Inter Connects - What I know and don't know

@atmasphere  thanks for the followup and link. I read it and understand it in and of itself.

T+A previously stated that pin 1 is connected to the enclosure (chassis) and not signal ground so this would suggest that they do match the "recommended practice" in Figure 1b of the article you linked. i.e. "equipment using 3-pin, XLR-type connectors must tie pin 1 to the chassis (usually called chassis ground) -- not the audio signal ground as is most common."

So far so good. Now, that's where the article you linked stops.

T+A then said "The analog signal circuitry of the DAC200 is referenced to the analog signal ground" and that this matches figure 3 in AES48 Draft. In this figure 3, the pin 2 and pin 3 (signal circuits) are tied to the REF = "Signal Reference" which I assume is what they meant when they said "signal ground".

This is where I am having a disconnect - isn't this the same thing as when you state that pin 2 and pin 3 need to reference each other and not 'ground'?? I assume you mean chassis ground, not the REF = Signal Reference in the AES diagram.

I don't believe the DAC uses an output transformer ('The generation of the balanced audio signal is already done in digital domain - not in analog domain.') so isn't it possible that the differential circuit could legitimately push out twice voltage for balanced vs SE and still remain AES48 compliant?

Thanks for your patience and understanding, I am learning a lot.

@nquery I don't see any figures in the document at the link which have the signal pins tied to 'REF'. If they were tied in such a fashion, I imagine they would be shorted. Perhaps you can list the page number on which the figure is found?

@atmasphere See figure 3 on page 7 of AES48 Draft. Maybe I was being presumptuous by assuming that the signals pins == "signal circuitry" in the diagram. The REF label is next to the black lines coming down from "signal circuitry".

Twisting cables is for blocking outside noise impacts from other nearby sources of magnetism (EM? too). Standard technique, so not sure why simplest twist would give more noise. See Twisted Pairs: Why are Wires Twisted? – Audio University (audiouniversityonline.com) for explanation. Most obvious company here is Kimber. They do seem to use more complicated twists in higher cost cables. Do not believe Cardas twists with their complicated geometry of different size conductors. But many cable companies use different shielding (foil, polyethylene, etc.) for blocking as well. 

Did read ASircom review of Odin 2 when came out. Is actually copper with silver overlay. He did actually test 100,000 British pounds of cable in a 10,000-pound system. Loved Odin 2 which seems to be the general consensus (like ghdprentice who tried them) and admitted likely used in more expensive systems. Have seen this before with the plating of silver over copper. Not due to cost, but many saying silver can be sibilant, emphasizing the highs. Some saying copper good for lower regions and silver for higher so the compromise. Not sure how that relates to the higher conductivity of silver unless an inductance game for reactance as that is proportional to frequency. So then maybe silver would enhance the highs.

Is certainly a varied game with monofilaments, Cardas the different sizes (golden ratio), Kimber (complicated twisting), anticables (naked), square conductors, oval conductors, etc. Questions about skin effects and high frequencies running there. Seems like number of manufacturers are able to use different constructions and still come up with great cables. That is why trial basis is best way to go.

Lastly, could also try Audience now acclaimed Forte f3 power cables. Considered very good for the cost. Am very happy with mine, even if considered entry level.

Do generally agree with excellent, detailed comment from williewonka. Classic movie by the way! (the original, of course!)

Also want to add that the OCC I believe is the Ohno continuous casting. This was a major advance by Japanese researcher Ohno with continuous casting in one crystal. Thus, there are not variable size crystal grains and grain boundaries to deal with for the electrical current. Also reducing the level of non-conducting elements like oxygen has been a major improvement. Annealing heat treatments likely reduces stresses (though heat treatments can impact overall composition if look at material diagrams). Perhaps that is what happens with the mysterious burn in. Some talk about moving cables even producing temporary stresses which may impact sound. I have found that raising cables off the carpeting does impact the sound, likely due to static electricity of the carpeting impacting the charged dielectric.