On Cables

[microstrip]

The point, mr. microstrip, was to assert that David's statement ("Whatever ones stance and preference on cables fact remains that wire production is mostly an industrial process beyond the purview of audio private labels, of course aside from simple solid wires that one can even draw manually if needed. The same conductors are in the manufacturer's OEM brands, pro audio companies use them as well as audiophile brands.") was in line with what I know about audio cables, namely that very very few audio cable manufacturer's make their own wire.

Thanks Mr. Tima. The fact was that your post was a direct answer to a David post, that has very clear and firm opinions on cables since long.

I am neither sceptical nor ambiguous on cables. I acknowledge that all cables bring sonic characteristics to the output of the systems they are in. I acknowledge that they sometimes do introduce the effects their makers claim for them.

All of that is discernible from my posts in this thread, so please don't put words in my mouth.

In fact , it is sometimes hard to separate what you wite from Peter or David write. My apologies if you are a very discrete cable believer . Buy my main point still stands - cables can carry improvements in systems that no other type of components can do. Specific cables are needed to optimize a system according to owner values.

I would not change a word in any of my reviews - I write about what I hear. They all stand as they are at the time they were published. I do however reserve the right to learn, evolve my thinking and change my values. Since I started reviewing in 2004 my writing ability changed, my vocabularly changed, and what I value in reproduced sound changed. Thank you for finding my Sigma phono cable review interesting.

Yes, it seems your way of hearing changed a lot and what you value also changed a lot. But fortunately many reviews, yours included, are a lot more than what people hear - they analyze sound reproduction. For me, sometimes this is the more interesting party of the article.

Perhaps the point of your post was to make your main point which you could have done without reference to me.

Feel free to make your usual guesses on people intentions. My intention int was simply pointing to a review filled with detailed superlative comments about an expensive high-end cable.

Only one small disagreement with your statement. You say "if we like what they do they are needed in a system." I would say cables are required to allow our systems to operate, and yes other components are likewise required. I never denied components are required. I never denied wires are required.

In 2012 I wrote in my review of Lessloss interconnects and speaker cables:


I still believe pretty much the same today as then.


edit: grammar

Just read it. I enjoyed reading what you heard with the LossLess cables, I hope you did not believe in the long pseudo technical marketing sentences you have reproduced from their literature!

 

[ddk]

In fact , it is sometimes hard to separate what you wite from Peter or David write. My apologies if you are a very discrete cable believer . Buy my main point still stands - cables can carry improvements in systems that no other type of components can do. Specific cables are needed to optimize a system according to owner values.

At least get your facts right if you’re going to use me to attack someone Mr. micro strip. It was always clear that cables matter question is which ones are natural sounding and which ones aren’t.

david

 

[adrianywu]

It's the same material used by many high-end audiophile brands, a simple twisted pair or star quad of UPOCC silver wire used with good plugs like WBT silver RCAs will get you a very good cable to use as a reference when trying out other designs or other cables. UPOCC silver is the most neutral conductor available, but most will want a little more warmth.

For me, cables should do as little as possible. They should neither add nor subtract from the signal they carry. From my experimentation, I have noticed that cable shields in interconnects can be very detrimental. That's why I believe using fully balanced, and preferably differential, topology to ensure noise cancellation is far more preferable to using shielding. My cartridge has an output of 0.17mV, but I cannot detect any noise in my system other than a faint tube rush. When I switch to shielded cables, they always introduce a haziness and an opacity, and of course, more HF roll off (even if the outputs have very low impedances, since the roll off in the successive stages is additive), which could be misconstrued as "warmth". Switching back to my unshielded silver cables seems like a fog has lifted and the clear blue sky has returned. If someone needs cables of a certain characteristic to make his system sound right, he should fix whatever is causing that problem.

 

[tima]

I hope you did not believe in the long pseudo technical marketing sentences you have reproduced from their literature!

I will not go looking for what Lessloss said about their product in 2012, however I'm confident I did not reproduce marketing sentences from them. That's not my style. If I quote a manufacturer I identify it as such. My technical description of their product is accurate. If you are astute you recognize their technology as very similar to that of a well known cable maker although in a different implementation. The latter is more elegant, while the intent is the same.

 

[DaveC]

For me, cables should do as little as possible. They should neither add nor subtract from the signal they carry. From my experimentation, I have noticed that cable shields in interconnects can be very detrimental. That's why I believe using fully balanced, and preferably differential, topology to ensure noise cancellation is far more preferable to using shielding. My cartridge has an output of 0.17mV, but I cannot detect any noise in my system other than a faint tube rush. When I switch to shielded cables, they always introduce a haziness and an opacity, and of course, more HF roll off (even if the outputs have very low impedances, since the roll off in the successive stages is additive), which could be misconstrued as "warmth". Switching back to my unshielded silver cables seems like a fog has lifted and the clear blue sky has returned. If someone needs cables of a certain characteristic to make his system sound right, he should fix whatever is causing that problem.

Good post, and I agree in theory, but...

Shields are often required for phono cables and it's part of cable design to figure out how to shield a cable without so much impact to the sound. Most of my IC cables are not shielded but it's an option, and I have worked hard to make sure my cables can be shielded with minimal impact.

It's very unlikely a shield will add enough capacitance to actually cause rolled-off highs, if you do the calculations you'll see that's not what's causing the perception of rolled-off highs. It's the way the cable interacts with the shield. This has nothing to do with warmth.

Finally, shielding may eliminate noise people find subjectively pleasing.

It's easy to say a cable should do as little as possible and assert that someone should fix their system if anything other than a simple, unshielded, pure UPOCC silver cable is required. But it's more complicated than that. First, people are going to choose what they like best regardless of whatever theories you may have on how to build a proper system. Second, the recordings we listen to have been mastered using gear that tends to impart warmth to the sound. It is possible to put together a playback system that lacks this warmth at the expense of actually sounding real, of sounding like music. So we NEED a certain amount of warmth in order to sound realistic and avoid fatigue. The key is to have a system that is both resolving enough to produce a "you are there", 3-D immersive listening experience that is faithful to the recording AND have a realistic warm tone that doesn't sound harsh, edgy, bleached, dry, etc.

I have said many times that with cables being a passive device there's a clear tradeoff on warmth vs clarity, so you're better off buying amps and speakers that suit your preferences and going with cables that are as neutral as possible, and this is true in theory, but there's never going to be a time when anyone is going to choose a "neutral" cable over one they subjectively prefer. Also, some cables are less of a compromise than others. I have been able to make moderately warm power and speaker cables that don't smooth out too much detail, otoh with interconnect cables you will lose a lot of resolution if it's too warm. For example, a 50 ft Mogami interconnect cable is certainly going to be a bottleneck, you'll lose the resolution required to hear all of the spatial cues and fine detail in vocals and timbre of instruments that make them sound realistic.

 

[microstrip]

At least get your facts right if you’re going to use me to attack someone Mr. micro strip. It was always clear that cables matter question is which ones are natural sounding and which ones aren’t.

david

Please read the whole threads and do not use your usual tactic of changing the mean of other posters messages when posting. This thread is not on Natural Sound TM, it is a general cable thread around Ron system.

 

[microstrip]

I will not go looking for what Lessloss said about their product in 2012, however I'm confident I did not reproduce marketing sentences from them. That's not my style. If I quote a manufacturer I identify it as such. My technical description of their product is accurate. If you are astute you recognize their technology as very similar to that of a well known cable maker although in a different implementation. The latter is more elegant, while the intent is the same.

Well, you should look back - I am sure you could not really understand most of them or agree with them. Although as usual we have to guess from your peculiar style ("if you are astute you recognize" ) the DC polarization of dielectrics technology is old and even used by manufacturers such as Harman in JBL top speakers - it is not rocket science or new physics.

What else are you addressing? Active shielding, used in instrumentation since long?

 

[ddk]

Please read the whole threads and do not use your usual tactic of changing the mean of other posters messages when posting. This thread is not on Natural Sound TM, it is a general cable thread around Ron system.

I read what you wrote and misrepresented my position, I responded to you directly. NSTM is yours nothing to do with me. Your response to Tim was personal, you’re the one with tactics not me.

david

 

[PeterA]

Please read the whole threads and do not use your usual tactic of changing the mean of other posters messages when posting. This thread is not on Natural Sound TM, it is a general cable thread around Ron system.

I have no idea what the trademarking is all about, but having spoken to Ron for a number of years about his audio tastes, it is clear to me that he wants his system to sound natural. Toward that end, he will likely pay a lot of attention to the sound of his cables and choose carefully.

This thread did not start out being a general cable thread. The OP is specifically about Ron's thoughts on his long ICs from preamp to amps and what those wires should be. He has described his goals and his specific needs. It is hardly general.

 

[microstrip]

(...) This thread did not start out being a general cable thread. The OP is specifically about Ron's thoughts on his long ICs from preamp to amps and what those wires should be. He has described his goals and his specific needs. It is hardly general.

Yes, the thread is about Ron cables. However, considering that Ron does not yet have a system and most people do not have experience with his electronics or speakers, the thread will always focus mostly on general aspects of cables and our beliefs on cables.

 

[Solypsa]

Aside from the subjective ( and occasionally bitter ) banter a few tangible bits stand out to me, with respect to OP specific scenario:

1) Would be good to know actual implementation of phono and preamp balanced topology ( @microstrip alluded to this by mentioning Atmasphere designs )

2) Due to length of run star quad might be a disadvantage despite inherent design advantages, due to higher capacitance.

3) Shielding may be a benefit or detriment.

Otherwise a typical cable thread imho

 

[Kingrex]

I don't like Ching Cheng cables for the following reasons. Let me first say, I use them in some places. Mostly power supplies for items such as speed controllers for my TT or my tape deck where they only power the motors that move the tape. The heads are wired out.
They are excellent from a cost perspective if you find them sonically pleasing. Like all cables, they have a sound. That sound may work with your system.

First, they are 14 awg. They have limited ability to carry power compared to larger cables. They are fine for front end equipment. If used on amps, the power demands must be taken into consideration.

Second, the ends are most likely tin plated. I am not sure the actual elemental properties. They could be a blend. Tin is a far from optimum element to have on a cord end for the following reason.
The conductivity of Copper is 64.1. Aluminum is 40.8. Silver is 66.7. Tin is 8.7. Its almost an insulator. I am told that very low conductivity is desirable in some instances. Such as when a MTW tin plated wire is used as a speaker cable and the tin plating acts as an insulator to keep the individual strands, in a way, insulated from each other like a litz wiring configuration. This is a far from desirable attribute when used in a power cord as a pressure contact between a blade and clamp when you want to pass an unimpeded electrical current.

Third. When viewing tin and copper on a galvanic reaction chart Copper is 29 and tin is 50. Copper/brass and tin are considered to have a high galvanic corrosion reaction between the two. For a reaction to occur, an electrolyte if required. Air acts as the electrolyte. The tin coated copper/brass prong on the CC cable itself is reacting at a very low level as the metals are mated so tight. But the contact between the cord blade and a duplex receptacle such as a brass Hubbell 5362 is reactive. And, if the prong end on the cord itself becomes deeply scratched to the brass below, the tin will begin corroding the base metal in the prong. The tin is corroding the duplex receptacle.

Many audio devices have tin plated IEC inlet prongs, so a tin to tin connection at this point is just fine. If you use tin plated duplex, the connection is just fine. But the branch circuit copper wire is reacting with the tin duplex clamp. If your using a gold plated duplex, then there is very little reaction.

This is a part of the reason I always look to have the electrical supply copper all the way through. The only place you can not get rid of the copper to aluminum interface is the meter socket and the utility triplex wire. limiting the quantity of locations these reactions occurs is beneficial.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, writing on this forum may be your full time job but I'm currently making cables at 10:08 pm and don't have the kind of spare time you seem to, and I have little interest in engaging with the "Natural Sound(TM)" cult. Have a good night.

Dave, from what I can tell, the trademark cult follows Fransisco who invented the term without defining it. You have surely engaged with some of them when selling them your cables. Separately, you continue to engage both me and ddk here in threads and in the past in multiple private message exchanges, a few after I auditioned your cables in my system.

 

[microstrip]

Dave, from what I can tell, the trademark cult follows Fransisco who invented the term without defining it. (...)

Peter,

Ok, I see that you have short memory - I first used the term Natural Sound (TM) in an exchange of posts with you to differentiate your particular restrictive perspective of natural according to your preferences from the general use of the word in audiophile writings along decades, that never caused any battle or bitter debates.

In fact it is you (and a very few others) who refuse to define the Natural Sound (TM) in classical audiophile language and technical terms, as most of us are using in this thread. In fact we are having excellent contributions to this discussion, even debating Ron system layout.

 

[PeterA]

Francisco,

I was responding to Dave who is using a term you invented. I don’t want to pollute Ron’s cable thread further with talk about your trademark.

I indeed have a very short memory and must have forgotten that Ron solicited opinions about his new system layout. I remember that his speakers and amps are going to be in the new listening room on a specific wall and the rest of the gear is going to be off to the side in a separate space. I do not get the impression that any attempts to get him to reconfigure the layout are having any affect.

 

[bonzo75]

I don’t want to pollute Ron’s cable thread further with talk about your trademark.

why what’s wrong with Ron’s thread it is being left out

 

[PeterA]

why what’s wrong with Ron’s thread it is being left out

Francisco and I bicker about this topic all over the forum and I just don’t want to do it on another thread. I’d rather read about quality low cost long length cables.

By the way Bonzo, aren’t you on your way to Seattle? Surely you have better things to do than chat with us.

 

[DaveC]

Dave, from what I can tell, the trademark cult follows Fransisco who invented the term without defining it. You have surely engaged with some of them when selling them your cables. Separately, you continue to engage both me and ddk here in threads and in the past in multiple private message exchanges, a few after I auditioned your cables in my system.

I'm pretty sure I used "Natural Sound (TM)" a few years ago or even longer, but it's a minor detail. In the past I had hoped it would be possible to have decent exchanges of ideas and debates on audio with "Natural Sound (TM)" people but I've given up on that. It's proven to be unhealthy to engage in such discussions, and once ddk turned to openly slandering and defaming myself and others here on WBF, while at no time actually having a hint of actually understanding the science behind any aspect of audio recording or playback, I decided not to. The only time I'll post anything in direct response is when there are egregious errors, such as what ddk posted here in this thread.

In any case, I no longer have any interest in engaging in with you or ddk. Here we have someone who is clueless about audio science and design laying out a way to spend a million bucks on an audio system while disparaging things he knows absolutely nothing about in some of the most disrespectful and offensive ways possible, handing out commodity grade Ching Cheng power cables like candy and telling people these are supposed to be "references" and lumping all "audiophile" power cords into one basket, calling room treatments "room tampons", grounding boxes "kitty litter boxes", and on and on and on. It's disgusting, and a vast majority of folks are better off ignoring ddk and his misguided ideas about audio. For the cost of about 5 Porsche GT3s you too can have a "Natural Sound (TM)" system. It's farcical. It's also quite obvious ddk emulates his orange-faced idol and copies his ways of communicating and attacking people. Notice his comparison of me to a dog and room treatments to room tampons, this is classic orange-face technique. I'd love to ignore it all but the truth is your cult's misinformation is actually harmful to the goal of people assembling a true High Fidelity audio system. IMO you're doing real harm and it's just sad and unfortunate.

 

[ddk]

I'm pretty sure I used "Natural Sound (TM)" a few years ago or even longer, but it's a minor detail. In the past I had hoped it would be possible to have decent exchanges of ideas and debates on audio with "Natural Sound (TM)" people but I've given up on that. It's proven to be unhealthy to engage in such discussions, and once ddk turned to openly slandering and defaming myself and others here on WBF, while at no time actually having a hint of actually understanding the science behind any aspect of audio recording or playback, I decided not to. The only time I'll post anything in direct response is when there are egregious errors, such as what ddk posted here in this thread.

In any case, I no longer have any interest in engaging in with you or ddk. Here we have someone who is clueless about audio science and design laying out a way to spend a million bucks on an audio system while disparaging things he knows absolutely nothing about in some of the most disrespectful and offensive ways possible, handing out commodity grade Ching Cheng power cables like candy and telling people these are supposed to be "references" and lumping all "audiophile" power cords into one basket, calling room treatments "room tampons", grounding boxes "kitty litter boxes", and on and on and on. It's disgusting, and a vast majority of folks are better off ignoring ddk and his misguided ideas about audio. For the cost of about 5 Porsche GT3s you too can have a "Natural Sound (TM)" system. It's farcical. It's also quite obvious ddk emulates his orange-faced idol and copies his ways of communicating and attacking people. Notice his comparison of me to a dog and room treatments to room tampons, this is classic orange-face technique. I'd love to ignore it all but the truth is your cult's misinformation is actually harmful to the goal of people assembling a true High Fidelity audio system. IMO you're doing real harm and it's just sad and unfortunate.

LOL, pathetic!

David

 

[microstrip]

Francisco,

I was responding to Dave who is using a term you invented. I don’t want to pollute Ron’s cable thread further with talk about your trademark.

Yes, Peter, fortunately many people have understood what I was meaning - just clarifying our discussions about our preferences. In good justice you were the one who created the trademark when you nicked your system thread with a generic audio term - I just added the (TM) to make clear I was addressing your specific preference or system choices when exchanging posts with you.