Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Cables again. For Arny, et al.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:11:41 -0800, nebulax wrote
(in article <fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com >):
> On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>>
>> news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>>
>>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
>>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
>>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
>>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
>>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
>>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
>>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
>>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
>>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
>>> the signal.
>>
>> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>>
>> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas Neutral Reference
>> arranges different diameter conductors in ascending order of strand
>> cross-section from the center toward the cable outer circumference.
>> Conductors are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden Section
>> Stranding, which earned the company an award for "The Most Significant
>> Contribution of the Advancement of High End Audio in Cable and Accessory
>> Design" from the Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
>> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable resonance produced by
>> fluctuating current flow for a clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>>
>> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances and relevant brand
>> names of an interconnect that does "weird stuff", and associated components.
>>
>>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
>>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
>>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
>>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on the
>>> low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the
>>> high freqs. I can only assume they did this 'engineering'
>>> on purpose for those consumers who really want to hear
>>> something different in their system. Granted, as bad as
>>> some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
>>> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>>
>> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said to include:
>>
>> "
>> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks for accurate,
>> natural sound reproduction.
>> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper, tighter bass.
>> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for clearer highs.
>> "
>>
>> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> This site explains it better than I could -
> http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> Here's a quote:
>
> "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low impedance.
> High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
> frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
> connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency response is
> restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
The impedance of cable is not an issue at audio frequency. For a coaxial
cable to have an impedance it must have a significant capacitive (Xc) and/or
inductive (Xl) reactance.
Almost all coaxial cable is between 50 and 93 Ohms and at audio frequencies
that's insignificant.
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:11:41 -0800, nebulax wrote
(in article <fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com >):
> On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>>
>> news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>>
>>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
>>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
>>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
>>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
>>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
>>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
>>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
>>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
>>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
>>> the signal.
>>
>> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>>
>> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas Neutral Reference
>> arranges different diameter conductors in ascending order of strand
>> cross-section from the center toward the cable outer circumference.
>> Conductors are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden Section
>> Stranding, which earned the company an award for "The Most Significant
>> Contribution of the Advancement of High End Audio in Cable and Accessory
>> Design" from the Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
>> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable resonance produced by
>> fluctuating current flow for a clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>>
>> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances and relevant brand
>> names of an interconnect that does "weird stuff", and associated components.
>>
>>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
>>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
>>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
>>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on the
>>> low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the
>>> high freqs. I can only assume they did this 'engineering'
>>> on purpose for those consumers who really want to hear
>>> something different in their system. Granted, as bad as
>>> some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
>>> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>>
>> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said to include:
>>
>> "
>> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks for accurate,
>> natural sound reproduction.
>> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper, tighter bass.
>> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for clearer highs.
>> "
>>
>> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> This site explains it better than I could -
> http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> Here's a quote:
>
> "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low impedance.
> High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
> frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
> connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency response is
> restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
The impedance of cable is not an issue at audio frequency. For a coaxial
cable to have an impedance it must have a significant capacitive (Xc) and/or
inductive (Xl) reactance.
Almost all coaxial cable is between 50 and 93 Ohms and at audio frequencies
that's insignificant.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mar 5, 9:53 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:11:41 -0800, nebulax wrote
> (in article <fqks0d0...@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> >> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> >>news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> >>> the signal.
>
> >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas Neutral Reference
> >> arranges different diameter conductors in ascending order of strand
> >> cross-section from the center toward the cable outer circumference.
> >> Conductors are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden Section
> >> Stranding, which earned the company an award for "The Most Significant
> >> Contribution of the Advancement of High End Audio in Cable and Accessory
> >> Design" from the Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable resonance produced by
> >> fluctuating current flow for a clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances and relevant brand
> >> names of an interconnect that does "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on the
> >>> low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the
> >>> high freqs. I can only assume they did this 'engineering'
> >>> on purpose for those consumers who really want to hear
> >>> something different in their system. Granted, as bad as
> >>> some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> >>> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>
> >> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said to include:
>
> >> "
> >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks for accurate,
> >> natural sound reproduction.
> >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper, tighter bass.
> >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for clearer highs.
> >> "
>
> >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > This site explains it better than I could -
> > http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > Here's a quote:
>
> > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low impedance.
> > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
> > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
> > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency response is
> > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> The impedance of cable is not an issue at audio frequency. For a coaxial
> cable to have an impedance it must have a significant capacitive (Xc) and/or
> inductive (Xl) reactance.
>
> Almost all coaxial cable is between 50 and 93 Ohms and at audio frequencies
> that's insignificant.
It's not the cable by itself, it's the combination of that, and of the
load of the devices connected to it. Here's part of the quote again:
"High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
connected to the interconnect"
On Mar 5, 9:53 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:11:41 -0800, nebulax wrote
> (in article <fqks0d0...@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> >> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> >>news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> >>> the signal.
>
> >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas Neutral Reference
> >> arranges different diameter conductors in ascending order of strand
> >> cross-section from the center toward the cable outer circumference.
> >> Conductors are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden Section
> >> Stranding, which earned the company an award for "The Most Significant
> >> Contribution of the Advancement of High End Audio in Cable and Accessory
> >> Design" from the Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable resonance produced by
> >> fluctuating current flow for a clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances and relevant brand
> >> names of an interconnect that does "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on the
> >>> low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the
> >>> high freqs. I can only assume they did this 'engineering'
> >>> on purpose for those consumers who really want to hear
> >>> something different in their system. Granted, as bad as
> >>> some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> >>> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>
> >> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said to include:
>
> >> "
> >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks for accurate,
> >> natural sound reproduction.
> >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper, tighter bass.
> >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for clearer highs.
> >> "
>
> >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > This site explains it better than I could -
> > http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > Here's a quote:
>
> > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low impedance.
> > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
> > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
> > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency response is
> > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> The impedance of cable is not an issue at audio frequency. For a coaxial
> cable to have an impedance it must have a significant capacitive (Xc) and/or
> inductive (Xl) reactance.
>
> Almost all coaxial cable is between 50 and 93 Ohms and at audio frequencies
> that's insignificant.
It's not the cable by itself, it's the combination of that, and of the
load of the devices connected to it. Here's part of the quote again:
"High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
connected to the interconnect"
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mar 6, 5:10 pm, nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:53 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:11:41 -0800, nebulax wrote
> > (in article <fqks0d0...@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
> > > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> > >> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> > >>news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> > >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> > >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> > >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> > >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> > >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> > >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> > >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> > >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> > >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> > >>> the signal.
>
> > >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> > >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas Neutral Reference
> > >> arranges different diameter conductors in ascending order of strand
> > >> cross-section from the center toward the cable outer circumference.
> > >> Conductors are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden Section
> > >> Stranding, which earned the company an award for "The Most Significant
> > >> Contribution of the Advancement of High End Audio in Cable and Accessory
> > >> Design" from the Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> > >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable resonance produced by
> > >> fluctuating current flow for a clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> > >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances and relevant brand
> > >> names of an interconnect that does "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> > >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> > >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> > >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> > >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on the
> > >>> low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the
> > >>> high freqs. I can only assume they did this 'engineering'
> > >>> on purpose for those consumers who really want to hear
> > >>> something different in their system. Granted, as bad as
> > >>> some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> > >>> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>
> > >> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said to include:
>
> > >> "
> > >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks for accurate,
> > >> natural sound reproduction.
> > >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper, tighter bass.
> > >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for clearer highs.
> > >> "
>
> > >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > > This site explains it better than I could -
> > > http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > > Here's a quote:
>
> > > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low impedance.
> > > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
> > > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
> > > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency response is
> > > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> > The impedance of cable is not an issue at audio frequency. For a coaxial
> > cable to have an impedance it must have a significant capacitive (Xc) and/or
> > inductive (Xl) reactance.
>
> > Almost all coaxial cable is between 50 and 93 Ohms and at audio frequencies
> > that's insignificant.
>
> It's not the cable by itself, it's the combination of that, and of the
> load of the devices connected to it. Here's part of the quote again:
>
> "High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
> frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
> connected to the interconnect"
What kind of impedances are you talking about? Interconnects have
negligible resistances (a few ohms) compared to typical audio input
impedances of 50K or so. Its a bogus issue for even minimally
functioning cables.
On Mar 6, 5:10 pm, nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:53 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:11:41 -0800, nebulax wrote
> > (in article <fqks0d0...@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
> > > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> > >> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> > >>news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> > >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> > >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> > >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> > >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> > >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> > >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> > >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> > >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> > >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> > >>> the signal.
>
> > >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> > >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas Neutral Reference
> > >> arranges different diameter conductors in ascending order of strand
> > >> cross-section from the center toward the cable outer circumference.
> > >> Conductors are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden Section
> > >> Stranding, which earned the company an award for "The Most Significant
> > >> Contribution of the Advancement of High End Audio in Cable and Accessory
> > >> Design" from the Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> > >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable resonance produced by
> > >> fluctuating current flow for a clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> > >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances and relevant brand
> > >> names of an interconnect that does "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> > >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> > >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> > >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> > >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on the
> > >>> low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the
> > >>> high freqs. I can only assume they did this 'engineering'
> > >>> on purpose for those consumers who really want to hear
> > >>> something different in their system. Granted, as bad as
> > >>> some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> > >>> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>
> > >> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said to include:
>
> > >> "
> > >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks for accurate,
> > >> natural sound reproduction.
> > >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper, tighter bass.
> > >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for clearer highs.
> > >> "
>
> > >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > > This site explains it better than I could -
> > > http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > > Here's a quote:
>
> > > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low impedance.
> > > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
> > > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
> > > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency response is
> > > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> > The impedance of cable is not an issue at audio frequency. For a coaxial
> > cable to have an impedance it must have a significant capacitive (Xc) and/or
> > inductive (Xl) reactance.
>
> > Almost all coaxial cable is between 50 and 93 Ohms and at audio frequencies
> > that's insignificant.
>
> It's not the cable by itself, it's the combination of that, and of the
> load of the devices connected to it. Here's part of the quote again:
>
> "High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
> frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
> connected to the interconnect"
What kind of impedances are you talking about? Interconnects have
negligible resistances (a few ohms) compared to typical audio input
impedances of 50K or so. Its a bogus issue for even minimally
functioning cables.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
news:fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com
> On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> wrote:
>> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>>
>> news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>>
>>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
>>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
>>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
>>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
>>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
>>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
>>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
>>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
>>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
>>> the signal.
>>
>> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>>
>> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas
>> Neutral Reference arranges different diameter conductors
>> in ascending order of strand cross-section from the
>> center toward the cable outer circumference. Conductors
>> are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden
>> Section Stranding, which earned the company an award for
>> "The Most Significant Contribution of the Advancement of
>> High End Audio in Cable and Accessory Design" from the
>> Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
>> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable
>> resonance produced by fluctuating current flow for a
>> clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>>
>> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances
>> and relevant brand names of an interconnect that does
>> "weird stuff", and associated components.
>>
>>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
>>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
>>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
>>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
>>> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on
>>> the high freqs. I can only assume they did this
>>> 'engineering' on purpose for those consumers who really
>>> want to hear something different in their system.
>>> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage
>>> cd players, anybody?), that sort of coloration could be
>>> a blessing!
>>
>> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said
>> to include:
>>
>> "
>> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks
>> for accurate, natural sound reproduction.
>> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper,
>> tighter bass.
>> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for
>> clearer highs. "
>>
>> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> This site explains it better than I could -
> http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> Here's a quote:
>
> "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low
> impedance.
> High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
> low
> frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
> components
> connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
> response is
> restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect cable is probably
around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would be hard to justify going further.
> And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the
> use of AB and ABX testing!
I'm familiar with the site and have had favorable conversations with the
proprietor.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
news:fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com
> On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> wrote:
>> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>>
>> news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>>
>>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
>>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
>>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
>>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
>>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
>>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
>>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
>>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
>>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
>>> the signal.
>>
>> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>>
>> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas
>> Neutral Reference arranges different diameter conductors
>> in ascending order of strand cross-section from the
>> center toward the cable outer circumference. Conductors
>> are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden
>> Section Stranding, which earned the company an award for
>> "The Most Significant Contribution of the Advancement of
>> High End Audio in Cable and Accessory Design" from the
>> Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
>> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable
>> resonance produced by fluctuating current flow for a
>> clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>>
>> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances
>> and relevant brand names of an interconnect that does
>> "weird stuff", and associated components.
>>
>>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
>>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
>>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
>>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
>>> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on
>>> the high freqs. I can only assume they did this
>>> 'engineering' on purpose for those consumers who really
>>> want to hear something different in their system.
>>> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage
>>> cd players, anybody?), that sort of coloration could be
>>> a blessing!
>>
>> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said
>> to include:
>>
>> "
>> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks
>> for accurate, natural sound reproduction.
>> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper,
>> tighter bass.
>> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for
>> clearer highs. "
>>
>> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> This site explains it better than I could -
> http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> Here's a quote:
>
> "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low
> impedance.
> High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
> low
> frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
> components
> connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
> response is
> restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect cable is probably
around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would be hard to justify going further.
> And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the
> use of AB and ABX testing!
I'm familiar with the site and have had favorable conversations with the
proprietor.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> news:fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> > wrote:
> >> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> >>news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> >>> the signal.
>
> >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas
> >> Neutral Reference arranges different diameter conductors
> >> in ascending order of strand cross-section from the
> >> center toward the cable outer circumference. Conductors
> >> are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden
> >> Section Stranding, which earned the company an award for
> >> "The Most Significant Contribution of the Advancement of
> >> High End Audio in Cable and Accessory Design" from the
> >> Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable
> >> resonance produced by fluctuating current flow for a
> >> clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances
> >> and relevant brand names of an interconnect that does
> >> "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> >>> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on
> >>> the high freqs. I can only assume they did this
> >>> 'engineering' on purpose for those consumers who really
> >>> want to hear something different in their system.
> >>> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage
> >>> cd players, anybody?), that sort of coloration could be
> >>> a blessing!
>
> >> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said
> >> to include:
>
> >> "
> >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks
> >> for accurate, natural sound reproduction.
> >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper,
> >> tighter bass.
> >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for
> >> clearer highs. "
>
> >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > This site explains it better than I could -
> > http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > Here's a quote:
>
> > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low
> > impedance.
> > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
> > low
> > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
> > components
> > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
> > response is
> > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect cable is probably
> around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would be hard to justify going further.
If the cable had flat response out to 1,000 MHz, fine, but if the load
and impedance cause frequencies to roll off in the audible range, it
will affect the sound of the signal going thru it.
> > And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the
> > use of AB and ABX testing!
>
> I'm familiar with the site and have had favorable conversations with the
> proprietor.
Good. I don't think this guy's trying to sell anybody snake oil.
On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> news:fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> > wrote:
> >> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> >>news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> >>> the signal.
>
> >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas
> >> Neutral Reference arranges different diameter conductors
> >> in ascending order of strand cross-section from the
> >> center toward the cable outer circumference. Conductors
> >> are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden
> >> Section Stranding, which earned the company an award for
> >> "The Most Significant Contribution of the Advancement of
> >> High End Audio in Cable and Accessory Design" from the
> >> Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable
> >> resonance produced by fluctuating current flow for a
> >> clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances
> >> and relevant brand names of an interconnect that does
> >> "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> >>> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on
> >>> the high freqs. I can only assume they did this
> >>> 'engineering' on purpose for those consumers who really
> >>> want to hear something different in their system.
> >>> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage
> >>> cd players, anybody?), that sort of coloration could be
> >>> a blessing!
>
> >> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said
> >> to include:
>
> >> "
> >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks
> >> for accurate, natural sound reproduction.
> >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper,
> >> tighter bass.
> >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for
> >> clearer highs. "
>
> >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > This site explains it better than I could -
> > http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > Here's a quote:
>
> > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low
> > impedance.
> > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
> > low
> > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
> > components
> > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
> > response is
> > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect cable is probably
> around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would be hard to justify going further.
If the cable had flat response out to 1,000 MHz, fine, but if the load
and impedance cause frequencies to roll off in the audible range, it
will affect the sound of the signal going thru it.
> > And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the
> > use of AB and ABX testing!
>
> I'm familiar with the site and have had favorable conversations with the
> proprietor.
Good. I don't think this guy's trying to sell anybody snake oil.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
news:fqpq3q0pq0@news5.newsguy,com
> On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> wrote:
>> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>> news:fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com
>>> Here's a quote:
>
>>> "The second requirement is that the interconnect have
>>> low impedance.
>>> High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
>>> low
>>> frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
>>> components
>>> connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
>>> response is
>>> restricted in this way, the effects are indeed
>>> audible.".
>> The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect
>> cable is probably around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would
>> be hard to justify going further.
> If the cable had flat response out to 1,000 MHz, fine,
> but if the load and impedance cause frequencies to roll
> off in the audible range, it will affect the sound of the
> signal going thru it.
With almost all regular consumer audio gear, and with the cable lengths
typical of home audio systems, such roll offs will simply never happen.
Furthermore, low frequency roll-offs due to cable are all but totally
impossible. High frequency roll-offs in the audio range can't happen with
well-designed equipment and reasonable cable lengths.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
news:fqpq3q0pq0@news5.newsguy,com
> On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> wrote:
>> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>> news:fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com
>>> Here's a quote:
>
>>> "The second requirement is that the interconnect have
>>> low impedance.
>>> High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
>>> low
>>> frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
>>> components
>>> connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
>>> response is
>>> restricted in this way, the effects are indeed
>>> audible.".
>> The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect
>> cable is probably around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would
>> be hard to justify going further.
> If the cable had flat response out to 1,000 MHz, fine,
> but if the load and impedance cause frequencies to roll
> off in the audible range, it will affect the sound of the
> signal going thru it.
With almost all regular consumer audio gear, and with the cable lengths
typical of home audio systems, such roll offs will simply never happen.
Furthermore, low frequency roll-offs due to cable are all but totally
impossible. High frequency roll-offs in the audio range can't happen with
well-designed equipment and reasonable cable lengths.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> news:fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> > wrote:
> >> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> >>news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> >>> the signal.
>
> >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas
> >> Neutral Reference arranges different diameter conductors
> >> in ascending order of strand cross-section from the
> >> center toward the cable outer circumference. Conductors
> >> are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden
> >> Section Stranding, which earned the company an award for
> >> "The Most Significant Contribution of the Advancement of
> >> High End Audio in Cable and Accessory Design" from the
> >> Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable
> >> resonance produced by fluctuating current flow for a
> >> clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances
> >> and relevant brand names of an interconnect that does
> >> "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> >>> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on
> >>> the high freqs. I can only assume they did this
> >>> 'engineering' on purpose for those consumers who really
> >>> want to hear something different in their system.
> >>> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage
> >>> cd players, anybody?), that sort of coloration could be
> >>> a blessing!
>
> >> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said
> >> to include:
>
> >> "
> >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks
> >> for accurate, natural sound reproduction.
> >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper,
> >> tighter bass.
> >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for
> >> clearer highs. "
>
> >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > This site explains it better than I could -
> > http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > Here's a quote:
>
> > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low
> > impedance.
> > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
> > low
> > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
> > components
> > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
> > response is
> > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect cable is probably
> around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would be hard to justify going further.
>
> > And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the
> > use of AB and ABX testing!
>
> I'm familiar with the site and have had favorable conversations with the
> proprietor.
BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm advocating
spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm truly not, and I
couldn't afford to spend that much even if I wanted to. One of the
folks who I quoted, Roger Sanders, is selling interconnects that he
makes from Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now anyway). I wish
the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even an issue, but to my ears it
is, and so I'm trying to find the most economical way to sonic
neutrality, that's all.
-Neb
On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> news:fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> > wrote:
> >> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> >>news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> >>> the signal.
>
> >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas
> >> Neutral Reference arranges different diameter conductors
> >> in ascending order of strand cross-section from the
> >> center toward the cable outer circumference. Conductors
> >> are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden
> >> Section Stranding, which earned the company an award for
> >> "The Most Significant Contribution of the Advancement of
> >> High End Audio in Cable and Accessory Design" from the
> >> Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable
> >> resonance produced by fluctuating current flow for a
> >> clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances
> >> and relevant brand names of an interconnect that does
> >> "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> >>> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on
> >>> the high freqs. I can only assume they did this
> >>> 'engineering' on purpose for those consumers who really
> >>> want to hear something different in their system.
> >>> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage
> >>> cd players, anybody?), that sort of coloration could be
> >>> a blessing!
>
> >> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said
> >> to include:
>
> >> "
> >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks
> >> for accurate, natural sound reproduction.
> >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper,
> >> tighter bass.
> >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for
> >> clearer highs. "
>
> >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > This site explains it better than I could -
> > http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > Here's a quote:
>
> > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low
> > impedance.
> > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
> > low
> > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
> > components
> > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
> > response is
> > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect cable is probably
> around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would be hard to justify going further.
>
> > And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the
> > use of AB and ABX testing!
>
> I'm familiar with the site and have had favorable conversations with the
> proprietor.
BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm advocating
spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm truly not, and I
couldn't afford to spend that much even if I wanted to. One of the
folks who I quoted, Roger Sanders, is selling interconnects that he
makes from Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now anyway). I wish
the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even an issue, but to my ears it
is, and so I'm trying to find the most economical way to sonic
neutrality, that's all.
-Neb
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mar 6, 5:12 pm, nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> >news:fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com
>
> > > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> > > wrote:
> > >> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> > >>news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> > >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> > >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> > >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> > >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> > >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> > >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> > >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> > >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> > >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> > >>> the signal.
>
> > >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> > >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas
> > >> Neutral Reference arranges different diameter conductors
> > >> in ascending order of strand cross-section from the
> > >> center toward the cable outer circumference. Conductors
> > >> are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden
> > >> Section Stranding, which earned the company an award for
> > >> "The Most Significant Contribution of the Advancement of
> > >> High End Audio in Cable and Accessory Design" from the
> > >> Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> > >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable
> > >> resonance produced by fluctuating current flow for a
> > >> clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> > >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances
> > >> and relevant brand names of an interconnect that does
> > >> "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> > >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> > >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> > >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> > >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> > >>> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on
> > >>> the high freqs. I can only assume they did this
> > >>> 'engineering' on purpose for those consumers who really
> > >>> want to hear something different in their system.
> > >>> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage
> > >>> cd players, anybody?), that sort of coloration could be
> > >>> a blessing!
>
> > >> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said
> > >> to include:
>
> > >> "
> > >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks
> > >> for accurate, natural sound reproduction.
> > >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper,
> > >> tighter bass.
> > >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for
> > >> clearer highs. "
>
> > >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > > This site explains it better than I could -
> > > http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > > Here's a quote:
>
> > > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low
> > > impedance.
> > > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
> > > low
> > > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
> > > components
> > > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
> > > response is
> > > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> > The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect cable is probably
> > around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would be hard to justify going further.
>
> > > And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the
> > > use of AB and ABX testing!
>
> > I'm familiar with the site and have had favorable conversations with the
> > proprietor.
>
> BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm advocating
> spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm truly not, and I
> couldn't afford to spend that much even if I wanted to. One of the
> folks who I quoted, Roger Sanders, is selling interconnects that he
> makes from Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
> pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now anyway). I wish
> the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even an issue, but to my ears it
> is, and so I'm trying to find the most economical way to sonic
> neutrality, that's all.
>
> -Neb
If you think Belden coaxial cable will meet your needs, then buy some
and make your own interconnects. You should be able to get it for well
under a dollar/foot in bulk but its overkill for what you need. There
is nothing exotic or necessarily expensive about audio cable and even
the dollar store cable will usually work fine but may be unreliable.
BTW, it is usually pretty obvious when a cable doesn't work correctly.
If you have the money, better speakers are a much better investment.
On Mar 6, 5:12 pm, nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> >news:fqks0d0v21@news4.newsguy,com
>
> > > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> > > wrote:
> > >> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> > >>news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> > >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> > >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> > >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> > >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> > >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> > >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> > >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> > >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> > >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> > >>> the signal.
>
> > >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> > >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas
> > >> Neutral Reference arranges different diameter conductors
> > >> in ascending order of strand cross-section from the
> > >> center toward the cable outer circumference. Conductors
> > >> are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden
> > >> Section Stranding, which earned the company an award for
> > >> "The Most Significant Contribution of the Advancement of
> > >> High End Audio in Cable and Accessory Design" from the
> > >> Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> > >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable
> > >> resonance produced by fluctuating current flow for a
> > >> clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> > >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances
> > >> and relevant brand names of an interconnect that does
> > >> "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> > >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> > >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> > >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> > >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> > >>> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on
> > >>> the high freqs. I can only assume they did this
> > >>> 'engineering' on purpose for those consumers who really
> > >>> want to hear something different in their system.
> > >>> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage
> > >>> cd players, anybody?), that sort of coloration could be
> > >>> a blessing!
>
> > >> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said
> > >> to include:
>
> > >> "
> > >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks
> > >> for accurate, natural sound reproduction.
> > >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper,
> > >> tighter bass.
> > >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for
> > >> clearer highs. "
>
> > >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > > This site explains it better than I could -
> > > http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > > Here's a quote:
>
> > > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low
> > > impedance.
> > > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
> > > low
> > > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
> > > components
> > > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
> > > response is
> > > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> > The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect cable is probably
> > around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would be hard to justify going further.
>
> > > And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the
> > > use of AB and ABX testing!
>
> > I'm familiar with the site and have had favorable conversations with the
> > proprietor.
>
> BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm advocating
> spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm truly not, and I
> couldn't afford to spend that much even if I wanted to. One of the
> folks who I quoted, Roger Sanders, is selling interconnects that he
> makes from Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
> pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now anyway). I wish
> the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even an issue, but to my ears it
> is, and so I'm trying to find the most economical way to sonic
> neutrality, that's all.
>
> -Neb
If you think Belden coaxial cable will meet your needs, then buy some
and make your own interconnects. You should be able to get it for well
under a dollar/foot in bulk but its overkill for what you need. There
is nothing exotic or necessarily expensive about audio cable and even
the dollar store cable will usually work fine but may be unreliable.
BTW, it is usually pretty obvious when a cable doesn't work correctly.
If you have the money, better speakers are a much better investment.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
news:fqpq7l0prp@news5.newsguy,com
> BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm
> advocating spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm
> truly not, and I couldn't afford to spend that much even
> if I wanted to. One of the folks who I quoted, Roger
> Sanders, is selling interconnects that he makes from
> Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
> pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now
> anyway). I wish the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even
> an issue, but to my ears it is, and so I'm trying to find
> the most economical way to sonic neutrality, that's all.
As a rule, the worst thing about the give-away interconnects that come with
audio gear is the connectors, not the cable. The cable itself is inherently
sonically neutral when used in reasonable lengths, and with almost any piece
of audio gear.
Coax can be used to make some very techhy-looking cables, especially with
the right connectors. All that has nothing to do with sound, its all about
appearances.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
news:fqpq7l0prp@news5.newsguy,com
> BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm
> advocating spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm
> truly not, and I couldn't afford to spend that much even
> if I wanted to. One of the folks who I quoted, Roger
> Sanders, is selling interconnects that he makes from
> Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
> pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now
> anyway). I wish the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even
> an issue, but to my ears it is, and so I'm trying to find
> the most economical way to sonic neutrality, that's all.
As a rule, the worst thing about the give-away interconnects that come with
audio gear is the connectors, not the cable. The cable itself is inherently
sonically neutral when used in reasonable lengths, and with almost any piece
of audio gear.
Coax can be used to make some very techhy-looking cables, especially with
the right connectors. All that has nothing to do with sound, its all about
appearances.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:46:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fqsnll02l6p@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
> news:fqpq7l0prp@news5.newsguy,com
>
>> BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm
>> advocating spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm
>> truly not, and I couldn't afford to spend that much even
>> if I wanted to. One of the folks who I quoted, Roger
>> Sanders, is selling interconnects that he makes from
>> Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
>> pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now
>> anyway). I wish the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even
>> an issue, but to my ears it is, and so I'm trying to find
>> the most economical way to sonic neutrality, that's all.
>
> As a rule, the worst thing about the give-away interconnects that come with
> audio gear is the connectors, not the cable. The cable itself is inherently
> sonically neutral when used in reasonable lengths, and with almost any piece
> of audio gear.
>
> Coax can be used to make some very techhy-looking cables, especially with
> the right connectors. All that has nothing to do with sound, its all about
> appearances.
>
Here is a related phenomenon that almost assuredly applies to this situation
as well:
http :// www .eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/du-cpw022908.php
Costly placebo works better than cheap one
DURHAM, N.C. -- A 10-cent pill doesn't kill pain as well as a $2.50
pill, even when they are identical placebos, according to a
provocative study by Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke
University.
"Physicians want to think it's the medicine and not their enthusiasm
about a particular drug that makes a drug more therapeutically
effective, but now we really have to worry about the nuances of
interaction between patients and physicians," said Ariely, whose
findings appear as a letter in the March 5 edition of the Journal of
the American Medical Association.
The results fit with existing data about how people perceive quality
and how they anticipate therapeutic effects, he said. But what's
interesting is the combination of the price-sensitive consumer
expectation with the well-known placebo effect of being told a pill
works. "The placebo effect is one of the most fascinating, least
harnessed forces in the universe," Ariely said.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:46:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fqsnll02l6p@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
> news:fqpq7l0prp@news5.newsguy,com
>
>> BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm
>> advocating spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm
>> truly not, and I couldn't afford to spend that much even
>> if I wanted to. One of the folks who I quoted, Roger
>> Sanders, is selling interconnects that he makes from
>> Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
>> pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now
>> anyway). I wish the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even
>> an issue, but to my ears it is, and so I'm trying to find
>> the most economical way to sonic neutrality, that's all.
>
> As a rule, the worst thing about the give-away interconnects that come with
> audio gear is the connectors, not the cable. The cable itself is inherently
> sonically neutral when used in reasonable lengths, and with almost any piece
> of audio gear.
>
> Coax can be used to make some very techhy-looking cables, especially with
> the right connectors. All that has nothing to do with sound, its all about
> appearances.
>
Here is a related phenomenon that almost assuredly applies to this situation
as well:
http :// www .eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/du-cpw022908.php
Costly placebo works better than cheap one
DURHAM, N.C. -- A 10-cent pill doesn't kill pain as well as a $2.50
pill, even when they are identical placebos, according to a
provocative study by Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke
University.
"Physicians want to think it's the medicine and not their enthusiasm
about a particular drug that makes a drug more therapeutically
effective, but now we really have to worry about the nuances of
interaction between patients and physicians," said Ariely, whose
findings appear as a letter in the March 5 edition of the Journal of
the American Medical Association.
The results fit with existing data about how people perceive quality
and how they anticipate therapeutic effects, he said. But what's
interesting is the combination of the price-sensitive consumer
expectation with the well-known placebo effect of being told a pill
works. "The placebo effect is one of the most fascinating, least
harnessed forces in the universe," Ariely said.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mar 7, 7:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> news:fqpq7l0prp@news5.newsguy,com
>
> > BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm
> > advocating spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm
> > truly not, and I couldn't afford to spend that much even
> > if I wanted to. One of the folks who I quoted, Roger
> > Sanders, is selling interconnects that he makes from
> > Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
> > pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now
> > anyway). I wish the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even
> > an issue, but to my ears it is, and so I'm trying to find
> > the most economical way to sonic neutrality, that's all.
>
> As a rule, the worst thing about the give-away interconnects that come with
> audio gear is the connectors, not the cable. The cable itself is inherently
> sonically neutral when used in reasonable lengths, and with almost any piece
> of audio gear.
>
> Coax can be used to make some very techhy-looking cables, especially with
> the right connectors. All that has nothing to do with sound, its all about
> appearances.
Yeah, the connectors can really suck on cheap cables. It's bad enough
that the norm for hi-fi connections are RCA jacks, much less poorly
made ones. I've read info from Mogami and Canare that state that the
quality of the connector can affect the ohm rating of the whole
assembly, with a bad jack design making a cable unsuitable for
transferring digital S-PDIF information. A mismatch of ohms in a
electrical circuit can be quite audible, and well as visual (in the
case of video signal).
I think that coax would give more predictable results than something
like say, Hosa cable, and the shielding would be better, too. If
nothing else, better shielding = less noise+interference = better
sound.
-Neb
On Mar 7, 7:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> news:fqpq7l0prp@news5.newsguy,com
>
> > BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm
> > advocating spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm
> > truly not, and I couldn't afford to spend that much even
> > if I wanted to. One of the folks who I quoted, Roger
> > Sanders, is selling interconnects that he makes from
> > Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
> > pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now
> > anyway). I wish the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even
> > an issue, but to my ears it is, and so I'm trying to find
> > the most economical way to sonic neutrality, that's all.
>
> As a rule, the worst thing about the give-away interconnects that come with
> audio gear is the connectors, not the cable. The cable itself is inherently
> sonically neutral when used in reasonable lengths, and with almost any piece
> of audio gear.
>
> Coax can be used to make some very techhy-looking cables, especially with
> the right connectors. All that has nothing to do with sound, its all about
> appearances.
Yeah, the connectors can really suck on cheap cables. It's bad enough
that the norm for hi-fi connections are RCA jacks, much less poorly
made ones. I've read info from Mogami and Canare that state that the
quality of the connector can affect the ohm rating of the whole
assembly, with a bad jack design making a cable unsuitable for
transferring digital S-PDIF information. A mismatch of ohms in a
electrical circuit can be quite audible, and well as visual (in the
case of video signal).
I think that coax would give more predictable results than something
like say, Hosa cable, and the shielding would be better, too. If
nothing else, better shielding = less noise+interference = better
sound.
-Neb
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
news:fquciu027i@news4.newsguy,com ...
> On Mar 7, 7:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>>
>> news:fqpq7l0prp@news5.newsguy,com
>>
>> > BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm
>> > advocating spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm
>> > truly not, and I couldn't afford to spend that much even
>> > if I wanted to. One of the folks who I quoted, Roger
>> > Sanders, is selling interconnects that he makes from
>> > Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
>> > pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now
>> > anyway). I wish the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even
>> > an issue, but to my ears it is, and so I'm trying to find
>> > the most economical way to sonic neutrality, that's all.
>>
>> As a rule, the worst thing about the give-away interconnects that come
>> with
>> audio gear is the connectors, not the cable. The cable itself is
>> inherently
>> sonically neutral when used in reasonable lengths, and with almost any
>> piece
>> of audio gear.
>>
>> Coax can be used to make some very techhy-looking cables, especially with
>> the right connectors. All that has nothing to do with sound, its all
>> about
>> appearances.
>
> Yeah, the connectors can really suck on cheap cables. It's bad enough
> that the norm for hi-fi connections are RCA jacks, much less poorly
> made ones. I've read info from Mogami and Canare that state that the
> quality of the connector can affect the ohm rating of the whole
> assembly, with a bad jack design making a cable unsuitable for
> transferring digital S-PDIF information. A mismatch of ohms in a
> electrical circuit can be quite audible, and well as visual (in the
> case of video signal).
How is an impedance mismatch audible? I don't think so. For analogue signals
at audio frequencies, the impedance of the cable nd connector have no
relevance. For digital signals, the impedance of the cable/connector may
make a difference over long distances, but for normal domestic lengths, (say
under 10m, 33ft) it really doesn't matter. S-PDIF and AES-EBU is *very*
robust, and I have seen (and personally tried) literally a piece of wet
string transport digital signals pefectly. I have even passed an AES-EBU
signal (unbalanced 75ohm) through my fingers into a sensitive S-PDIF
receiver with no problems.
Analogue video signals are very different, and an impedance mismatch can be
visible as reflections on edges. I remember being very roundly told off in
my youth for mixing up 50 ohm BNCs for 75ohm connectors...... In TV
facilities before they all went digital, video, whether composite or RGB had
to be very carefully timed and equalised, and a great deal of attention was
placed on the correct impedance of both cables and connectors. Audio is
competely different, and just isn't critical of either.
S.
--
http :// audiopages.googlepages,com
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
news:fquciu027i@news4.newsguy,com ...
> On Mar 7, 7:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>>
>> news:fqpq7l0prp@news5.newsguy,com
>>
>> > BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm
>> > advocating spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm
>> > truly not, and I couldn't afford to spend that much even
>> > if I wanted to. One of the folks who I quoted, Roger
>> > Sanders, is selling interconnects that he makes from
>> > Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
>> > pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now
>> > anyway). I wish the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even
>> > an issue, but to my ears it is, and so I'm trying to find
>> > the most economical way to sonic neutrality, that's all.
>>
>> As a rule, the worst thing about the give-away interconnects that come
>> with
>> audio gear is the connectors, not the cable. The cable itself is
>> inherently
>> sonically neutral when used in reasonable lengths, and with almost any
>> piece
>> of audio gear.
>>
>> Coax can be used to make some very techhy-looking cables, especially with
>> the right connectors. All that has nothing to do with sound, its all
>> about
>> appearances.
>
> Yeah, the connectors can really suck on cheap cables. It's bad enough
> that the norm for hi-fi connections are RCA jacks, much less poorly
> made ones. I've read info from Mogami and Canare that state that the
> quality of the connector can affect the ohm rating of the whole
> assembly, with a bad jack design making a cable unsuitable for
> transferring digital S-PDIF information. A mismatch of ohms in a
> electrical circuit can be quite audible, and well as visual (in the
> case of video signal).
How is an impedance mismatch audible? I don't think so. For analogue signals
at audio frequencies, the impedance of the cable nd connector have no
relevance. For digital signals, the impedance of the cable/connector may
make a difference over long distances, but for normal domestic lengths, (say
under 10m, 33ft) it really doesn't matter. S-PDIF and AES-EBU is *very*
robust, and I have seen (and personally tried) literally a piece of wet
string transport digital signals pefectly. I have even passed an AES-EBU
signal (unbalanced 75ohm) through my fingers into a sensitive S-PDIF
receiver with no problems.
Analogue video signals are very different, and an impedance mismatch can be
visible as reflections on edges. I remember being very roundly told off in
my youth for mixing up 50 ohm BNCs for 75ohm connectors...... In TV
facilities before they all went digital, video, whether composite or RGB had
to be very carefully timed and equalised, and a great deal of attention was
placed on the correct impedance of both cables and connectors. Audio is
competely different, and just isn't critical of either.
S.
--
http :// audiopages.googlepages,com
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mar 8, 10:49 am, nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
<snip>
> Yeah, the connectors can really suck on cheap cables. It's bad enough
> that the norm for hi-fi connections are RCA jacks, much less poorly
> made ones. I've read info from Mogami and Canare that state that the
> quality of the connector can affect the ohm rating of the whole
> assembly, with a bad jack design making a cable unsuitable for
> transferring digital S-PDIF information. A mismatch of ohms in a
> electrical circuit can be quite audible, and well as visual (in the
> case of video signal).
What kind of a mismatch are you talking about? A few ohms in an audio
cable is unlikely to cause any problems. Typical source impedances are
usually somewhere around 100 ohms for solid state hardware and even
higher for tube gear. Input impedances are much higher, 50K and higher
usually. A few ohms in the interconnect is not going to make any
difference. RCA plugs certainly have issues but usually don't cause
significant problems if made well. Note that this does not imply
expensive. What kind of audio problems have you experienced?
>
> I think that coax would give more predictable results than something
> like say, Hosa cable, and the shielding would be better, too. If
> nothing else, better shielding = less noise+interference = better
> sound.
Coax has its advantages but it may be difficult to use for
interconnects. Shielding is not likely to be an issue with modest-
quality audio cable. With modern electronics, white noise is usually
all that is heard and shielding won't reduce it.
On Mar 8, 10:49 am, nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
<snip>
> Yeah, the connectors can really suck on cheap cables. It's bad enough
> that the norm for hi-fi connections are RCA jacks, much less poorly
> made ones. I've read info from Mogami and Canare that state that the
> quality of the connector can affect the ohm rating of the whole
> assembly, with a bad jack design making a cable unsuitable for
> transferring digital S-PDIF information. A mismatch of ohms in a
> electrical circuit can be quite audible, and well as visual (in the
> case of video signal).
What kind of a mismatch are you talking about? A few ohms in an audio
cable is unlikely to cause any problems. Typical source impedances are
usually somewhere around 100 ohms for solid state hardware and even
higher for tube gear. Input impedances are much higher, 50K and higher
usually. A few ohms in the interconnect is not going to make any
difference. RCA plugs certainly have issues but usually don't cause
significant problems if made well. Note that this does not imply
expensive. What kind of audio problems have you experienced?
>
> I think that coax would give more predictable results than something
> like say, Hosa cable, and the shielding would be better, too. If
> nothing else, better shielding = less noise+interference = better
> sound.
Coax has its advantages but it may be difficult to use for
interconnects. Shielding is not likely to be an issue with modest-
quality audio cable. With modern electronics, white noise is usually
all that is heard and shielding won't reduce it.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
> Yeah, the connectors can really suck on cheap cables.
> It's bad enough that the norm for hi-fi connections are
> RCA jacks, much less poorly made ones.
On balance, most cheap connectors are OK if you don't make a lot of changes.
> I've read info
> from Mogami and Canare that state that the quality of the
> connector can affect the ohm rating of the whole
> assembly, with a bad jack design making a cable
> unsuitable for transferring digital S-PDIF information.
Very unlikely, because the frequencies involved with SPDIF are still
relatively low.
> A mismatch of ohms in a electrical circuit can be quite
> audible, and well as visual (in the case of video
> signal).
Video signals are at least one order of magnitude higher in frequency than
SPDIF. That makes a difference.
> I think that coax would give more predictable results
> than something like say, Hosa cable,
For audio purposes, just about any cable is predictably good.
> and the shielding would be better, too.
Believe it or not, shielding is not that much of an issue for audio
interconnects. The source impedance is so low that pick up of ES fields is
not much of an issue.
> If nothing else, better shielding = less noise+interference = better
> sound.
Shielding is not that much of an issue for audio interconnects, so the
equation nets out to a zero.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
> Yeah, the connectors can really suck on cheap cables.
> It's bad enough that the norm for hi-fi connections are
> RCA jacks, much less poorly made ones.
On balance, most cheap connectors are OK if you don't make a lot of changes.
> I've read info
> from Mogami and Canare that state that the quality of the
> connector can affect the ohm rating of the whole
> assembly, with a bad jack design making a cable
> unsuitable for transferring digital S-PDIF information.
Very unlikely, because the frequencies involved with SPDIF are still
relatively low.
> A mismatch of ohms in a electrical circuit can be quite
> audible, and well as visual (in the case of video
> signal).
Video signals are at least one order of magnitude higher in frequency than
SPDIF. That makes a difference.
> I think that coax would give more predictable results
> than something like say, Hosa cable,
For audio purposes, just about any cable is predictably good.
> and the shielding would be better, too.
Believe it or not, shielding is not that much of an issue for audio
interconnects. The source impedance is so low that pick up of ES fields is
not much of an issue.
> If nothing else, better shielding = less noise+interference = better
> sound.
Shielding is not that much of an issue for audio interconnects, so the
equation nets out to a zero.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mar 2, 10:22 am, nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
<snip>
> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more 'colorful' sound.
> Some of the weirdest sounding interconnects I've ever heard were entry
> level Monster cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the high freqs.
> I can only assume they did this 'engineering' on purpose for those
> consumers who really want to hear something different in their system.
> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>
> -Neb
Many would claim that Monster cables are also greatly overpriced
whatever their sonic benefits or deficiencies may be. What kind of
"colorful" sounds do you hear with brand x generic shielded cables
made somewhere far away that cost under a $1.00?
On Mar 2, 10:22 am, nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
<snip>
> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more 'colorful' sound.
> Some of the weirdest sounding interconnects I've ever heard were entry
> level Monster cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the high freqs.
> I can only assume they did this 'engineering' on purpose for those
> consumers who really want to hear something different in their system.
> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>
> -Neb
Many would claim that Monster cables are also greatly overpriced
whatever their sonic benefits or deficiencies may be. What kind of
"colorful" sounds do you hear with brand x generic shielded cables
made somewhere far away that cost under a $1.00?
