from cable designers that I have read indicate that power transmission cables, such as speaker cables and power cords, benefit from low resistance and low inductance designs, with low resistance being most important. Of course, lowering those parameters raises capacitance, which is why certain ultra-low inductance speaker cables such as Alpha Core Goertz caused instability/oscillation in some amplifiers.
This about speaker cables from Audioquest:
High-Inductance geometry smears sound and reduces information. Star-Quad low-inductance geometry preserves time information, preserving dynamics and clarity.
This about power cables from Steve Nugent, owner/designer at Empirical Audio:
Good power cords, (primarily for power amps), are low inductance. The idea is to have a cord that is at least as low inductance as the ROMEX in the walls and yet flexible and durable. The reason I believe that low-inductance power cords can make a positive difference, particularly in power amplifiers is that they eliminate inductance in the path from the power grid to the amplifier power supply. This inductance, I believe, can cause the voltage to sag at the output power transistors during high-current transients in the music when the capacitor bank discharges and power line must recharge it quickly (during the time that the rectifier diodes are conducting), in order that a sag in voltage does not occur at the power transistor DC supply.
A link to one more interesting article on speaker cable design by Gareis of Belden, who designed his Iconoclast cables to have geometry and materials that provide balanced and consistent parameters.
I prefer to use science to get there, not advertising. Others seem to be big fans of Kool-Aid and have the disposable income to indulge chasing their imagination.
This is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. It's interesting that the measurementalists who so noisily proclaim their faith in science are so often guilty of these basic logical errors.
My Mocero hub that monitors my crawlspace for humidity was flakey. Intermittent Ethernet cable! New generic cable from Amazon, works fine.
I do love how those grain crystals are "diodes" so direction matters... in an AC circuit! 🤣
Lower inductance of power cords? The opposite of what you want. Sure, twisting reduces emissions which is a good thing. ( at least 1 per inch) but to block RF, add a big ferrite choke on them. More inductance. If you believe the engineers from Jensen who are about the worlds experts on hum, twist the power lines, but separate the ground out. Don't braid it. This is science, not magic.
In any case, it does not matter if you hear an actual physical-in-this-universe difference, or if it is your brain telling you so. Your enjoyment is what counts. I prefer to use science to get there, not advertising. Others seem to be big fans of Kool-Aid and have the disposable income to indulge chasing their imagination.
So don't tell me crystal orientation in 10 feet of cable, though measurable, makes a sonic difference...But geometry and dielectric can.
When evaluating ancillary audio stuff, from cables, to fuses, to small add-on in-line digital boxes, etc., I try and first decide whether I actually hear a difference and consider whether the difference is actually better, or just different. Then I think about the possible reasons why something works, or not. It is best when what I hear aligns with plausible reasons for the difference/improvement, but it doesn't always work that way.
I agree with you about metal purity and generally believe soft annealed OFC (or OFE) at 100%+ IACS is good enough for audio signals (although it so happens all of my cables are made from PCOCC). However, to your point about dielectric and geometry, I have found the speaker cables I like best use foamed polyethylene dielectric, and I do believe twisting and star-quad geometries used to lower noise and lower inductance are good for speaker and power cables. I find it interesting that BJC states, "Our favorite speaker cable is the Belden 5000 series," which is a simple pair of twisted, stranded copper wires with PVC dielectric and a PVC jacket. Also interesting is that the highest purity copper available in the Iconoclast speaker cable line is OFE or Oxygen-Free Electrolytic Copper (99.99% pure), although they do offer OCC, or Ohno Continuous Cast copper (99.99998% pure), in their interconnects.
White paper... geez, are you really going to bust his balls for providing his recollection of historical cable comparisons? At least he provided some level of context.
Many years ago when all this cable stuff came about, we did testing. Real engineers, one had an earlier career actually designing wire. Objective as much as we could afford, subjective where we could. Scope, Digi-Bridge, AF generator etc.
We used two systems. One was CJ tube P5, MV50 into Quads. Records of course. My system was a C&M amp , Hafler preamp, into Celeston 44's, modified with SEAS tweeters.
Our conclusion that I have held fast until now is there are two kinds of cables. Bad ones and good ones. I still hold that "truth" for digital cables. Almost for RCAs.
For speaker cables, our testing convinced us that 14 or 12 AWG zip cord was darn near perfect. None of the new boutique fire hose stuff was any better. We also tried several fads at the time like ribbon cables, bell wire ( solid core 16 gauge twisted) etc. One was a ribbon made of twisted pairs. We found some could really upset my amp. ( marginal stability it turns out)
Many years ago when all this cable stuff came about, we did testing. Real engineers, one had an earlier career actually designing wire. Objective as much as we could afford, subjective where we could. Scope, Digi-Bridge, AF generator etc.
We used two systems. One was CJ tube P5, MV50 into Quads. Records of course. My system was a C&M amp , Hafler preamp, into Celeston 44's, modified with SEAS tweeters.
Our conclusion that I have held fast until now is there are two kinds of cables. Bad ones and good ones. I still hold that "truth" for digital cables. Almost for RCAs.
For speaker cables, our testing convinced us that 14 or 12 AWG zip cord was darn near perfect. None of the new boutique fire hose stuff was any better. We also tried several fads at the time like ribbon cables, bell wire ( solid core 16 gauge twisted) etc. One was a ribbon made of twisted pairs. We found some could really upset my amp. ( marginal stability it turns out)
For RCA cables, as XLR was almost non-existent for consumer audio, found plain old Belden "Brilliance" stranded 75 Ohm or RG59 to be about perfect. To the credit of some long gone company, you used to be able to get some red colored cable made to length. I remember the display stands on the register counters. It was again, just 75 Ohm stranded coax. We did not find any benefit to exotic shielding as that is only applicable to RF and most noise is 60 Hz which copper and foil shield do nothing for. It can be a bit more difficult for line level as there is possibly a path back into the feedback so one would be "correcting" external noise and not the amplifier, which would be just amplifying the noise. In power amps, the feedback is before the output filter so it is protected. I guess I do not see the preference for RG-6 for interconnects. Seems like the thinner can have the same C with lower L and the R is not important. From my UHF antenna, 100' to my TV, transmitters 47 miles away behind two hills, yea it matters! Over 3 dB advantage. Granted in the late 70's the level of RF pollution was not what it is today.
Since then, I had some 4TC Kimber to solve an illegal CB radio transmitter problem. It worked for that, but I did not hear any other difference. Overt time I tried several sets of expensive RCA's at boutique shop insistence and did hear differences. ALL of them worse. Snake oil plain as that. One was not bad. Tara I think.
So I have stuck by my zip cord and "well made" RCA cables. I don't have any hum problems, ground loops or other real issues to fix. I have watched with amusement how a braided sleeve can triple the price of a cable and how magic properties can add information that does not exist on the source. It is only insulting when I see a salesman selling $300 cables to someone buying $200 speakers. Yes, I have seen it Best Buy! If you are filthy rich and can toss $30,000 into a cable, that's your problem but I would advocate you can find a better use for it in our society.
Forward 30 years. A few, and I do mean few, serious engineers have looked at cables from the real measurable parameters. The gentleman from Belden, now Iconoclast, the fine folks at Blue Jean, and I am sure a few others. Mogami, Cardas etc. Some has been learned.
The more believable papers admit they are looking at the cable, not the system. I do not suggest this is an oversight, but practical as no two amps source or speakers are the same. So we have cable measurements, but not measurements in systems showing the effect if any.
On speakers, it matters a lot on the speaker design/load. I have always built low Q sealed systems as I think they sound better. They also have a lower broader impedance peak, less phase shift and lower group delay. As I have also designed and built amplifiers, I prefer higher resistance drivers for class AB amplifiers. I have not paid too much attention to impedance at high frequencies, but experiences with class D have identified that as a really serious problem. I am revisiting my last build to see is I can do a little more in the phase and tweeter impedance rise.
I still can't get carried away with fancy copper. What does the signal see inside my speaker? A big honking roll of generic copper coil in series with the woofer that may even have an aluminum VC! On the tweeter side, big aluminum foil caps. So don't tell me crystal orientation in 10 feet of cable, though measurable, makes a sonic difference. If you are active crossover, maybe I'll buy it, but a hard sell.
But geometry and dielectric can. I am not going as far as suggesting $1000 as perfect as can be measured cables are audible or not, let alone $30,000 but come in a Gucci case cables, but maybe, now we have electronics 100 times cleaner, source 20 dB higher resolution, and tweeters getting better every day, actual audible differences are possible. Finding the real ones through the snake oil is still almost impossible. We so far only have subjective viewpoints which seem to track the price or back cover advertisement. It could be different cable parameters are desirable depending if transformer, AB or D amplifiers are used. I may go as far as borrowing some Kimber base again to test.
I am not as concerned with my RCAs. One of the "exotic" DIY cables I tired was just a 30 ga ( wire wrap wire, silver plated copper, PTFE insulation) twisted pair. It was short connecting CD to amp. I heard no difference compared to my short 75 Ohm coax. Flexible but fragile. I will say, this was back in the internal DAC CD player days before I bought my first Wolfson. Source was not what it is today. I did use this wire in my tone-arm to advantage. My RIAA amp was in the base of my modified Thorens, so not trying to send MM signals to the preamp over long RCA coax. Only amplified line level.
Reading the few actual engineering papers and videos I can find, It did get me wondering. Why 75 Ohm cable? Just because it is made by the parsec? 75 Ohm at a Mhz? I don't care. What happened to the low C 100 or 110 Ohm cables we used for instrumentation in the lab? R is not a factor as there is almost no current and we are feeding 22 to 47K typically. Do I care if we have .25dB drop over 1000'? Nope. Ever cut open a Scope probe lead? Tiny steel conductor, rippled inside a tube so majority air dielectric, about a 75% braid. I bet it would make a great interconnect. Belden 2221 maybe? Of course scope probes have an LCR adjustable network so one can compensate the cable for the input reactance. A proper systems approach.
The subject of magic power cords comes up. I still contend that a safe ( welded as some Chinese cords were found to only be twisted to the prong and over molded!) plugs on about any old wire is as good as it gets. Again, consider what is on either side of the cable. But, if one is forced to have cables close to electronics and analog cables, some effort to reduce 50/60Hz emission is desirable. As shielding is useless, that leaves geometry. As far as RF pickup, I contend that is the responsibility of the power supply. Don't blame the cable for a bad amp design. I have long twisted ( better than one per inch) 2-conductor zip cord for isolated cords. Works and is free. How about the standard round IEC cables? Twists are as few as 6 inches and the safety ground is in the twist. Well, how about stripping the outer jacket to the IEC plug. Separate out the green and cut off the paper filler. Twist the power leads at 1 or 3/4 inch interval. Pull it into a sheath for protection and add whatever plug you need on the wall end. Now you have a low emission power cord that just by chance, won't pick up much RF either. Might cost a $2 cord and a $5 plug, with $2 braid. I suggest leaving the amp end in place as the screw on ends are like $11.
HDMI is the bigger mess. I only buy BJ cables as they ae tested to spec. Threw away a lot of total crap cables. I had troubles with POD, noise, ARC and CEC. USB testing also sent me to Belkin and Belden cables. Free ones being crap and easy to measure on the scope the spikes they inject to the ground and then audio. Can't say I heard the bad USB cables, but measurable and cheap to do correctly so why not be safe. Drug out my scope and I have not been able to find any RF noise on my Ethernet. Plain old cheap CAT-5.
Now figure me this: All these high end amps and such in aluminum boxes, then we complain about hum. What about steel? Mu Metal? If I was building the highest performance I could, it would be a steel box for LF, copper plated on the inside for RF. The PS would be in it's own internal steel box.
I went with getting the color calibrator, because I didn't know how to prove to myself that my reference would be correct. Everything looks great for sure now, though.
My stereo is my reference compared to anything else I hear, but its not really very expensive, so I'm going to try a more expensive power cable, next. No, I should try a better IC first.
If you're Apple box looks the same as your TV's Apple app, you're probably just not bothering to be discriminating enough. When I buy a new video card for the same pc setup, the calibration of all colors goes off to a point where it says it should be noticeable by now. So, each different device also digitally outputs different levels, regardless of what the software is telling it to. It's just not really to a great extent, the calibration software's number just reads off by a beginning to be noticeable amount.
I know this is an audio forum, but in a 'do cables matter' discussion, an independent measuring device showing a difference counts. There are probably people who will argue that it would be even more noticeable in audio than video. I can't really find too many videophile forums, outside of setting up the 9.1 Atmos part. Don't really want to, either. I don't want to hear about how much better people's $10k 42" screens look compared to mine. It was already 3x as much as usual, for the good one with extended color range. On the bright side, there were only a couple of 42" monitors that costed more, and the one that was 2x as much as this, was the same model, except with better HDR accuracy, however both of their HDR modes destroyed the picture, otherwise. HDR screenis are still in their infancy, though it's encoded in the available movies at a per-pixel level, so no worries there.
Anyways, I would recommend a color meter if you care about the intended reference, however, it could lead to you being just as picky about what you're getting as you probably are with your audio, since you're here. Have you tried a better power cable on your screen, yet? 😈
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
