The thing that bothers me most about interconnect discussions, and what drives me crazy about people and companies who champion expensive speaker and interconnect cable - is the total lack of any testable evidence supporting opinions or products. The most compelling proof given is "I heard it".

Although I dont have a problem with the opinion that a well constructed $10 - $20 cable might be a bit better than a $2.50 radioshack special, anything beyond that I'm losing respect for you.

The biggest laugh (next to "burn-in" - not even going to touch that one) is people who claim wonderful increases in audio quality .. in areas such as "sound stage" "warmth" etc. when upgrading their digital audio interconnects. The only thing travelling through there is a digital datastream. the ONLY possible improvement I could see would be if you were experiencing skips in your audio due to a cable SO poor that you were dropping data along the way. I once read about a guy who sent his ac-3 signal through a coathanger to a hugely expensive dolby digital decoder that had an error counter on it .. that counted a whopping 0 errors over several hours.


When turning to the internet for answers, it seems the only sites or studies that offer any actual scientific or otherwise verifiable comparisons all come to the same conclusion .. interconnects are the biggest hoax / scam going.

Here's a link to a double blind study comparing stuff like $1000 speaker cable vs 16guage zipcord and expensive interconnects vs $2.50 rca cables.
http://www.oakland.edu/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

heres a post from John Dunlavy (Dunlavy Audio Labs) on the subject:
http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html

nice story about interconnect company refusing to take part in any actual scientific testing:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

finally, if you want to read a bunch more, check out http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id3.html

It has the link to the coathanger test i mentioned above, but it seems to be down.

I'm not looking for an argument, as it is obvious those who believe in this subject will not have their stance swayed - I just wanted to get it off my chest. Also I'm not much for checking over my typing/spelling, so I apologize in advance.

Happy listening.

- pink

To play devil's advocate...

I find it interesting that you write off the "I heard it" proof so easily. As anybody who actually enjoys home theater will tell you, the single most important factor in assembling your custom built system, in the end, is how it sounds to your ears.

If that is the case, wouldn't the fact that people hear (or even just think they hear) what they perceive as an improvement in sound quality, be justification enough?

I personally don't have an investment in, nor have I done a comparison with, expensive interconnects. However, I very likely will get some outlaw interconnects one day when I have a few thousand to sink in to improving my HT and upgrade to an HDTV (or better), a 950/770 combo, and bigger & better Bostons!

Additionally, I notice you were quick to negate the concept of "burn in". Again, I refer you to my previous argument about what the end user perceives. However, I can say this. My speakers took on a, I'll use the word different so as not to try and quantify the change, different sound after everything had been connected and running for a few days. Since I didn't alter any settings after my initial setup, I can only assume the change was due to your easily dismissed "burn in" phenomenon.

I respect your right to your own opinion and I certainly am not trying to change your mind or start an argument. Just stating what I have observed in my own, admittedly limited, experience. Also, like I said at the front, just playing devil's advocate to express an opposing viewpoint.

Thanks for the post and I'll be sure and check some of your links!

Let me just say I'm dismissing "I heard it" only as a evidentiary proof that one interconnect is better than another. I am a firm believer in going with what sounds best, regardless of the price. I often find $1000 speaker sets sounding better to me than some costing 10 times as much. But in that case, and in the case of most parts of your audio system .. there really is a difference in sound - and it by all means is up to the consumer to pick what he or she likes best, regardless of the brand or cost.

The main difference in the case of interconnects is the reluctance of those claiming major sound improvements to participate in double blind trials. There have been several tests conducted where so called "golden eared" audiophiles auditioned what they thought were many different interconnect brands. As they got more expensive (and in some cases, just thicker) of course they heard vast improvement .. when in reality the interconnects never changed once the whole time. There are proven psychological reasons for this phenomenon.

As for burn-in .. I agree with burn-in when it comes to speakers .. new speakers will be a bit "stiff" before they settle into the state they will occupy for most of their existence. But burn in for a cable?

Here is an excerpt from one of many who has taken on the burn-in myth: (long)

"We keep hearing that cables (some will say all audio equipment) should be subjected to various techniques to "stabilise" them. This is generally referred to as burn-in, and after the treatment the item(s) supposedly sound better. To aid this process - of course - many entrepreneurs have slaved away for whole minutes to create CDs with pink noise or some other signal "specially designed" to do the job properly.

So far, I have not seen a shred of evidence that any so-called treatment has any effect whatsoever, other than a psycho-acoustical phenomenon known as "getting used to the sound". This indicates that it is the owner's ears that get burned in, and has nothing to do with the cables.

OK, so I am claiming that there is no change in the cable. I have measured cables (as have many others before me), and normally expect to find three main characteristics and two that are not relevant to audio. These are (respectively) ....

Resistance - influenced by the length and diameter of the conductors, and to a very much smaller degree by the purity of the copper used
Capacitance - influenced by the distance between the conductors and the insulation material. The capacitance is also proportional to the length of the cable.
Inductance - influenced by the cable length, diameter, spacing, and the amount of twist between the conductors
Self resonance - in any cable suitable for audio this is insignificant, as it is (or should be) so far out from the audio spectrum that it will have no effect whatsoever
Impedance - all cable has a characteristic impedance, and like self resonance it is meaningless for audio unless interconnects or speaker leads are many kilometres in length - this is unusual.
To some degree, the above comments are tempered a little when radio frequency interference (RFI) is present, but it will ultimately be the way the cable is terminated that makes a difference (rather than the cable itself).
It must be understood from the outset that cables are not very smart. In fact, they are bereft of any knowledge of anything. Indeed, their own existence is unknown to them, and their memory is much shorter even than that of a goldfish. This rather generalised statement applies to the conducting and non-conducting (insulating) materials alike.

A cable has no interest in the current flowing in it (or not) unless it is greater than the current carrying capacity of the conductors, in which case it will get hot (or perhaps only warm). This increases the resistance, but only for as long as the overload lasts, and until the cable returns to ambient temperature. This will take a few minutes at the most.

As long as the temperature is kept well below the melting point of the insulation (or the copper), no permanent change occurs. This is an extreme example, since in practice most cables are at room temperature, and may gain but a fraction of a degree even at maximum amplifier power. Any current that may have flowed at some time is instantly forgotten.

Likewise, the insulation is not the least interested in the voltage that may have existed between the conductors once it has gone away - again making a valid assumption that the output voltage from the amplifier will not cause the insulation to break down, allowing the signal to arc between the conductors. There are some very minor effects with all insulators (dielectrics), where a short memory effect can be noted, but this is not at all significant for audio, and even less so in the long term.

The end result of this is that cable burn-in is an invalid concept. More than just invalid, it is an attempt to convince you (the buyer) that the reason the expensive cable(s) you just bought don't make any appreciable difference, is that they haven't been given the necessary treatment, so you should buy this CD (or some other overpriced piece of equipment) to rectify the situation.

The simple fact of the matter is that changes in room temperature will cause a far greater variation in the characteristics of a cable than pink noise applied for a minimum of 37.5 hours. At the end of the "treatment" the cable will still exhibit exactly the same resistance, capacitance and inductance as before - so what has changed? And the answer is .... nothing.

There are electrical principles that exist despite any marketing hype. The hype and bullshit does not affect these principles in the least, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to a cable with a normal signal that it will remember or that change its long term characteristics."

- pink.

Well, I am just going down to Radio Shack and get their gold interconnects. I am convinced that they will be as good as the $300.00+ CABLES. The links about double blind testing makes sense to me. As Pink stated, digital is digital, just 1's and 0's, and they either get through or they don't. If cable companies could really prove a difference, don't you all think they would? I mean where are the proven specs? Where are the documented studies that prove one cable is better than another. I don't see any of the cable manufactures supplying that info, so that tell be they cannot.
Darth

Wouldn't it be nice when we come to the day when EVERY interconnect in our systems, except perhaps those between the pre/pro and the amp, are digital? Then, I suppose quality of interconnects wouldn't matter. (For the record, I don't believe it will matter. Bits are bits, as long as you're not dropping them. I also don't quite understand why people say that coax SP/DIF interconnects are better or will sound "warmer" than Toslink SP/DIF interconnects.)

My system, however, is going to have a fair amount of analog interconnects running through it. (I'm still waiting for the 950.) I had been planning on using a bunch of Outlaw short stacks for all this. I can believe that Outlaw cables, for analog interconnects will make a difference, especially in a quality system. If I were buying a $200 receiver and $150 speakers, then maybe the selection of interconnects wouldn't matter.

Does anybody think I won't be able to tell the difference between Outlaw cables and Radio Shack cables? Maybe I should buy a load of Radio Shack cables first, and compare them?

Another question I have: I've seen people recommend different cable types for interconnects between components and between the pre/pro and amp. To me, it seems like you'd want to use the same cable all around. Is there any reason to use something more expensive / different between the pre/pro and the amp than between the CD player and the pre/pro?

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Why can't we all just get along? Why does people who don't believe in cables always want to prove to us that we are wrong? And all these analytical studies and scientific explanations. Do you think that will convince me that I am wrong about what I hear?

I want to just focus on the sound quality a cable can make for just a minute. We'll talk about price and burn-in in a few minutes. About a month ago, a friend and I did an A/B test between the Cardas Quadlink-Five C and Kimber Cable's PBJ. FYI, the Cardas is about $200 for a 1 meter pair RCA terminated and the PBJ is about $84 a meter pair. Both of these cables are fairly well regarded in the HiFi world. Not bank breakers but good for an entry level HiFi or MidFi system. We tested these cables on my friend's system which consist of the following components:

CD: Arcam CD72
Speaker: Sonas Fabor Concertino
Preamp: Marantz SR-880 MKII
Amp: B&K ST-2140
Speaker Cables: Monster Z2 Biwire cable

I know you won't believe me and may think I am nuts, but the difference between the Cardas and Kimber was night and day. The Cardas was layback and warm while Kimber was forward and precise. The difference was so obvious even my wife notice it and she couldn't care less about the whole thing. But despite the difference in sound, it wasn't like there was a sure winner in which was the better cable. My friend prefer the Cardas, saying that it sounded more natural to him while I much prefer the PBJ for it's clarity and air.

When it comes to burn-in and stuff like that I am kind of on the fence on this issue. Yes, I do think my speakers and cables sounds better after playing them for a while. Usually at least a couple of days if not more. My Paradigm Reference speakers took a lot longer to really sound good to me and I do believe some of which is psychological. Therefore I cannot offer any scientific evidence on this and I think we'll just have to let each person make up his/her own mind about burn-in.

Just because I believe that cables make a difference does not mean I think cable prices are reasonable. Some manufacturers way over charges for their products. It's all part of salesmanship. You charge what you can get. Each industry has it's own business models. And the premium audio cable business, which is very low volume need that higher markup in order to be profitable. Not often do you get a company like Outlaw that breaks the traditional business model and succeed.

I am happy for those of you who do not hear a difference in cables because that means you do not have to spend a lot of time and money on finding that perfect cable for your system. I wished that I had never A/B compared my first HT speaker system, JBL NSP1 to Paradigm Monitor 3's and discover the world of HiFi. Ever since that day, it's almost as if I am on a mission to find that perfect sound in my listening room. But I sure don't need anyone to tell me that I my crazy for "hearing" things that are not suppose to be there b/c of the laws of electricity and physics says that the cable couldn't make a difference to the sound. It does to me. Pure and simple. So this gets me back to my first statement, why can't we all just get along? Don't pick on me and my kind and I won't think that you're tone-deaf, o.k.? Deal?

[This message has been edited by mxy15 (edited December 06, 2001).]

I think mxy15 said exactly what I've been thinking for some time now. Obviously, a lot of the cables out there are obscenely priced, which I think we can all agree on. Some people think the whole idea of "good cables" vs. "bad cables" is nonsense -- I understand the reasoning, even if my experience doesn't necessarily match the sometimes compelling logic. Other people can listen to two different cables and hear a (sometimes drastic) difference, and based on the difference they hear they will decide what cables they want to use. Rather than fight with each other over who is "right," I suggest we all just enjoy our systems. If you're somewhere in the middle and not sure if you would get any benefit from expensive cables, go borrow some from a local audio store and give them a listen. If something like the Radio Shack Gold sound as good to you as some MIT or Transparent cables, stick with the Radio Shack and be happy. I'll also add that Outlaw's PCA's might offer a nice middle ground -- great cables priced on par with or below the Monster Cable junk at Best Buy.

It all goes back to one of the best rules to this whole hobby -- get the equipment you like. That's the only really important part.

Well, I liked reading MXY15's reply the best so far. My hope in talking about cables was to find out how much I needed to spend to get the most out of my investment. I too plan on buying the 950 combo. I still do not know if Radio Shack Gold cables will do the job, since I cannot return the Outlaw's cables I will not be able to do any type of sound test against them. So I am still on the fence as to what cables to buy. But I agree with MYX15, that to each his own. After all it is our money we are spending.
I kinda wish I was tone deaf, then I could stay with my old stereo system, and save the pocket book.

Also, how come our wifes never care about sound systems? I know they are from Venus, and we men are from Mars, but I thought Venus had some fine music.
Darth

Or is it maybe just you dismissing tested evidence because it didn't follow your own sense of how a test should be completed?



How many interconnects have you tried? I'm sorry to say that $10-20 for an interconnect means the manufacture has to be able to build it out for $2-4 (need to build in profit for manufacture, distributors, dealers, plus marketing and misc overhead costs), that's what about a whole 2 minutes of man hours to insure a quality product? So tell me how good of a product you can make for that money? Could you even build your own for that money?



JITTER, your post here reads like you're taking a whole bunch of stuff you read off the net, and kind of assembling it together. Because if you were 100% up on your digital audio trivia, you would know that there is also regular non-digital information sent along with the bits. Have you ever measured a digital coax cable, specifically one of your $10-20 models? Did it measure out to full spec? Did you still get quality in that price range?



The good ol' ABX test, where are the specs of the test? How was the ABX box hooked up? A test of 7 listeners is pretty much as far from conclusive as you can get. And if you read the results, 50% of the time somebody heard a difference...so while inconclusive data, it's still far from 0%.



I suppose that's why Dunlavy now sells $500 speaker cables and $200 interconnects.



Call the company in question and get their side of the story. Or do you just blindly follow one side of a story?

As you mentioned, the wire debate will never end. There will always be people who believe and those that don't. So I'm a believer in cables, and I think you do need to spend more than $10-20 to get a good quality cable, most of the time. There are of course exceptions, but they are going to be few and far between. On the other hand, I don't think you need to spend thousands of dollars on cables either. Go hit AudioAdvisor and do a search on interconnects, and then list them by price. There are lots of good quality interconnects in there for a very reasonable price.

Andrew

This is a dangerous subject. Somewhat like religion. There's no measurable evidence so you must take it on faith.

Andrew is dead wrong about analog information on the digital cables. This is one subject that is not a matter of conjecture; functional digital cables cannot sound different. Optical and electrical interfaces cannot sound different. If they do then one is dropping data; period.

Interconnects and speaker cables do not break-in and are not directional. Both would be very bad for audio. If they actually physically changed then they should where out after a period of time; all the more reason to avoid the high dollar items. If they exhibited any directional qualities the result would be distortion which we don't want.

Now for an unsolicited plug. I usually build my own interconnects. I buy the rca connectors from ACI, they are DH Labs cheap $6.00 RCA SS-1. I use some rather expensive mini-coax I have laying around which we uses for single ended 155 mbit NRZ data transfers up to 30 meters (Barely works at 30 meters by the way). It has your standard foam Teflon dielectric, silver coated wire and is fully shielded . I'm going to buy the Outlaw cables. They have better connectors and I don't have to spend an evening building cable. My guess is that equivalent connectors would run $10 or more retail so I really see no reason not to buy the Outlaw cables. The Outlaw optical cables look quality also.

Can I hear the difference between the Outlaw cables and the ones that came in the box? Probably not; I doubt I can tell the difference between a 10 KHz sine wave and a 10 KHz square wave either. But the Outlaw cables do provide a corrosion resistant, air tight connection that will not require attention for a long time. I personally believe that the connectors and lugs are more important for line level audio cables than the cable itself, within reason of course.

I really don't think dielectric absorption is an issue with speaker level audio signals. Building/buying expensive cables with Teflon or polypropylene dielectric is overkill. A low inductance design is desirable. Check out posts from Jon Risch on audio asylum. He had a web page that illustrated building speaker cables from a high quality Beldon cable. While I don't really buy into this, building your own cables will save you a lot of cash. I will most likely use the flat 12 GA Monster cable so I can run it under the carpet, $1.50 per foot.

I really think that your money is best spent on better speakers. They are the only thing in the signal path that you hear. The John Dunlavy link is more eloquent than my post and I agree with most of his comments. Expensive cables usually have good terminations and connectors which is the only advantage they offer.

rcaudio, I bought some of the flat monster cable for an under carpet run in my bedroom. It was much thicker than I expected after it was installed. I put it under the carpet and pad and then re-ran it between the two. I could still feel it if I walked over the spot where it was (which was right by the door. . . ). Maybe a better quality pad/carpet would eliminate the problem. I decided to bite the bullet and run in-wall wiring and get rid of the flat cable all together. For me, it was definitely the way to go.

If you are in a house where you can run in wall wire, I would suggest it from my own personal preference. Unless the area where you run the flat cable will be seldom if ever trod upon, in which case it would probably work wonders and be the easiest.

Just trying to help out and save a few bucks (and hours) if your situation was anything like mine.

S.

This is what Mr. Dunlavy wrote about his own interconnects;
With respect to interconnect cables, the best-quality ( but modestly priced) ones sold by Radio Shack are among the very best we have measured and used. You can spend a lot more and, believe it or not, get a lot less with respect to such important attributes as capacitance, shielding, mechanically induced noise (piezo-electric properties), etc. Sure, we have designed and sell interconnect cables that are without peer, with respect to important electrical properties, but they are no better, audibly, than the Rat-Shack types within most systems.
Found this here;
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/dunlavy9.htm

Gotta point this out:



Sorry, but - if a deaf person guessed they would be expected to score 50% in this test. Like guessing heads or tails without looking. A significant figure HIGHER than 50% indicates a difference is heard. And just as more trial runs will bring your score closer to 50% on coin flipping, so to here.

Just so my bias is known, I think the high end cable stuff is mostly snake oil. In a low impedence high (relatively speaking) current circuit like the power amp to speaker connection, assuming sane cable lengths, I've never seen (on an instrument) or heard any difference not attributable to the power of suggestion.

The locking rca gizmos outlaw sells are nifty though I doubt there is an audible improvement.

For audio interconnects I'm on the fence - I can imagine that in this case sheilding etc. COULD do something for you, but I doubt it would amount to much.

For video I start to believe cables would be of value, but most video cables are rg59 anyway.

For digital - it's a joke, right? Nobody really thinks a better one or zero matters, do they? Please say it isn't so!

Charlie

There is a chance that a digital cable could be so bad as to actually drop bits. I doubt any commercially available cables are *that* bad, though, unless you're running a cable with totally off the wall characteristics.

I wonder if you could use the old 10base2 cables for SP/DIF audio... If I remember right, those were 50 ohm coax, which should be close enough for short distances... Hmm...

I have always had an interest in electronics, and have long been a tinkerer. I was an EE major for a while (though I wound up in the IT profession), and I believe I have a pretty good grasp of at least the fundamentals of electronic circuits.

There's a basic fact: no wire is perfect. Any wire will have some resistance, capacitance, etc. that becomes a part of the circuit. And those effects will be different from one type of wire to the next... the materials, the construction, the geometry, all make a difference. So it's not a stretch to say that one wire can have better characteristics than another for a given application.

But are those differences audible? You bet! I've observed it myself. But that does not mean that you have to spend huge bucks to get good-sounding cables. In fact, I'm sure that there IS a lot of snake-oil in the audio cable industry.

Being a DIY-er, I constructed my speaker cables out of CAT5 network cable, using a design based on this design . These cables are vastly better than the Monster cables I was using before. And I spent quite a bit more for the Monsters.

Of course, you could say that my opinion is biased because I made them myself. But I took those cables to try them on my friend's very expensive, very high-end audio system that has comperably high-end speaker cables. My audiophile friend and I did A/B comparisons, and found that while the super-expensive cables were better, my CAT5 ones were nearly as good.

As far as (line-level) interconnects, I havn't done much experimenting yet. But the DIY articles on the TNT audio have some generally sane discussion on interconnects.

With my background in both computers and electronics, I have always been very skepical that a digital audio connection can be affected by the cable. After all, "bits is bits", right? How can one CD transport sound different than another, when all it has to do is read the numbers off the CD and spit them out the digital connection? I've done a bunch of reading, and some experimenting, on the matter.

Yes, it's jitter that is the culprit. With digital systems, you'll have a "clock", which is basically a signal that goes "on off on off on off..." regularly at a specific frequency. A "clock source" is a circuit that generates a clock. Like everything else, no clock source is perfect. Ideally, the interval of time between one "on" and the next should be the exactly the same, but it practice, it varies. That variation is jitter.

Ok, but what is jitter's effect on audio? Take a typical playback chain where you have a CD transport with a digital connection to a receiver. The CD transport reads the data off the CD and applies a little processing to convert the raw data into the standard digital PCM stream. That data stream goes out the jack in the standard S/PDIF format, which combines clock and data into one signal. The signal clock is derived from the master clock source in the transport, so any jitter in the master clock will also appear in the output signal. So now the signal is passing through your optical cable or coaxial cable. This cable, being imperfect, is smearing the transitions (where the signal goes from "off" to "on" and vice-versa). It's a small amount of smear: not enough to obscure the data, but it does increase the random variation in time between one bit and the next (i.e., more jitter). The signal now enters the receiver's digital input. A circut called a "PLL" tracks the incoming signal, and attepts to sychronize with it. This is necessary to be able to extract the data bits. The PLL, when locked on to the incoming signal, generates a clock based on that incoming signal, and the clock is carried forward into the Digital-to-Analog Converter (DAC) along with the data. It is at THIS point that the jitter (which was present in the clock source in the transport, and which was made worse by everything in between) has its degrading effect on the resulting audio. Because the samples are supposed to be "evenly spaced", but they aren't, so the resulting analog waveform has a different shape than it should.

One might ask, "Why can't you generate a new clock for the DAC, and throw away the jittery clock that came from the digital input?" The answer is, you can. I know of several products that do just that. But in the early days of CD transports and DACs, such a fix might have been difficult to implement, and anyway the designers probably weren't aware of the negative effects of jitter.

All of the previous discussion pertains to CD audio only. When it comes to Dolby Digital or DTS bitstreams, jitter should have no impact on sound quality (which means that the quality of the digital interconnect makes no difference). This is because the digital data is processed by a computer in the surround receiver, which then creates new digital audio streams to feed the DACs.

I have done some A/B tests, where I compared Dolby Digital over: A) an el-cheapo ($6) TOSlink cable, and B) a high-quality coax. I could hear no difference between the two when playing Dolby Digital or DTS. My DVD player and receiver each have both optical and coax connections, so I was able to flip back and forth instantly with the remote.

I have also compared an el-cheapo CD player with an optical out (using my $6 optical cable) with a good CD player using the high-quality coax. In that comparison, I could hear a difference, though it was subtle.

As a EE and a module/ASIC designer for the last 15 years in the telecom industry I'm quite familiar with "jitter"; jitter generation, jitter tolerance and jitter transfer. We could have a long dialog on jitter in the network but let's concentrate on IEC60958, the AES3 and S/PDIF data format rather than the Bell Core specs.

You blame the oscillator for the jitter generation in your equipment, a quick look at Digikey found that even the $1.00 oscillators are spec'ed at 50 ppm and jitter at 100 Hz was way down there with some at 100 dB down. The IEC60958 is a rather lax 1000 ppm requirement but mentions 50 ppm for precision applications. I don't think you can find a 1000 ppm crystal oscillator, none are that bad.

I checked the Cirrus Logic data sheets for their S/PDIF transmitter and receiver. The jitter generation of the transmitter is spec'ed at 1 nS. The receiver employs a PLL in it's clock recovery circuit. The 950 will most likely use these parts or equivalent devices.

The IEC60958 spec call for 75 ohm cables with S/PDIF and 110 ohm balanced cables for AES3. I would recommend that you adhere to that spec. The frequency is 3 to 6 MHz. Any video cable should work fine. A composite video cable has roughly the same requirements. Few of us will have AES3 equipment but any DS1 cable should work fine.

Here is a site I ran across and it does talk about the jitter problems in the interface. My argument is with the expensive cables which are not required. When a standards body puts together a formal standard, IEC60958, they specify the minimum requirement and design it in such a way that it works as intended. Please take a look at where the important jitter occurs, during sampling. The interface jitter is the result of slew rate limiting for noise concerns and will be removed by the clock recovery circuit.
http://www.epanorama.net/links/audio digital.html#spdif

If your CD player was dropping bits you would have pops and dropouts not a subtle degradation in sound, Similar to DSS in a storm.

I'm glad you're a DIY. I myself have designed and built a few things, power amps, pre-amp/active crossovers and of course interconnect and speaker cable. I also have built all my speakers but I used George Short's crossover expertise on these. I also bought the Model 750, I can't really compete with Outlaw's pricing. By the time you buy all the parts I would have spent the better part of a grand, and the amps themselves are already built. My sub amp is mine, all 450 watts.
Those CAT5 cables are extremely capacitive. Did you use them with an Outlaw product? They can easily cause some amps to become unstable. I can see them "coloring the sound"; they are not what you might call electrically neutral. That is just as bad as zip cable's inductance causing roll off at the upper reaches, just different. The TNT audio site kinda sucked, no info there. Here is some real DIY info. Build a Pass amp.
http://www.diyaudio.com/
More audio myths;
http://www.sound.au.com/

I'm glad you're happy. As others have pointed out, there is no assurance that comparing a hand or custom made wire with odd characteristics to a reasonable speaker wire will result in no audible difference.

I had an experience where I convinced myself a tweak was improving the sound when, as I later discovered, it wasn't changing anything. A great lesson in human perception.

Since that day, if you can't show me signifcant difference in an double blind test (ABX is great) or on an instrument it doesn't exist IMO.

As always, YMMV, and have fun.

Wanna try a nifty experiment? Hang the probes of an o-scope off the amp (channel a) and speaker (channel b) ends of some 12 gauge zip cord and play music. Set the channels to subtract.

Charlie

Wow! What a great thread, although it has taken me many hours to read all the posts and the attendant links.

I would like to give my two cents worth, only from a slightly different perspective. I have been involved with high-end car audio for many years and only ventured into home audio and home theatre relatively recently. Home and car audio are definitely linked in the way we all pursuit the "Holy Grail," but car audio has its own set of obstacles and challenges – especially when it comes to interconnect cables.

What has yet to be mentioned in any detail is the real, measurable advances that have been made over the years in general cable technology. It has only been a few years since "twisted pair" cables were first marketed for car audio, and they have made a huge impact as far as noise reduction and signal-to-noise ratio goes. Interconnect noise from RF and EMI can be a big problem in car audio. Not only in noisy older cars with lousy grounding, but also in newer cars with their myriad of computers and electrical components. I have experienced first hand how twisted pair interconnects (sometimes incorrectly referred to as "balanced") have had a major impact on the war against noise. I have also seen how the shielding of a cable can affect the noise floor of an audio system. I would also like to mention that some car audio cables are "directional" – not because of any audio properties, but because the shielding is connected to a "drain" wire at the source. By grounding only one end of the cable's shield, EMI and RF noise is more efficiently routed to ground. This, too, has had tangible results in car audio systems. I have yet to see any "directional" home audio cables that incorporate a shield drain wire (or any kind of lifted shield plane), so I am very skeptical. (To be fair, most home audio gear has a single ground plane for power and signal, whereby some car audio gear uses differential circuitry with separate power and signal grounds. This sometimes benefits from an interconnect with a separate ground shield.) I would never install, or recommend installing, anything but twisted pair interconnects with some sort of shielding in a car. Since I have seen how well this technology works in the mobile environment, these are also the only types of cables I would use in my home audio system.

Based on my experience installing and listening to many car audio systems, I would never buy a coaxial audio interconnect again. I have read that coaxial cable may be better for video and digital signals, but twisted pair interconnects are definitely the way to go for analog audio cables. I don't think the type of end connector, or "termination," has much to do with sound quality (within reason), but it does have a lot to do with the use and longevity of the whole cable assembly. An installation shop I used to work for made all their own interconnect cables with twisted pair Carol cable and cheap nickel-plated ends. The key to achieving excellent results was the good quality twisted pair wire and decent all-metal RCA ends. Twisted pair interconnects are pretty much the norm in car audio now, but I still see a few "high-end" home audio interconnects that use a coaxial design. Radio Shack cables may be as sonically good as more expensive cables, but unless they are a twisted pair design I would stay away! Also avoid plastic RCA ends as they tend to not be as robust as all-metal barrels. The RCA ends with a Teflon insulator (usually white in color) between the center tip and ground seem to be better built and stronger than the ends with cheaper circuit-board material (usually brown or tan in color) around the center tip. All it takes is an RCA connector falling apart on you when you pull it out to wish you spent the extra $5 on interconnects.

I have also been reading a lot about the newer Ohno casting technique that seems quite credible. Perhaps it's because these castings have cool pictures to demonstrate their superiority to lesser extrusions, but who wouldn't want fewer squiggly microscopic lines in their copper? I do believe that there is a measurable difference between oxygen free copper (OFC) and less-pure grades, so it's reasonable to believe that Ohno castings are even more superior (assuming the same grade of OFC is used) for use as an electrical conductor. There's also a lot of buzz about silver – solid silver core, silver coated copper, etc – but I haven't seen any test results comparing copper and silver. I guess I'll have to wait until there are some cool microscopic pictures of silver conductors with even less squiggly lines before I'm convinced.

Keep up the debate, and thanks to all for the honest opinions and great links.

- Jeromy

Let's put it this way......its not the cables that make the system great its the overall collective effort of your equipment. If you have a $500.00 cable attached to a $200.00 system I betcha you won't hear the difference. Put $5000.00 cable on a $20,000 equipment you'll hear it. The difference sometimes is subtle so the question is are you willing to pay the big bucks for it......
I have tried doing AB's on different cables and I do hear the difference. One easy way to do an AB is not by sound but by sight. Get an elcheapo video cable and get one of a higher grade. If your player has 2 same video outs connect them both. Play a movie pause it at one scene switch it back (video 1, video 2) then see if notice any difference. Just did that to my friends TV last night and he did notice the difference.
Cables do make a difference but it has to be a collective effort between your system and your cables.

tooRew2btrue,

Enjoyed your post, had to point one thing out though:



This is actually done to prevent 'ground loops', where a difference in ground potential causes a current to flow in the shield. The single connection is plenty to drain the shield without completing a circuit.

It is rumored that some 'directional' home audio cables are actually constructed this way, thus the arrow to indicate which end goes to the ground plane.

I suspect some sales pinhed didn't understand and came up with 'directional' cables.

Twisted pairs are nice, but they really need to connect to balanced inputs to get the full benefit. Due to the differing impedence to ground the induced voltage will not be equal on non-balanced signals.

Anyone know why higher end (or all) audio gear hasn't switched to balanced signal IO?


Charlie

By grounding only one end of the cable's shield, EMI and RF noise is more efficiently routed to ground. - Jeromy

This is correct. It has nothing to do with ground loops other that possibly mitigating induced hum. If copper wire were directional then it couldn't be used in electronic equipment, especially with very low level signals. Diodes make good rectifiers not the wire connected to them. A certain cable reseller actually advertises this as an advantage. I want my music un-rectified please.
A differential input will take advantage of the twisted pair better than a single ended input but there is still some benefit. A single ended input can be designed for some degree of CMNR. Obviously balanced is better, I don't know why it's not used other than backward compatibility and cost. I think optical is the best, eliminates all those ground loops. Move the DACs from the 950 and install them in the 750/770. They're only about $15 a piece. Eliminates most of this discussion about interconnects in the process.
Video cables have a different set of requirements than audio interconnect cables.

What about signals that are brought into the 950 as analog? One of it's selling points is that it gives you the option of not digitizing high-quality analog signals.

Well, I guess either I misunderstood your post or I need you to explain your reasoning.

I spent many years designing and providing technical support and service for industrial / robotic control systems, and while the signals used are most decidedly NOT musical they are subject to the same laws of physics as the rest of the world. In this environment the level of electrical noise is orders of magnitude higher than experienced in a typical home.

The sole reason for ensuring the shield is only connected at one end that I'm aware of is to prevent current flow due to minute variations in ground plane potential between equipment. Other than that, ohms law implies that more connections or lower resistance to ground would be better. Or what did I miss?

Also, we had to use balanced signals as much as possible to prevent data loss or signal degradation, something that is not an option with most consumer gear.

CMNR can occur to some degree on a non-balanced system, but as I'm sure you're aware, a true balanced and shielded connection is much better.

Charlie

Charlie is definitely right about ground loops. These can be nasty little buggers in car audio, and I have even experienced ground loop noise when connecting my computer to my receiver for MP3s. A separate ground shield is great for noise rejection, but only when it doesn't induce its own ground loops. Having a "directional" cable with a single-ended ground shield is specifically designed to eliminate any potential ground loops (at least through the shield, that is). Eliminating ground loops is also the main reason for using differential circuitry – a kind of quasi balanced design.

Some high-end audio is using balanced XLR connections between components. The likes of Krell, Conrad-Johnson, etc have some balanced preamps and amps. I think one reason more audio companies don't use balanced connections is that the benefits of a balanced line cable are only fully realized on longer cable runs. If you're talking about a 0.5-meter cable, I don't think it makes much difference between balanced and non-balanced. I would be interested to know if any high-end amplifiers are using a differential or "balanced differential" input circuit instead of common-ground circuitry. I think AudioControl uses balanced differential circuitry in their equalizers and such. It seems that the benefits realized in car audio would apply to home audio as well, but I guess that home audio doesn't have many problems with ground loops or EMI.

I also wonder if RCA actually invented the "RCA" connector. Anybody know? If RCA didn't invent it, then should we rename the connector? How about calling it "Nubbin" or "The Doohickey Connector"?

Actually guys, when you are talking about digital, you are partway correct about "just" being 1s and 0s. You are also missing a VERY BIG point. It is not actually 1s and 0s, but specific voltages that are read as either an "on" or "off".

For this discussion I will use 3.3v as on! With CMOS ICs (used widely) and with FPGAs (programmable logic devices) there is an area that allows for jitter, etc and still recognize the correct 1 or 0. But, with loss, a 1 can be seen as a 0 and with noise, a zero can be seen as a 1. Exactly were the separation points are is decided by the design and manufacturing of the chips. So, cables do make a big difference. I am not saying spending $100/ft is needed, but junk will give you trash in digital. Analog is a different story, but you have to recognize that certain frequencies travel on different parts of the wire (interior, exterior)and the A-D (analog->digital) converter still has the "faults" explained above.

Sorry if I went a little deep, I tend to get deep in explainations for some reason.



------------------
Aggie Engineers Rock

Since we are talking about audio then IEC60958 is the applicable standard. From what I gathered the rise times are so long the signal looks like a triangle wave or a sine wave. This is where the initial concern for jitter comes from. The current Cirrus Logic chip has a PLL in it's clock recovery circuit. I don't think this is an issue anymore.
On the other hand empirical testing has shown a clothes hanger worked fine. This standard is aimed at consumers and as such must work with junk. If it didn't then the non-audiophile folks would notice a problem.
For the twisted pair interconnects I can't see a significant advantage except for possible shielding. Without a diff input a twisted pair itself won't buy much. If the shield is grounded at the source then I can understand why it would work better in the car. I noticed that the Outlaw cable are twisted pair

I'll say this...after spending a few days with my 1066 pre/pro hooked up to my Parasound amp with the cheapies that came with it...when I installed the Outlaw pca cables, I immediately heard a fuller,louder sound - much better. The Outlaws are the most I've ever spent on cables...and probably will

I've been involved in audio cables as a hobbiest for decades and have spent considerable sums on cables over the years. As with many things, one quickly hits the wall of diminishing returns.

There are several products I've not seen in this discussion I would like to bring to everyone's attention.

A popular manufacturer of cable is Canare. If you proceed to their web site you can read about what makes their cable tick and importantly they publish electrical measurements to support their methods. It is popular to construct interconnects from their microphone cables. Cost is very modest. While I have made my own cables, it is very cost effective to hand the chore off to a third party. One such company is Markertek.com. For well under $20 per meter pair, you get a a very well constructed cable with substantial connectors and a lifetime warranty. They of course use the previously mentioned Canare cable. I recently ordered an assortment of stereo interconnects, 75ohm digi cable, and microphone cables using various rca and xlr terminations and I have been very happy with the quality and sound. The Canare cable is also very flexible and comes in about a dozen colors in case you feel certain shades tend to "color" the sound more. ;-)

Finally, I will also recommend a product called Stabilant-22. This is an electrical contact enhancer that has proved miraculous in a number of situations. You paint this liquid on your interconnects, op-amp pins, computer chip/memory pins, etc and it enhances the contact quality of the connection. I have used this on both audio and computer parts and had remarkable results. For example, I had an intermittent connection in the rear speakes in my Lincoln LS 2000. I took it to the dealer and they spent a day fiddling with it. After a time the problem returned. At this point I took things into my own hands and "painted" some Stabillent-22 on the amp to rear speakers connection and voila I have not had a problem since. This product is used in recording studios, hospitals, and other places worldwide. An additional bonus is that the Stab-22 also makes fitting of tight connections much easier.

Here ae some links to the products mentioned:

http://www.markertek.com/MTStore/product.CFM?BaseItem=SC3RR

http://www.canare.com/cat10pdf/p26-28.pdf

http://www.posthorn.com/Stab_2.html

-CB

[This message has been edited by ctbarker32 (edited July 02, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by ctbarker32 (edited October 07, 2002).]

Why not buy presents for our equipment if
we want to?? We do it for our cars, and even, (in a pinch), for our spouses.

I got a good giggle from a post in here somewhere in which the poster refers to premium interconnects as "Audio Jewelry"

My opinion is that entry level premium is
enough unless you have bat hearing. Just as important, is that my opinion is completely subjective. It is based on the impression that you get quality connectors and adequate wire guage and shielding.

I recently pre-wired a new home theater room with commercial grade pre-wire that you buy at a 1000 feet at a time. I was astounded to see that they had marked signal direction every foot or so along the cable. . ..As if electrons are directional. I took a few semesters of physics in college, but I must have missed the page about directional electrons. Even the most bat like listeners would be challenged (I believe) to hear a discernable difference base on which end of the wire is connected to the amplifier.


The difference IMHO between top of the line Radio Shack and entry level Monster Stuff is the marketing budget which supports the offering.

Buying the gold plated silver strands with the kung fu grip is a lot like buying modern art. If you can see, or somehow percieve value, and you have the disposable income to buy a set of 6 foot cables for the price of a good used Buick, it is OK with Eddyboy!

This is a fun thread


Eddyboy

Has anyone here wondered why wires/cables have no SPECS whatsoever?

Zakman, don't feel sorry. Let's get deeper:

http://www.siam.org/siamnews/mtc/mtc193.htm

What many might be unaware of, though, is the significance, in all this modern technology, of a five-page paper that appeared in 1960 in the Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. The paper, "Polynomial Codes over Certain Finite Fields," by Irving S. Reed and Gustave Solomon, then staff members at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, introduced ideas that form the core of current error-correcting techniques for everything from computer hard disk drives to CD players. Reed-Solomon codes (plus a lot of engineering wizardry, of course) made possible the stunning pictures of the outer planets sent back by Voyager II. They make it possible to scratch a compact disc and still enjoy the music. And in the not-too-distant future, they will enable the profit mongers of cable television to squeeze more than 500 channels into their systems, making a vast wasteland vaster yet.

In 1960, the theory of error-correcting codes was only about a decade old. The basic theory of reliable digital communication had been set forth by Claude Shannon in the late 1940s. At the same time, Richard Hamming introduced an elegant approach to single-error correction and double-error detetion. Through the 1950s, a number of researchers began experimenting with a variety of error-correcting codes. But with their SIAM journal paper, McEliece says, Reed and Solomon "hit the jackpot."

The payoff was a coding system based on groups of bits--such as bytes--rather than individual 0s and 1s. That feature makes Reed-Solomon codes particularly good at dealing with "bursts" of errors: Six consecutive bit errors, for example, can affect at most two bytes. Thus, even a double-error-correction version of a Reed-Solomon code can provide a comfortable safety factor. (Current implementations of Reed-Solomon codes in CD technology are able to cope with error bursts as long as 4000 consecutive bits.)

....digital information, virtually by definition, consists of strings of "bits"--0s and 1s--and a physical device, no matter how capably manufactured, may occasionally confuse the two. Voyager II, for example, was transmitting data at incredibly low power--barely a whisper--over tens of millions of miles. Disk drives pack data so densely that a read/write head can (almost) be excused if it can't tell where one bit stops and the next one (or zero) begins. Careful engineering can reduce the error rate to what may sound like a negligible level--the industry standard for hard disk drives is 1 in 10 billion--but given the volume of information processing done these days, that "negligible" level is an invitation to daily disaster. Error-correcting codes are a kind of safety net--mathematical insurance against the vagaries of an imperfect material world.

The key to error correction is redundancy. Indeed, the simplest error-correcting code is simply to repeat everything several times. If, for example, you anticipate no more than one error to occur in transmission, then repeating each bit three times and using "majority vote" at the receiving end will guarantee that the message is heard correctly (e.g., 111 000 011 111 will be correctly heard as 1011). In general, n errors can be compensated for by repeating things 2n + 1 times.

Despite their advantages, Reed-Solomon codes did not go into use immediately--they had to wait for the hardware technology to catch up. "In 1960, there was no such thing as fast digital electronics"--at least not by today's standards, says McEliece. The Reed-Solomon paper "suggested some nice ways to process data, but nobody knew if it was practical or not, and in 1960 it probably wasn't practical."

But technology did catch up, and numerous researchers began to work on implementing the codes. One of the key individuals was Elwyn Berlekamp, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who invented an efficient algorithm for decoding the Reed-Solomon code. Berlekamp's algorithm was used by Voyager II and is the basis for decoding in CD players. Many other bells and whistles (some of fundamental theoretic significance) have also been added. Compact discs, for example, use a version called cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon code, or CIRC.

Well, NON_ZERO, that certainly clears it up for me.


eddyboy

I just stopped in to see how this thread was progressing. If you don't already know, there's a killer thread called 'how to make your 950 sound like a 1066' all about the same argument as this one. It's been a lot of fun. So, I get to the end of this one and find a dissertation on early correction code technology. Did I miss something? I kept trying to find the point or the link, but to no avail. Maybe it's just me.

Eddy, I brought 'audio jewelry' to this forum. Can't remember where I stole it, but I thought that it described obscenely priced interconnects pretty well.

If somebody can explain the relevence of the aforementioned thread, I'd appreciate it!
Until next time,
Mix

mixfixj,

The Reed-Solomon code post was in response to Mr. Zakman's (regarding '0' and '1's).

And yes, I am the original poster of the 'AUDIO JEWELRY' - from an interview with Floyd E. Toole (FORMERLY OF lexicon now with HARMAN INTERNATIONAL):

--------------------------------------------
http://www.sonicdesign.se//tooleinw.htm

An interview with Floyd E. Toole,
Harman International.


4. I believe that many audiophiles would get more from their equipment if they would transfer some of their interest and money for audio cables into acoustics and room adaption, but since audio cables seem to be of such big interest, maybe you could share what you think are the relevant qualities when it comes to loudspeaker cables?

Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" , in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do.
--------------------------------------------

mixfixj,

You can find my post with the 'AUDIO JEWELRY' reference from this thread:
http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000314.html

Nonzero. I think you hit the nail on the head when suggesting that we should spend less time with interconnects and more with room acoustics. I would love to learn more about this and to study my listening area. Hall design seems to me to be key when developing a HT plan. Where can I learn more?

------------------

Some room acoustic treatment links:

http://www.epanorama.net/links/audioacoustics.html

http://www.decware.com/achowto.htm

http://www.decware.com/acintro.htm

http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/jul00/articles/faqacoustic.htm

http://www.soundcontrolroom.com/help.htm

I , too, have always been one of those who felt that money is wasted in high price cables. But these Outlaw PCA's arent that expensive. Can I possitively say they are improving my sound over the older Monsters I replaced? Probably not! At least not like the improvement I can hear with the 950 over my 5 year old Marantz AV-550. But, heck, those cables blew me away with the quality of constuction and the tight fit, thanks to the locking tabs and , they just look so good hanging out the back of my rack! They make my old Monster 200's look puny. Well done Outlaw. Think Ill go PSC next!!

sorry this comes a bit late...
It wasn't until the Impressionists mastered light painters really understood luminance.
It wasn't until this past couple decades we could biologically explain & measure what the Impressionists understood.
Can everything in life be proven?
Have we really figured out how to measure everything our body is capable of doing?
Is everybody's body the same?
Leave those spending $$ on cables be. They're happier.
NOW, i hope to see interesting posts about room acoustics. I'm all about bang for the buck!
Shall we start with the ideal room dimension & reflective properties?
bring it on!

I have been following this thread with some interest and amusement. I recently ordered some speaker cables from a company called Mapleshade that made some pretty big claims for their cable. They have a money back policy so I did it more as an experiment than anything else. When my order arrived I looked at these thin, tightly twisted cables and said to myself "Looks like a rip off. Bet I'll be sending these back!".

The results? So obvious it makes claims that cable makes no difference simply laughable to me now. The improved sound shocked and amazed me. My speakers are decent, but not top of the line, although their imaging and soundstage is outstanding. But even that improved. I hear detail in familiar recordings I never heard before. And the bass is much richer, tighter, and more realistic.

The most interesting thing is that my wife did not know I had changed anything. When she walked into the room she asked "What did you do, this sounds more real?". I asked her to describe what she heard and she used phrases like "more open" and "airy". She is not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination and she heard a difference!

It is not practical for me to do double blind comparisons, although I have done some very fair A/B comparisons between these cables and my Monster cable. I trust my ears. If it is purely power of suggestion than it is the most potent and consistent suggestion I have ever seen (or heard).

Trust your ears.

Pink -

I'm at work, so I can't get into this right now ... but this weekend I'll detail some of the problems in your understanding.

There are a number of errors in your topic post, and I'm not sure if you are serious or just trolling, but I will explain some of the issues regarding interconnects for the benefit of those who care to listen.

I admit I am not an audiophile or an expert in interconnects, but I feel I do however have some understanding of the issues at hand ... and would like to counter your claims.

A word of caution: this is a VERY controvertial topic. People's opinions run quite strong. While I don't personally take your post offensively, I want to warn you that using phrases like "problems in your understanding" and "errors in your topic post" presuppose a level of certainty in your position that I assure you you cannot substantiate -- not because you are "wrong," but because the data to unequivocally support your position (or the alternative) just does not exist.



The interconnect topic was discussed extensively in this thread by a number of people on both sides of the fence who have strong backgrounds in electrical engineering, experimental design and neurophysiology. Before you spend time crafting a post, you might find reading through this (rather lengthy) thread amusing, though I have no doubt that your opinion on the matter is unlikely to be swayed.

Human perception is a tricky thing. Think about the things that are wrong with the following paragraph:

I frequently eat dinner at a local restaurant 'X', and while the food is always very good, I notice that when I'm hungry, the food is better. If you ever want to really enjoy a meal there, call me before you go, I'll not eat and since I'm hungry the food will be better that night.

Have a good one.

So, to enjoy a happymeal, you must be just about dead from starvation.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

Hey! I like happy meals!

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Maybe you are unable to hear the difference in a cable upgrade because you didn't properly break the cables in.

I just had to say that.

I know, I'm bad.

I'll go sit in the corner for a while.

[This message has been edited by MeanGene (edited October 24, 2002).]

Actually, the same works, too, for many types of food. Ever notice that pizza tastes better the next day? That's because to really enjoy it, you've got to let it "break in" in your fridge for 24 hours first.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Wow, this was such an interesting topic I hated to see it die out so early.
I could go on to say yes, there appears to be 'some' difference in cables. I thought the info regarding the use of twisted pairs quite interesting and certainly supports a well founded theory on reducing the effects of EMI.
I still use Kimber 4TC , because so many audiophiles who assess speaker cables agree with me (haha!) but it does make a difference over lamp cord. Where they will argue to eternity over which is really a great high end cable. Interestingly, the 4TC is made up of multiple twisted pairs, and is reasonably priced.
Other differences, Bettercables for component and S-Video. I observed a better picture with Bettercables SVideo over an equivalent priced Monster cable. Enough of a difference, I did 3 swaps to make sure I was really seeing a difference. Now, it may also be related to the fact that the Bettercables had superior pin retention.
I use a IXOS combined (single jacket) for the 6 channel analog connection (DVD player to 5.1 input) for the convenience and excellent construction. For $70 I find it to be a great solution and takes away nothing from a fine audio presentation.
Lastly, I like the Outlaw cables, but would prefer a push-pull locking sleeve over a twisting sleeve, especially in tight spots.
But always liked the locking concept.
Better yet is the outer ground on an RCA connecting FIRST before the center conductor is inserted. Always better to 'ground' first in any electrical connection. There was a company producing such cables, but haven't heard about them in a while.
There is no doubt that cables can be a weak link, as they can be in any electrical or electronic system design. Look for good construction, good material (harder to assess but teflon insulation is a good start for coax) silver solder, look for clean and shiny connections, etc., you get the idea.
Burn in? Serious doubts myself, but on speakers for sure! After all they are largely mechanical devices.

Yes, it really is, but it's a really tough one to discuss in a calm and productive manner due to the seemingly inevitable switch to 'scream mode' that happens so quickly.

Audio is a pretty undemanding signal as far as low level signals go. Video is different. Speakers can be horrible loads.

Also, some 'exotic' cables are constructed in a way that colors their sound due to measurable characteristics. This would technically be distortion, although the difference is often interpreted as an improvement.

The famous DIY CAT5 speaker wires are in this category.

Sometimes it takes experimenting, and with hi-end dealers some may let you borrow some demos.
I never spent enough on cables to enjoy that luxury.
I read reviews, but when they start getting into the effects of the earth's magnetic field, I tend to walk away.
Mostly it's experimentation, and what works for YOU. Since cables are 'components' themselves, they are only one part of a total system.
But systems vary a lot, so who is to say what works for one will not work as well as for another?
Doubt I will ever get into it that deeply, more into the enjoyment of music and entertainment of movies than to spend much more time looking for the 'ultimate' cable.
That a more sophisticated system will show up cable deficiencies easier I suppose has some merit. But one man's "increased detail" could be another man's grunge.

It's like a philosopher arguing that nothing else exists, only him. Either we accept rational engineering princples or not. I do admire the obvious build quality of the Outlaw cables.

I really stopped by to comment on the Monster Cable slogan "Get All The Performance You Paid For!" - It really doesn't promise a lot, when you think about it. Like the Army 'Be All You Can Be' slogan. Yeah, so what?

This discusion thread reminds me of the time worn, time wasting process in business meetings called "polishing the turd" More time enjoying what you bought an AV system for and less time searching for the Holy Grail of everything is in order. Seriously folks, can God make a rock so big that he himself can't lift it? That's a more enlightening discussion than the ad nauseum debate on seeming enigmas such as AV interconnects.
My post is not meant as disrespect but I remind you to put it all into perspective. Some of you seem to spend more time fiddling in the back of your equipment than out front where the enjoyment is. Before you know it, life passes you by.

Life is a journey, not a destination.

And fortunately everyone enjoys different things. GASP, some may even enjoy tweaking their systems as well as enjoying the results of those tweaks. It is sort of like woodworking, you do it because you like it, it rarely saves you money over a simple purchase when you consider the time spent on the endeavor.

Yes, tis true we all have different interests and different emphases on those interests. I am sure that you do note that I speak of a "perspective and balance".

Once again...

"Life is a journey, not a destination"

The msimple phrase makes no accusations, but offers food for thought, whatever you wish that to be.

MetalMike

Talking about interconnects is a lot like going to small claims' court: in the grand scheme of things, there's not a lot of money involved, but there's a principle behind it. For small claims' court, that principle is justice; for A/V interconnects, it's truth. (Oh, how pithy!) What I think is interesting about the topic is that people on both sides of the argument have a strong belief that there is a "correct" answer (as opposed to it being purely a matter of taste). A/V interconnects represent a multi-million dollar industry, millions are spent advertizing the significance of Brand X cables, and, unlike proofs of the existance of God, I think people generally believe that these claims can either be justified or disproven.

Unfortunately, questions that seem "answerable" can be addressed by different people employing arguments based upon incompatible criteria: "I heard a difference!" "That's scientifically impossible; it's all in your mind!" This seems to be a common recipe for flared tempers on many "hot topics." Is the theory of evolution accurate? Is homosexuality an immutable trait? Science generally says yes; many conservative Christians assert that the Bible says no. In the end, questions like these won't be settled until people agree on a common hierarchy of authority, e.g. science trumps the Bible, or vice versa.

And until people agree on the relative weight to be placed on the value of first-hand experience vs. scientific models, interconnect discussions will rage on.

I have to weigh in on the ‘scientific’ side of the issue. Blame my engineering background and confidence in properly applied science, if you like. We now have, and have had for some time, measurement techniques that are much more sensitive than our own native senses, and that tell us things our senses cannot. We should trust in equipment and methods that have been shown to be reliable.

Let’s try an alternate scenario: piloting an aircraft. Pilots are trained that when sensory perception of flight conditions appear contrary to the information being provided by instrument readings, TRUST THE INSTRUMENTS! The vast majority of people who have flown are alive today precisely because of that.

While “how it sounds to you” is the final word in whether you are happy with a component or a system of components, I would tend to trust ‘the instruments’ when betting my audio budget dollars.

While I agree that a person should purchase cables of good quality, I really think that there are much more important fish to fry when it comes to optimising a sound system, starting with the acoustics and layout of the speakers in the room. This rather un-glamorous detail makes much more of a difference than all the boutique cables in the world.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 06, 2003).]

Not sure if I understand the "scientific side" of this issue. If using instumentation values are the only way to go, then all speakers would sound terific, just check out their specs. I have to agree with Soundhound on room acoustics and speakers vs cables.

I think the objective "scientific" arugment is that as long as the characteristics of the circuit are compatable with the characteristics of the cable used, the signal will get from point "A" to point "B" with no degradation. A couple of good examples of this are loudspeakers, when using a cable that presents significant resistance in propotion to the speaker's impedance, causing frequency response errors. Another would be using an interconnect with too-high capacitance for the impedance of the circuit, causing high frequency rolloffs. These are the big ones, but there are others, especially when sending higher frequency stuff like digital audio bitstreams, and especially video, which gets extremely cable-critical.

I agree with SoundHound, too. (no big surprise)

If the differences between cables were so darn obvious, you'd think the exotic cable industry would be able to come up with one reputable double-blind test to prove it.

For all those people who claim that they hear the difference and claim -- though how they could possibly claim this I do not know -- that it's not pyschoacoustics, you'd think that they could come up with a single double-blind test to prove it. I mean, if the difference is so "obvious", these listeners should be able to spot the "better" cable one hundred times out of a hundred.

And yet ...

I repeat my offer. If anybody out there feels like spending hundreds of dollars on "audiophile" cables, why not just send me the money instead? I'll then call you up and tell you that your system sounds much much better and that I really envy you your system. That way you'll gain the same benefit as purchasing the cable, plus you'll make me happy, too. [ ]

Jeff

No, I deserve to get the money, not you.

To prove my point, the most important part about cables is how well they blend in with the decor. Just ask your spouse!

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

[This message has been edited by Paul J. Stiles (edited July 06, 2003).]

Oh, I definitely don't deserve the money, but then again, I never said I did.

I just want it, and it will do the "audiophiles" exactly as much good to give me the money than to give it to their snakeoil salesmen who tout an "audiophile cable".

Jeff

Folks,

A thorougly enjoyable - and very long-running topic. After scroling through most of it I felt like adding some (very) random thoughts of my own.

I've never heard any difference between speaker wire. (I'll get to a neat example in a moment.) I've never heard a difference between audio interconnects. I believe I have seen a difference between some video interconnects - but just barely. And I've never heard a difference between digital interconnects. The only caveat in all of this is that the product must not be faulty (like a bad end connector etc.) And that brings me to my speaker wire example.

For years and years I used the same lousy old 18 gauge clear "speaker" wire (a couple of 30' or so lengths) for my main speakers. It sat, scrunched down along the baseboards, unseen, for at least 10 years. Then one day, when I finally got the urge to do a little cleaning up, I finally got a look at them. They were no longer clear; they were that same beautiful green colour as the roof of the Parliament buildings here in Ottawa. Yup - copper oxidation. Definitely not "oxygen free." Just for fun I took one of the lengths and sectionned it in several places. The copper had actually oxidized almost completely through. That 18 gauge wire was reduced to a pin head right in the centre. Never saw that before. So I replaced that one run with brand new 12 gauge oxygen-free speaker wire - for the heck of it. And I left the other in place. I played all sorts of music through those speakers at all sorts of volume levels. Then I swapped the cables. And yes I know it was not a double-blind listening test (the ONLY true test) but gosh darn, I could hear absolutely no diffrence between the two. So what's my point? It convinced me that if there was no diffrence between something so obviously "bad" and some half-decent brand new speaker cable, then I doubt that there would ever be any difference between that speaker cable and some "high-end" (and expensive) wire.

While reading the posts, I also liked the reference to pilots and trusting your instruments. Great analogy! I'm no pilot but I work in an organization (National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Aerospace Research) that has several world-class test pilots / researchers, and a fleet of aircraft. One of those aircraft, a 50+ year old Harvard Mk. IV, has a glass cockpit in the rear. For a year or so we've been bringing in test pilots from around the world to sit in the back seat and to participate in "unusual attitude recovery studies." Basically the rear cockpit comes with a dark "awning" that, when in place, prevents the test pilot from seeing outside. All he has are his instruments - and his body's senses. The safety pilot flies the aircraft into an unusual attitude, hands over control to the test pilot, who then is timed (by several computers) for how long it takes him (or her) to bring the aircraft back into safe and level flight. And guess what? Those that trust the instruments (with the new symbology that we've developed) instead of their senses, are the ones that recover the fastest. Off topic (but I said I would be.)

By the way, you should be able to read all about this project in an upcoming edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology. Editor-in-Chief David North flew with us earlier this year and is writing it up. (And if anyone out there will be in Montreal in September at the ACE2003 event, drop by my booth. You won't be able to miss it. It's the one with the Harvard in it!)

And to get back to topic. Early in my NRC days I volunteered to take part in some of Floyd Toole's groundbreaking research as an occasional member of some of his listening panels. (Toole's work, for those of you who do not know, was done in collaboration with several fledgling (at the time) Canadian speaker manufacturers, who are now producing some of the best product out there - like Paradigm, psb, Mirage, Energy, etc.) Anyhow, it was through my participation in this work, that I learned to appreciate the true value of scientific listening tests. And THAT's the point that I wanted to make: that science and listening can come together, to produce audibly superior products. Instruments - yes. Listening - yes. Bring the two together, in a scientific manner, and we all win.

Regards.

Jeff Mackwood

There is one thing that strikes me in this thread (as it does in the whole audiophile area) and that is the incredibly small representation of women. Without going back through this thread and making guesses at gender, I'd say the majority of respondents are male. The reason this springs to mind is because wives were used in several responses as evidence that cables matter - the inference being that if "someone as uninformed/tone deaf as my wife can hear the difference, there must be a difference".
Oh please!!!!
All this proves is that men (I am one) can be pompous when it comes to technology. Too many try to use the 'Emperor's Clothes' con on their spouses having, in many cases, been conned themself.
There is a concept I laugh at when I hear talk of 'improved' sound, better staging/depth/colour,etc. Compared with WHAT?
Even A/B testing is only comparing one configuration with another. A true comparison can only be done against the music as it was performed in the studio/venue and this is, clearly, impossible. And even if it was, we have other issues such as what volume, what location relative to the performance etc.
In short, there are so many variables in the concept of accuracy as applied to performance that the role of a competent cable is negligable. Guys, get over it. Make your wife/girlfriend/lover partner/friend a comforting drink, go to your music area, agree on something that is appropriate to your moods and enjoy the music.
Okay, rant finished. I've talked myself into putting some music on.

Maybe we should talk about politics

Or religion! (or were we already doing that?) ;-)

Or maybe the vast, unquestionable, obvious and massive superiority of vacuum tube equipment over solid state equipment....

I'll make you a deal: I'll remove all the tube components from my gear and you remove all the solid-state components from yours, and we'll see which system sounds better!

Jeff

I did a study of tubes vs SS, albeit a limited one.

When one drops a tube and a transister at the same time from the same height, they both reach the ground at the same time. However, the tube will no longer work, but the transistor will.

Hence, transistors are superior to tubes.

Case closed.

Transistors are also much easier to eat. um...not that I'd know.

-Joe

------------------
Remember the Intellivision?
http://www.gotmaille.com/nostalgia/

Actually, the transitor is probably less aerodynamic than a tube so it will probably hit the ground later than the tube in real-world situations. Only in a vacuum would they hit at the same time, hence the only tubes that are any good at all are vacuum tubes.

Jeff

..”that are any good at all are vacuum tubes
or
Hence, transistors are superior to tubes.

Now wait a minute how high?.

Cause a transistor having greater weight (I don’t know I never weighed these items,…but transistors look heavier) will fall at a higher terminal velocity given enough time. Terminal velocity = constant speed = zero acceleration. If you apply air resistance to the items since air resistance is proportional to a falling body’s weight squared. The transistor will fall longer before air resistance = weight and will have time to attain a higher (speed) terminal velocity. Course it would need to be certain gap weight difference to the tube and just a simple box shape to get to this higher terminal velocity; cause all bets are just plain off, - if you leave those wires hanging off all sides of the transistor. Subsequently giving it greater surface mass creating greater aerodynamic drag and force against it.
Why fat skydivers fall just a tad speedier. Of course they can alleviate this situation by orientation assuming arms and legs at the ‘Cingular Wireless” logo-mans position, then that skinny skydiver has to catch up with head down assuming the bullet position. (arms swept back)

So what altitude are you going to drop these transistors and tubes from guys?
I say we have Captain Kittinger take them up and really let them smoke

If you drop the transistor and the toob into the ocean, assuming the impact on the surface of the ocean does not break anything, the transistor will sink, and if the ocean is deep enough at this location, will be lost and/or destroyed. The tube will float and can be recovered and, after cleaning, can be used again as a thermionic amplification device.

This means ... whatever.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

[This message has been edited by Paul J. Stiles (edited August 09, 2003).]

Other than getting solid quality interconnects and nice thick speaker cables, I, myself, do not prescribe to all the fancy cable and interconnect claims.

That said, I've always wondered if some of these expensive cables are built or tailored to have a certain impedance, z(f), the transfer function, so that they introduce a coloration in the sound?

After all, our ears are all very different from each other with different response curve, both as a function of loudness and frequency. I know I have lots of holes beyond 13 kHz or so, especially after 15 kHz. As I grow older, I'm sure my high freq response is probably a bit attenuated as well compared to when I was in my teens. Which would suggest that I may prefer a bright system or cable that would compensate for my hearing loss.

Lately, I've been thinking that we are all trying to look for the system that sounds good to us - the system that matches our ears. Together, the matched system will sound good to an individual. No wonder different people like different sound.

BTW, I just got my 950/7100. Heard that DHL just delivered them. Can't wait to go home. Using AR interconnects from my local Best Buy. $13 a pair. Good solid construction. Modest Monster and RCA speaker cables, with Monster banana jacks.

Quoting quotes: "Let me explain. No, there is too much", Montoya, Princess Bride.

I love this hobby


[This message has been edited by BleakShore (edited September 18, 2003).]

I'd like to share a story with you about the war between 'esoteric' cable manufacturers and scinetists / engineers.

About 15 years ago, an audio magazine (with a very large circulation) comissioned an article from one of the faculty members of one of the larger universities here in the 'states. This article was written by said professor (if memory serves, he holds a Ph.D in Electrical or perhaps Mechanical engineering...possibly Mathematics...but I digress) who himself was rater adept in signal processing techniques and theory.

I remember reading the article at the time - again, being in school and woprking on my EE degree...and feeling 'at one' with it (it was the start of my Senior year when this article was published - and so all of this felt so 'current' and close to home...)

Anyway, the heart and soul of the article was that said professor / author applied the principles of transmission line mathematics to things like unbalanced (RCA) cables ('interconnects' as it were) as well as speaker wire. He looked at wire in terms of the properties that given its ability to send a signal, unadulterated, through it - things like resistance, capacitance, inductance and so on. I believe that not only did he consider the normal audio bandwidth, but even went a bit further bandwidth-wise 'just to see' if the terms bantied about (i.e. skin effect et al) were of significance in the audio band or even above.

After sopme very nice and (again, at the time) highly topical mathematics to lay it bare so to speak, his conculsions (paraphrasing) were that there was nothing in the formulae used to evaluate the design of transmission lines (i.e. fundamentally applicable mathematics universally acceptaed in the E.E. world) that would suggest that cables (again...excepting the 'obvious' blunders like using no shield (on a signal cable) or using #30 wire (speaker wire)) made one iota of difference. I don;t think he had any listening studies (paired comparison et al) and I think that ABX was just coming into play in those days...but again...this is from memory.

Anyway, I remember one suggestion in particular - he basically said that if you have long runs between the amplifier and the speaker, stick with the lowest (i.e. fattest) practical gauge (I think he suggested #12 at the most), but the best thing you could do would be to move the amplifier as close to the speaker as possible (even though this was a general statement as with the amplifier very close to the speaker, the gauge (any sane guage) will have little effect). The next step was purchasing / fabricating something to produce a low-Z balanced send from the preamp's high-Z unbalanced - if it wasn't so equipped - out and a low-Z differential input at the amplifier (which would then turn out a signle-ended high-Z signal to feed the amplifier locally). All in all a very sane approach at getting the low level signal from pre-amp to amplifier with the lowest noise floor, and minimizing the length of the speaker cables used in the process.

After this story hit the newsstands an interesting thing happened. The magazine in question was beseiged by their advertisers, many of whom sold 'specialty' cables that appeared in the back of the magazine on a regular basis. Now...this is second-hand, but as it was told to me, said advertisers, bemused by this article, essentially threatened to pull all of their advertising if a retraction was not published. What was interesting to me was that not one of them offered to provide any measurements that would assert their claims of their products' superiority. Indeed, not to change horses mid-stream, but the 'esoterics' that do make cable often say (or rather...hide behind in my opinion) that to reveal the results of their analyses would be giving away proprietary details, and thus, said documentation cannot be provided.

Again...I have paraphrased much...and I have not revealed the names and dates, but believe me, this is exactly how I remember the story having gone down.

Later on, I had the opportunity to meet said professor as I had the chance to attend some of his lectures as well as discuss the article with him. He was pretty amused by the whole thing as I recall...he never knew that such a 'straight ahead' matter could cause such heated debate in the audio community.

Interesting read. Stereo review did a "blind study" a number of years ago by using a "hi-fi boutique" speaker cable measured to the exact distance from the amp to the speaker, and lamp cord that was way too long and coiled on the floor to the other speaker. Both cables were hidden from view and then the listening experts came in to listen to the set-up. You guessed it, none of the listeners even knew there was such a gross imbalance with wires. Once they were told, statistics showed that the experts couldn't tell which speaker was attatched to which wire. But to keep the wire manufacturing advertisers happy, Stereo Review refrained from drawing a conclusion. Of course some things don't change, S&V still finds the silver lining on even a piece of AV junk so as not to offend any advertisers. But I thought the test was interesting.

I cannot speak to anyone else's implied meaning to the often used reference that "even my wife hears it", however I have a different take. My wife's hearing ability (like most females) is superior to mine but she doesn't give a hoot about this hobby of mine. Therefore, if she says she hears a difference I tend to believe her. She has no vested interest in a conclusion either way, totally unbiased. So to infer anything derogatory from these comments may be a misread on your part. I certainly don't take it that way. On the contrary, I respect my wife's hearing abilities as well as her opinions.

Leave it to me to post my first message on such a highly debated topic
FWIW I noticed a difference in sound quality when I upgraded speaker cabling from a very popular off the shelve relatively inexpensive cable, to a higher priced (NO not a rediculously high priced!) cable. I also moved the pair of cables back and forth in my biwired configuration and the upper end and low end had differences depending on the cable used. Oh and by the way
Boy Howdy I've been lurking around this site for a while because I am hoping/planning to purchase the 950/7100 so I've been doing my homework

VADER brings up an excellent point. Once you spend $5k on interconnects, you are going to have to start hearing a difference to justify spending a ridiculous amount of money on them.

Thus, buying very, very expensive gear (because we've also learned in another thread that more expensive = better), then constantly telling everyone how expensive it was, makes you better than the "the average person within this discussion."

-Joe

------------------
Remember the Intellivision?
http://www.gotmaille.com/nostalgia/

My interpretation of VADER is that what good is all the improvement in electronic signals via higher quality cables (IC / speaker) if the speaker itself cannot convert that into air vibration (sound)?

We all agree that different speakers can produce different level of details, clarity and depth with more or less roll-offs along with different price tag. If I own average commercial brand speakers, I’ll choose the cables and other components accordingly unless I plan to upgrade soon.

You could have saved yourself a whole bucket 'o money if you had built your own interconnects from here:

http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000069.html

They serve me well in my own humble system


------------------
The Soundhound Theater:
http://home.earthlink.net/~soundhound/studio/HT.html



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited November 07, 2003).]

Gotta respect the understatement ...

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

[This message has been edited by gonk (edited November 07, 2003).]

I don't think I've ever read it stated quite so clearly before, but yes, I think he's right on.

Hey Joe Average, played with any Howitzers. lately?

Soundhound,

While I've previously checked-out your theatre pics, this time something about your "system two" photo caught my eye. Is that a Yamaha YST-SW80 sub (or similar) that I see?

Dang good (and inexpensive) line of subs that was - especially in a stereo set-up with two (relatively small) speakers. I still use one with a pair of Radio Shack Minimus 7's in my living room / dining room for relatively quiet to moderate listening levels. I've even used that sub in my second home theatre room off-and-on and it holds up very well.

All I need now is an $800 subwoofer interconnect and I'm all set.

Regards.

Jeff Mackwood

Jeff:

Yep, that is a Yamaha YST-SW 60 powered sub, and it works well with the optimus (where do they get those silly names?) speakers on stands. They actually sound quite decent considering they cost something like $20! Unfortunately, I had to make due with my home brew interconnects, but what the hell, I can't hear the difference anyway...

Lena:

Nope, no howitzers, no mortars, no rifle propelled grenades....I'd have to go to Iraq to hear those...

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited November 07, 2003).]