What annoys me today in marketing and media that too often today then talking on hi-fi, science is replaced by bizarre belief structures and marketing fluff, leading to a decades-long stagnation of the audiophile domain. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Hi-fi world is filled by pseudoscience, dogma and fruitloopery to the extent that it resembles a fundamentalist religion. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
Business for Engineers: Marketers Lie article points tout that marketing tells lies — falsehoods — things that serve to convey a false impression. Marketing’s purpose is to determining how the product will be branded, positioned, and sold. It seems that there too many snake oil rubbish products marketed in the name of hifi. It is irritating to watch the stupid people in the world be fooled.
In EEVblog #29 – Audiophile Audiophoolery video David L. Jones (from EEVBlog) cuts loose on the Golden Ear Audiophiles and all their Audiophoolery snake oil rubbish. The information presented in Dave’s unique non-scripted overly enthusiastic style! He’s an enthusiastic chap, but couldn’t agree more with many of the opinions he expressed: Directional cables, thousand dollar IEC power cables, and all that rubbish. Monster Cable gets mostered. Note what he says right at the end: “If you pay ridiculous money for these cable you will hear a difference, but don’t expect your friends to”. If you want to believe, you will.
My points on hifi-nonsense:
One of the tenets of audiophile systems is that they are assembled from components, allegedly so that the user can “choose” the best combination. This is pretty largely a myth. The main advantage of component systems is that the dealer can sell ridiculously expensive cables, hand-knitted by Peruvian virgins and soaked in snake oil, to connect it all up. Say goodbye to the noughties: Yesterday’s hi-fi biz is BUSTED, bro article asks are the days of floorstanders and separates numbered? If traditional two-channel audio does have a future, then it could be as the preserve of high resolution audio. Sony has taken the industry lead in High-Res Audio.
HIFI Cable Humbug and Snake oil etc. blog posting rightly points out that there is too much emphasis placed on spending huge sums of money on HIFI cables. Most of what is written about this subject is complete tripe. HIFI magazines promote myths about the benefits of all sorts of equipment. I am as amazed as the writer that that so called audiophiles and HIFI journalists can be fooled into thinking that very expensive speaker cables etc. improve performance. I generally agree – most of this expensive interconnect cable stuff is just plain overpriced.
I can agree that in analogue interconnect cables there are few cases where better cables can really result in cleaner sound, but usually getting any noticeable difference needs that the one you compare with was very bad yo start with (clearly too thin speaker wires with resistance, interconnect that picks interference etc..) or the equipment in the systems are so that they are overly-sensitive to cable characteristics (generally bad equipment designs can make for example cable capacitance affect 100 times or more than it should). Definitely too much snake oil. Good solid engineering is all that is required (like keep LCR low, Teflon or other good insulation, shielding if required, proper gauge for application and the distance traveled). Geometry is a factor but not in the same sense these yahoos preach and deceive.
In digital interconnect cables story is different than on those analogue interconnect cables. Generally in digital interconnect cables the communication either works, does not work or sometimes work unreliably. The digital cable either gets the bits to the other end or not, it does not magically alter the sound that goes through the cable. You need to have active electronics like digital signal processor to change the tone of the audio signal traveling on the digital cable, cable will just not do that.
But this digital interconnect cables characteristics has not stopped hifi marketers to make very expensive cable products that are marketed with unbelievable claims. Ethernet has come to audio world, so there are hifi Ethernet cables. How about 500 dollar Ethernet cable? That’s ridiculous. And it’s only 1.5 meters. Then how about $10,000 audiophile ethernet cable? Bias your dielectrics with the Dielectric-Bias ethernet cable from AudioQuest: “When insulation is unbiased, it slows down parts of the signal differently, a big problem for very time-sensitive multi-octave audio.” I see this as complete marketing crap speak. It seems that they’re made for gullible idiots. No professional would EVER waste money on those cables. Audioquest even produces iPhone sync cables in similar price ranges.
HIFI Cable insulators/supports (expensive blocks that keep cables few centimeters off the floor) are a product category I don’t get. They typically claim to offer incredible performance as well as appealing appearance. Conventional cable isolation theory holds that optimal cable performance can be achieved by elevating cables from the floor in an attempt to control vibrations and manage static fields. Typical cable elevators are made from electrically insulating materials such as wood, glass, plastic or ceramics. Most of these products claim superior performance based upon the materials or methods of elevation. I don’t get those claims.
Along with green magic markers on CDs and audio bricks is another item called the wire conditioner. The claim is that unused wires do not sound the same as wires that have been used for a period of time. I don’t get this product category. And I don’t believe claims in the line like “Natural Quartz crystals along with proprietary materials cause a molecular restructuring of the media, which reduces stress, and significantly improves its mechanical, acoustic, electric, and optical characteristics.” All sounds like just pure marketing with no real benefits.
CD no evil, hear no evil. But the key thing about the CD was that it represented an obvious leap from earlier recording media that simply weren’t good enough for delivery of post-produced material to the consumer to one that was. Once you have made that leap, there is no requirement to go further. The 16 bits of CD were effectively extended to 18 bits by the development of noise shaping, which allows over 100dB signal to noise ratio. That falls a bit short of the 140dB maximum range of human hearing, but that has never been a real goal. If you improve the digital media, the sound quality limiting problem became the transducers; the headphones and the speakers.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article says that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. I can agree with this. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article makes good points on design, DSPs and the debunking of traditional hi-fi. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Legacy loudspeakers are omni-directional at low frequencies, but as frequency rises, the radiation becomes more directional until at the highest frequencies the sound only emerges directly forwards. Thus to enjoy the full frequency range, the listener has to sit in the so-called sweet spot. As a result legacy loudspeakers with sweet spots need extensive room treatment to soak up the deficient off-axis sound. New tools that can change speaker system designs in the future are omni-directional speakers and DSP-based room correction. It’s a scenario ripe for “disruption”.
Computers have become an integrated part of many audio setups. Back in the day integrated audio solutions in PCs had trouble earning respect. Ode To Sound Blaster: Are Discrete Audio Cards Still Worth the Investment? posting tells that it’s been 25 years since the first Sound Blaster card was introduced (a pretty remarkable feat considering the diminished reliance on discrete audio in PCs) and many enthusiasts still consider a sound card an essential piece to the PC building puzzle. It seems that in general onboard sound is finally “Good Enough”, and has been “Good Enough” for a long time now. For most users it is hard to justify the high price of special sound card on PC anymore. There are still some PCs with bad sound hardware on motherboard and buttload of cheap USB adapters with very poor performance. However, what if you want the best sound possible, the lowest noise possible, and don’t really game or use the various audio enhancements? You just want a plain-vanilla sound card, but with the highest quality audio (products typically made for music makers). You can find some really good USB solutions that will blow on-board audio out of the water for about $100 or so.
Although solid-state technology overwhelmingly dominates today’s world of electronics, vacuum tubes are holding out in two small but vibrant areas. Some people like the sound of tubes. The Cool Sound of Tubes article says that a commercially viable number of people find that they prefer the sound produced by tubed equipment in three areas: musical-instrument (MI) amplifiers (mainly guitar amps), some processing devices used in recording studios, and a small but growing percentage of high-fidelity equipment at the high end of the audiophile market. Keep those filaments lit, Design your own Vacuum Tube Audio Equipment article claims that vacuum tubes do sound better than transistors (before you hate in the comments check out this scholarly article on the topic). The difficulty is cost; tube gear is very expensive because it uses lots of copper, iron, often point-to-point wired by hand, and requires a heavy metal chassis to support all of these parts. With this high cost and relative simplicity of circuitry (compared to modern electronics) comes good justification for building your own gear. Maybe this is one of the last frontiers of do-it-yourself that is actually worth doing.
2,556 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Did you know? Headphones are found to be 10 times dirtier than toilet seats in new study: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/08/headphones-dirtier-toilet-seats-new-study/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Colin Joneswell you’d judge wrong Col I might not have the greatest ears in the world but I can hear the superiority of analog over CD. I haven’t had a chance to hear any of the new breed of high frequency digital. When I learned in 1980 about nilquists thearum (I’m sure that’s not correct spelling) which said sample at slightly above twice the top frequency you wish to reproduce hence 44.1kz. I thought this can’t work even then I thought it should have a higher sample rate to still reproduce 20k. It would appear that I might have been correct when you see the frequency that are being tried out these days. I’d certainly like to have a listen. Till then I remain of the opinion that only analog done right can reproduce the emotion and intent of the music
Bruce Giddins that’s odd because virtually every record you’ve ever listened to had been through a digital system during the cutting process – usually at lower sample rates than commonly used today
Lee Prior Collierif that’s the case how come the records sound so real
Bruce Giddins it may just be that’s what you prefer, which is fine. The Ampex ADD-1 was introduced in 1979 and rapidly became the norm for vinyl cutting lathes worldwide. It has a 50kHz sample rate with a 20kHz low pass filter. So virtually every record you have from 1980s onwards includes a digital stage.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16tGuxZocJ/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Björn Wessmanagree with most of that Bjorn except I listen to records because they sound better. The only thing I listen to CD’s for is if I can’t get a record I want to listen to on vinyl.
Bruce Giddins It can’t sound better objectively though. It’s just limited dynamic range, harmonic distortion and the EQ’d frequency response (by the way of cartridge or phono stage) that you happen to prefer. Which is fine, but you can achieve the same sound with EQ on digital sources too.
But it can be fun to use cartridges as a hardware source for EQ’ing frequency response. Fun, albeit expensive.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Vinyl ‘warmth’ is just distortion that you happen to enjoy.
It’s absolutely fine to like what is effectively a mechanical EQ on your music. It only becomes boring when you build your entire personality around your choice of medium.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Warmer means less highs. Too much warm is boring. Digital is transparent. Every problem or dislike you may have is from mastering rather than format.
Most vinyl is press from discs made with digital master even old classic were made that way. Newer releases are definitely made with digital masters.
Very easy to explain – distortion and frequency response. The way analogue recordings are made cannot avoid distortion – it is impossible to avoid. Frequency response is limited due to the mechanical systems used.
Greer Kemp Good distortion sounds not great, but awesome. I have a job that requires me to record with very transparent gear. Sounds totally sterile and dead when I go to mix. Digital plugins are often used to add fake analog distortion because things don’t sound natural without it.
Instead of using digital distortion algorithms, I run signals through tubes, transformers and whatever else to add that “analog varnish” because you’re correct, analog can’t avoid distortion. It sounds good, so we need it.
I’m not at all worried about the limitations of the frequency response of analog. I must cut high frequencies off of just about any track because they can lend themselves to harshness. It’s about balance.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The point of diminishing returns is very low on cables.
So yeah they matter, but not to the point that people think lol
Tomi Engdahl says:
The repositioning made many many times more improvement than any cable ever will!
Tomi Engdahl says:
It turns out your favorite song triggers an ancient survival response in your brain
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/01/why-some-songs-give-you-chills/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Speaker cables
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002876152242.html
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005007233953831.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
DIY your own Nordost cables – get the same non-existing sound benefits at fraction of price? “Fractional Audiophoolerery”
Nordost Odin Valhalla Audio 7N copper Wire Silver Plated DIY Custom 7/9/12/15 core speaker cable
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001629226251.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
Bruce Giddins “Better” is subjective. On any objective measurement records lose to digital every time.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Joshua George “That particular braid technique blocks out EMI & RFI intrusion.” Maybe marginally better that standard twisting inside normal power cables maybe not. The real solution if you are worried on EMI & RFI intrusion are shielded mains power cable and ferrite bead on cable ends.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Joshua George “On my amplifier each time I increased the gauge of the wire the sound improved.” The effect of the thicker than normal minimum wire gauge on the last meter between mains outlet and device is technically pretty small, something that should not have any effect that could be objectively heard. If it makes you feel it sounds better then why not play with this idea.
Tomi Engdahl says:
John Davison What do the REAL Pros use? Oh, wait. Belden, Mogami, Canare. Stuff that just works, no BS required.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Michael Germanic “if you can’t explain it simply you don’t understand it well enough.” -some random guy
Tomi Engdahl says:
This Audiophile’s Experiment Suggests That CDs Sound No Better Than Streaming After All
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/02/audiophiles-experiment-cd-sound-superiority-myth/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwMaKxJjbGNrAxoq-2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAAEeRd546FROFU4a9oK0ZPs0DDLwTH56ihW91BQPcq3iAPycptPMfmxiVSJFm4U_aem_aQiiK1cUm8aXEUSqmBqofg
Modern streaming technology has finally caught up with CD quality.
Popular wisdom says CDs sound better than streaming. But what if those differences aren’t as obvious as we think?
-
I mean if you just compress it through Bluetooth anyway, probably
How’d a CD file ( device reading a digital file from CD) and a digital file stored on local storage sound different (same master file) ? I don’t understand this. Even if it was analog vs digital like Vinyl and Digital I could justify the reasons. I don’t understand the madness behind this digital vs digital
Omar Erad It won’t if the recorded file is the same, up sampling doesn’t improve the audio. If the original file is at a higher bit and sample rate then it would be better. CD’s are already lossless, uncompressed Wav audio files 16bit 44.1k. If it was recorded in 24bit 44.1k or higher then it will be slightly better, but most people would not be able to tell. Most studios use 24bit 44.1 but they can use much higher. It just makes the files much lager, uses far more computer processing and limits the audio plugins that can be used to mix. It just not worth it for most studios.
Jeremy James 24bit and 16bit is another debate. I confused more about this same master CD vs digital file war going on
Omar Erad CD’s are 16bit 44.1k
Jeremy James https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit.php first check if you can distinguish 8 bit sound from 16 bit sound and show the result after 200 attempts
Przemysław Ostrowski There is a noticeable difference from 8 to 16 bit, not so much 16 to 24.
I mix audio, so I hear all formats. Most of them are 24bit 44.1, some are 48k. They all sound the same.
Native CD is vastly superior to streaming at the same resolution, I can count on one hand the number of Hi-Res tracks that outperform the native CD
Some early CDs sounded pretty bad. There was observable digitizing and silence crackle. Polydor was notoriously bad at making CDs.
Lossless streaming can be much higher quality than CDs (I say “can be” because even though it’s easily possible in terms of technology, it’s not always the case in real world execution)
But the main advantage of CDs is being able to keep your own music collection that companies can’t take away from you
Well, that’s BS.
It’s like saying a JPEG looks no different than an uncompressed TIFF.
Yorgos Helios JPEG is lossy, as is MP3, AAC and many others. But FLAC is lossless. There is compression, but no loss – when decompressed, you get the original intact, the same way your Excel spreadsheet is intact with ZIP. So, a streaming service providing FLAC, as Tidal, Qobuz and many others, is akin to TIFF.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ike Nguyn “Well, many sound the same but some sound better than others. I’ve found the wide temp, industrial ‘spec’ ECC ram sounds the ‘best’. Single-rank, two 8GB modules in my case preferred vs. dual-rank and/or one 8GB module. Who knew. I also prefer the memory clock speed as low as bios will allow.
Comparatively significant upgrade that is modest in cost. I would say it’s a similar order of magnitude improvement or more than power cable differences and far lower cost.
Get out there and experiment. I settled on the Apacer brand as many others doing these experiments have as well.” Source: Sound of different server memory – my experience – Everything Else / Systems – PS Audio https://share.google/M97bSw67yAAxr5DhG
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ike Nguyn https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/testing-ram-with-different-brands-and-models-seems-to-have-more-difference-than-i-thought.28015/
Tomi Engdahl says:
is there a measurement unit for “fidelity” at first?
Matteo There is not, and there can’t be in any meaningful sense.
Tomi Engdahl says:
If it doesn’t run the audio through mercury filled filter tubes, I’m not interested. I feel that, if audiophiles can have ridiculous, baseless standard, I can have outright dumb and impossible standards.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ooh I just had an idea. Start an “audiophile” ISP claiming you use this kind of networking equipment and charge them $300/month
Tomi Engdahl says:
A single discontinued transistor can now decide whether a $10,000 amp gets built or not.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/08/audio-legend-reveals-black-market-obsolete-parts/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Synergistic..Nordost..Audioquest….add nauseam..lol
Tomi Engdahl says:
Building your own speaker cables
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XACFmw6SS8M&fbclid=IwVERDUAMcsMlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHurkZ7GCC0VW1QWEXlDWI9C8lzxqQ_jFkDlNXVyaNltP5vwHg4ltEZV_uLQB_aem_VAw9mUV2rGzpCo9hRCM4aA
Tomi Engdahl says:
“JGH: “Vitality? Don’t make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me
Tomi Engdahl says:
Constantinos Lambrou
I said this the other day. Unlike most Phools, he actually has electrical engineering knowledge. But he constantly pushes Phool bullshit, which is way worse to me because he KNOWS he’s lying.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Confessions of a senior audiophile: How I coped with hearing loss https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/08/confessions-senior-audiophile/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=link_in_comment
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19uBTeb4th/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Hand-braided Hi-Fi cables offer superior noise rejection and durability through their integrated metallic shield, making them better for reducing interference in complex audio setups. However, twisted pair cables are often a more cost-effective and flexible choice for less demanding situations, as they can be simpler and cheaper to produce, although they provide less protection against electromagnetic interference (EMI). The “better” cable depends on the specific application and the desired balance of performance, cost, and robustness.
Hand-Braided Cables
Pros:
Superior Shielding: The metallic braid offers excellent protection against external EMI and reduces the cable’s own generated interference.
High Durability: Braided cables are more resilient to kinks, twists, and physical abuse, leading to a longer lifespan and reliable connectivity.
Professional Use: They are a preferred choice for professional audio engineers and sound technicians due to their reliability in complex environments.
Cons:
Cost: Braided cables are typically more expensive due to the additional materials and complexity in their manufacturing process.
Twisted Pair Cables
Pros:
Cost-Effective: Twisted pair cables are simpler and use fewer materials, making them a more economical choice.
Flexibility: They offer greater flexibility, allowing for easier routing in tight spaces and handling bending during operation.
Simplicity: Their connections are straightforward, and they are easier to integrate into various wire harnesses and enclosures.
Cons:
Less Shielding: They provide less protection against EMI compared to braided cables, making them more susceptible to noise.
Lower Durability: Twisted pair cables are thinner and can be more prone to breakage, requiring more careful handling and maintenance.
When to Choose Which
Choose Hand-Braided for:
Situations where high-fidelity sound quality is paramount and the environment has significant potential for interference.
Choose Twisted Pair for:
Everyday and home use where cost is a factor and the environment is less prone to noise, such as in basic LAN connections or less complex home audio setups.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Shielded vs Twisted cables
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/100211/shielded-vs-twisted-cables
For some reason low voltage, high quality audio interconnects seem to be made of 3 wires braided together, when normal low voltage audio wires are two wires surrounded by a grounding sleeve.
I’m a college student, and I think I understand exactly how both of these methods can cut down on “internal” interference, but if I’m correct then the braided wire method wont do poop when it comes to helping block external magnetic field, which is why the grounding sleeve is great because it acts as a Faraday cage around the signal bearing wire.
Is there something that I don’t understand about braided wire that is somehow magically better than protected wire for carrying an analogue voltage?
So I guess my question is: why does a cable that looks like this…
If you have a balanced audio signal (e.g. XLR), then the idea behind a twisted pair is any interference that one wire picks up will also be captured by the other wire. The device that receives the signal only cares about the difference between the two levels, so any common mode noise can be ignored. This is extremely important for long runs (lots of opportunity for noise to intrude), or microphones (very low signals). Good cables will also be shielded, as the wires aren’t “perfectly twisted” with zero area between them, so are still slightly susceptible to interference.
However, with unbalanced audio (e.g. phono plugs, jack plugs, TRS (like your picture), etc…), you only have one conductor, so must totally shield it to prevent noise. Still, such runs are both short and amplified, so the effect of interference will be smaller and is generally inaudible.
A “braided cable” like the one you picture is probably electrically worse than a typical foil-shielded audio cable. Such a braid would also be counterproductive in balanced audio as the conductors are unnecessarily separated.
As for why they are braided that way, it’s because it looks kewl (so they can charge more), and in that 6″ cable, nobody will ever hear the difference.
Balanced wiring to unbalanced interfaces is counterproductive and could introduce noise and distortion. Balanced line is a superior connection method when all the rules are followed.
I think you have to distinguish magnetic shielding from electrostatic shielding.
A Faraday cage provides almost perfect shielding against electric fields.
It’s quite difficult (without superconductors) to provide such shielding against magnetic fields. By twisting, braiding or using a Litzendraht (litz) arrangement, you can almost perfectly equalize magnetically induced voltage in both wires of a balanced circuit so that the common-mode rejection of a balanced input can reject the interfering signal.
Pro audio often uses balanced circuits, so it might make some sense. If it’s just used on a single-ended signal, it’s just window dressing and an excuse for them to charge extortionate prices. Note that you’d only get one channel through a balanced circuit using a 1/4″ TRS connector as shown, not stereo.
I don’t really see what the pictured cable is good for electrically. It looks like it’s probably pretty good mechanically though. So for short leads that get bent and twisted around a lot and maybe have some weights dangling off them, it could be the superior choice.
Twisted Pair + Shield is the ‘best’ cable. But shields are expensive, increase cable weight and thickness.
A twisted pair can cancel out most noise. The usual method is to have your signal 180 degrees out of phase in each wire. So your signal pairs will be out of phase, but any noise introduced along the way should be in phase. Making it easy to drop the noise when it gets to the other end.
Twisted pairs are actually usually better than non-twisted shielded cable. I’ve personally never seen a case where twisted + shielded was required, only cases where engineers blamed cable noise for problems in end point designs.
Bundling wires inside a shield creates more capacitance, and running audio signal through a capacitor creates a low pass filter, so high frequency signals can be lost. Braiding is done to minimize capacitance, and keep the wires together as a single unit since twisting without an outer sleeve would unravel. Headphone cables and extensions are generally short and not used in areas where there’s a lot of potential for interference, and the signal is already amplified, so shielding isn’t necessary.
Impedance is frequency dependent and capacitance affects frequency response. With balanced cable you are separating the positive phase of the signal from the negative phase and amplifying them separately. The signal can be sent with one phase reversed. As it passes from source to receiver both wires will pick up interference with identical phases for each at the same amplitude in each. The phase reversed line has its phase reinstated. Any rf disturbance that phase picked up is now cancelled between phases and the signal is clean. Errors in that process will also be equal and opposite and should cancel too. So balanced signal transmission should have good common mode rejection and low distortion. You can send balanced signals very long distances without noticeable degradation. Braids, Litzendraht twisting and shielding attenuate the level of disturbance entering the cable and give even better results. Expense comes from materials and material quality, the number of kilometres of the stuff you manufacture. The complexity of the structure. How quickly you can manufacture it. How easily the manufacture can be automated and productionised. Hand made stuff with a complex structure that can take a long while to make and wastes lots of materials has to be more expensive to make any profit. Then you will need to market it and advertise it. The pro industry cables all work to a standard so most cables work fairly similarly. Hi fi cables connect wildly varying specifications for input and output. So don’t be surprised that cable sound different and some work better in one situation than in another. If you are not curious about cables you can end up with a ho-hum performance from acclaimed components. So you have to find cables that sound accurate or, pleasing in your system.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Purpose of braided cables
Discussion
Do besides headphone cables, interconnects, or speaker wire serve any purpose? Or is it all aesthetics?
https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/12pw2ud/purpose_of_braided_cables/
I believe it’s mainly aesthetics and ofc audiophile mumbo jumbo, but they are quite durable though, I’ve had mine for about a year now and it looks brand new
Hi electrical engineer
here, but grain of salt, my field is not in audio. So generally speaking every wire has a metal conductor and protective insalator. The conductor is the metal wire that carries the signal while the inductor is a material(usually some form of plastic) that doesn’t allow the electrical properties to pass.
Without getting to deep electricity can change other electricity. The same way a magnet by its self it just a rock, but two magnets together or magnet and some metal can attract and repel each other. The insulator helps insure that the signal in the metal wire does not get distorted in any way.
Then there can be a physical shielding around these materials to protect against any friction and/or to look and feel nice. This is the nylon wrap
. This gives the wire a nice aesthetic and can feel nice.
Braised cables are aesthetic(if you like the look), but also allow the cable to bend and rotate more easily than just a simple straight wire. Because of this braid cables generally are nice for thing like iems because its easier to stick in your pocket or move around with you as you walk.
Last quick point. Nylon wrapping vs non wrapped cables and braid cables vs straight cables make no change to the sound. In fact cables make the smallest measureable difference in an audio chain by far. In fact i would argue that the human hearing is not detailed enough to perceive any objective difference at all. I’ve heard people say they can tell, but everything I’ve seen in electrical engineering sugests that is all in their head. (I dont have a $20,000 system. Maybe in these crazy price ranges you can, but i have extreme doubts.)
Don’t spend the extra money on the gold plated hdmi cables they make so difference. Same goes for audio cables and wires.
That being said the look and feel of an audio cable can be nice, and can add to the experience, if you are into that sort of thing.
I appreciate your response. Don’t worry, I’m not going to assume any cables will make any appreciable improvement to the sound.
Is it true that some of the braided cables have their shielding removed to allow the braiding to done? Wouldn’t that potentially cause worse performance?
And the braiding doesn’t work the same as twisting two wires together to try to reduce noise right?
If you take a popular multiconductor cable for DIY audio stuff like Mogami W2893 you will see that the individual conductors are twisted and that the entire thing is shielded. If the shielding is grounded on one end it will help reduce EMI. The way the conductors are twisted helps remove noise that the cable picks up due to EMI. When using differential signaling pairs EMI will make more or less the same error on both lines of a differential pair if they are twisted correctly. Because the error is identical on both lines and what you care about is only the difference between the lines the error gets canceled out.
It’s worth noting that on lines with relatively high amplitude signals, the proportion of error you can get from EMI is already very low and typically imperceptible. Only in scenarios with low amplitude signals, like a mic instead of a headphone or speaker, and in environments with high amounts of EMI like a recording studio full of equipment do cables start to matter somewhat. This is where you might want to use something like a shielded and twisted cable.
For headphones the only remaining electrical properties of a cable are resistance, capacitance and inductance. You want all of them to be as low as possible in order for the cable to be transparent. Resistance is usually not a problem so really thin wires can be used (Headphones have high impedance compared to the resistance of cables. Currents are low and distances short). Capacitance and inductance are also not a problem, but they do increase if you use a twisted wire arrangement. The result is attenuation of higher frequencies. So as far as sound quality is concerned shorter cables are always better, but thickness and structure are a balancing act depending on the scenario and needs.
For standard use, EMI is not a great concern, as headphone signals are quite high in amplitude, and headphone cables are all mostly short all of the audio differences are meaningless to the human ear barring some edge cases. So what you’re actually gonna want to optimize a headphone cable for are weight, durability, flexibility, and aesthetics. Getting rid of the shielding is a clear move to shed weight, as is using more loosely bonded conductors to improve flexibility by using a braid or a loose twist instead of a densely bound straight cable. To recover durability or improve looks you might sometimes see nylon or cotton sleeving.
When making cables you will often take a mic cable, remove the shielding and put it in a nylon sleeve, or just use the wires from the cable, sleeve them individually, then braid them. For IEM it’s more popular to just take a high-quality wire (instead of disassembling a cable) and braid it into a cable or just buy pre-braided cable. IEM are usually lower impedance so the use of fancy materials for cables to get ultra-low resistance is more popular.
So in some ways, if shielding is removed for weight reduction, one of the “benefits” of braiding is to allow it to all hold together structurally? And add some flexibility?
Exactly. If you just connect it with individual wires it’s gonna get caught on things and it’s generally going to be fragile. If you bind the wires together you make a cable. Stronger but less flexible and a bit heavier. There are multiple way to make a cable.
You can braid the wires to get a braided cable. You can run them through a nylon sheath to get a sleeved cable. Industrially you can cast it in silicone to make a normal cable.
Braided cables are just one approach and it tends to be the lightest option.
It very much depends on the material used for the braid sleeve, but I’m assuming you’re referring to nylon braiding. Nylon braiding is a good middle ground solution for external cable protection. It provides abrasion resistance, a light amount of structural rigidity, and slightly restricts bend radius. It’s also lightweight and flexible enough not to kink or buckle when subjected to strong external forces.
Aesthetics. Personally, I can’t wait for the trend to die out. I just want a simple one sleeve cable, ideally with the sleeve not being made from PVC or any other kind of toxic crap, it’s not like silicone insulated wires don’t exist.
In terms of functionality, just flexibility, tangle resistance and microphonics. I’ve found braided ones to make less cable noise in general when I’m walking, moving around etc.
Unless you’re talking about braided sleeving. Fabric sleeves are generally more microphonic and stiff, at least the ones I’ve tried.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Should a balanced interconnect be shielded as well (shielded vs twisted pair)
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/should-a-balanced-interconnect-be-shielded-as-well-shielded-vs-twisted-pair.20254/
I’ve build many 125ASX2 based DIY, using Ghent’s pre-made interconnects (BTL mode, feed from a balanced output).
Ghent cables are shielded using two sperate shielded cables for the positive and negative signals of the balanced connection. Ghent told me this is the best approach.
However, I had a discussion with Guntars Smits, which is another DIY class D supplier and builder, and he’s using non-shielded single braided cable, in which the positive, negative, and the two ground are all twisted together.
He claims that this approach is much better for balanced cables, as you don’t need shielding due to high noise immunity of balanced, and by eliminating the shielding, you reduce capacitance and thus increase bandwidth.
So which of is correct? Ghent or Guntars?
I’ve tried both, and could not tell the difference in sound using my own ears. I wonder what measurements will reveal
This is the video Guntars posted. You can see that all 4 wires (two grounds, pos and neg) are bundled and twisted together, while, Ghent solution is using two shielded cables
The has been some success in the pro audio field using unshielded Cat5 cable.
But CAt5 is vary, vary different from non-shielded single braided cable, in which the positive, negative, and the two ground are all twisted together.
On the other hand, balanced XLR interconnects are a very robust system. For a 1 or 2 meter interconnect almost any cable will work.
Ghent cables are shielded using two sperate shielded cables for the positive and negative signals of the balanced connection. Ghent told me this is the best approach.
That’s the _worst_ way of making a balanced connection. The proper way is twisted positive/negative signal wires surrounded by a shield.
That’s the _worst_ way of making a balanced connection. The proper way is twisted positive/negative signal wires surrounded by a shield.
Have you listened to it done both ways? AH! I thought not.
In one method you improve the CMRR with tight twisting. Star quad helps even more. In the other you reduce the CMRR somewhat by shielding the twisted wires from each other so the fields can’t cancel out. Maybe too much CMRR is like too much negative feedback. You have to listen and read the advertising instructions to know for sure.
/sarc
If you want a better explanation as to why mansr is correct:
https://www.svconline.com/news/cmrr-balanced-interfaces-part-2-369515
Balanced lines’ rejection bandwidth depends upon the twisting and spacing of the twisted pairs. The shield provides additional protection from EMI/RFI and additionally provides a separate (chassis) ground path for reducing externally impinging noise upon the signal conductors. Ideally the shield creates a (quasi) Faraday cage protecting the signal conductors within.
Balanced XLR is about as good as it gets, provided proper grounding technique is observed in all the components in the system. The theory and practice of this were established by Neil Muncy in his classic 1995 article, which was later put into the AES48 standard. This article by Bruno Putzeys explains it further.
The G word: How to get your audio off the ground (Part 3)
https://www.edn.com/the-g-word-how-to-get-your-audio-off-the-ground-part-3/
https://onedrive.live.com/?redeem=aHR0cHM6Ly8xZHJ2Lm1zL3UvcyFBbnByTktGY2dvM3dnUTZ3OXk0V3JBQ3hzOGFwP2U9OWNIWG1L&cid=F08D825CA1346B7A&id=F08D825CA1346B7A%21142&parId=F08D825CA1346B7A%21116&o=OneUp
Balanced XLR is about as good as it gets, provided proper grounding technique is observed in all the components in the system. The theory and practice of this were established by Neil Muncy in his classic 1995 article, which was later put into the AES48 standard. This article by Bruno Putzeys explains it further.
Yah… Part of the problem is a lack of understanding what “balanced” means and how return currents flow (if they even understand current operates in loops). Another is the huge body of XLR circuits called “balanced” that range from fully-differential to quasi-differential to impedance-matched (usually resistive) with common-mode rejection ranging from “decent” (20-40 dB) to almost nil (6 dB or less).
And I know you know all this, ranting… – Don
The guy from the video (Guntars) told me that his connections are very short, thus no shielding is required, and longer shielded cabled will add capacitance, which will reduce the bandwidth. Ghent told me that for BTL, he can make me a shielded cable in which both pos/neg conductors are inside the same shield.
Also, have anyone noticed that for balanced headphones cables. the most expensive ones are braided and not shielded? So I’m still not sure what is the best balanced cable configuration. Twist or twist and shield? Also, do you ground the shield on sending/receiving end, or both?
Each article gives a different suggestion…
The guy from the video (Guntars) told me that his connections are very short, thus no shielding is required, and longer shielded cabled will add capacitance, which will reduce the bandwidth.
Nonsense. Sure, a shield increases the capacitance a little, but that doesn’t matter. Cat 8 Ethernet cable uses shielded twisted pair and has a bandwidth of several GHz.
Also, have anyone noticed that for balanced headphones cables. the most expensive ones are braided and not shielded?
I suspect aesthetics is a major factor in headphone cable design. The amount of variation seen only goes to show that it doesn’t really matter much.
Twist or twist and shield?
Shielding keeps a bit more noise out. Whether it’s necessary depends on the application.
Also, do you ground the shield on sending/receiving end, or both?
Both, unless you have a specific reason to do otherwise.
The guy from the video (Guntars) told me that his connections are very short, thus no shielding is required, and longer shielded cabled will add capacitance, which will reduce the bandwidth.
Pros often use 100 meter (300 foot) XLR cables (and sometimes much longer) at on location sites with no capacitance problems.
ME most “hum” problems stemmed from ground loops, or poor grounding (return path) execution in general that was outside the CMRR path, which matches that completely.
The other thing about CMRR is it tends to reduce very, very quickly with frequency. The cable itself (shielded twisted-pairs) improves HF (EMI/RFI) common-mode rejection, but the circuits themselves (drivers/receivers) CMRR usually falls off well below 100 kHz.
Mogami quad-star cable is around 35 pF/ft to the shield and 24 AWG (0.04 ohms/ft). Given a preamp with 600-ohm output impedance (on the high side) and 100 k-ohm amplifier input impedance, here is a quick simulation showing 500 feet of cable yields about 450 kHz of bandwidth considering just one wire to the shield. This is not a full simulation with distributed RC and all that jazz, but seems like it should not be an issue…
HTH – Don
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/diy-speaker-braid-vs-twist-vs-straight
DIY speaker: braid vs twist vs straight
I’m looking to make some speaker cables between Musical Fidelity amp and B&W Nautilus speakers. Cable lengths are 4 feet and 12 feet. My questions:
1) Could I go with solid core enameled copper magnet wire? Maybe 2 strands of 18 ga for the tweeters? 4 strands for bass? Or should I use a finer wire with more strands like what Belden makes? I can’t get any heavier than 18 ga. But I heard solid core was only good for Magnepan planer-type speakers.
2) Should the wires be twisted or braided? How many twists per foot? Or just left straight?
3) Should I use heat shrink tubing to hold the strands tightly together or just slide them through some 1/32″ wall teflon tubing?
4) I would like to use bare wire into the binding posts and just use Caig Pro-Gold to treat the copper. Is this the best method?
Thanks
Cdc, this is a highly system-dependent decision.If it were just simple resistance, or just skin-effect, the decision would be simple. But the capacitance and inductance of the cables interact with the characteristics of your components and speakers. This is why different people swear by very different cables as being the best. They may be the best, but maybe only on their system. If you are doing DIY, it may be of benefit to try some low-inductance configurations and some high-inductance ones. Also, do the same with capacitance. When you hear the difference between these designs, you can determine which way to move toward your final design. It is much easier to do this with DIY, than to buy 25 different cables to test and see which ones you like. From my experience on interconnects, if you don’t have RF problems, stay away from shielding. Sound is better without it. With speaker wires, bare wire terminations are generally better than using termination lugs. I use 30ga solid-core copper wire with no shield for my 1 meter interconnects, and 22ga solid-core copper wire for the 3 meter speaker cables. Single conductor run for each. No twists, braids or anything. I keep them well separated along the entire runs. Teflon tube insulators. I use tube gear, and it is quite fine sounding.
CDC: Pick up a spool of solid core copper magnet wire @ Radio Shack ($3.99). The spool contains three gauges (30, 26 and either 24 or 22, I forget). Try the two larger gauges (26 and the other one) in single runs (do not twist them). Twisting is for larger gauge wire (from my personal experience) and completely ruins the sound of 24 gauge, on up, solid core wire when it is used as speaker cable (this is assuming that the cables will not exceed 8′-10′ in length).
You can remove the lacquer (@ the ends) with 600 sandpaper, or better yet burnishing cloth. If you like the sound then high quality magnet wire is available for very little money (Michael Percy @ percyaudio.com carries it).
I have been using 26 gauge solid core copper/Teflon speaker cable (single runs) for a year and a half in my main rig and have used the magnet wire (also ended up with 26 gauge for the balance that I like) in bedroom systems.
Never tried 22 gauge, but 22-26 gauge seems like a reasonable span to experiment with.
The sonic benefits of such simple designs (smaller gauge and single runs w/o spades, etc.) are reduced smearing and a much more open sound (the sound is more in the room than obviously coming from the speakers).
Imaging on the otherhand is not as precise as some of the more complex designs (I find slightly fuzzy imaging to sound more realistic), but do not confuse my description of the imaging with fuzzy overall sound as the detail of these simple designs can be quite startling (my description is lacking, not the sound:-).
The sound, during break in, of these small gauge/simple cables can be very, very, very odd, but from my experience it only takes 50-100 hours for them to stabilize. For more info on this run a search of “OTA” and read the thread about the 47 Labs OTA cable (it is 26 gauge solid core wire used in single runs).
Anyway, it should be a fun project for under $5 and if you like the sound then you may be able to make very nice DIY cables (both IC’s and speaker) for your entire system for very little money, if you stick with copper instead of silver wire.
I would not worry about the the small gauge in regard to amp power as I once used 26 gauge with a Musical Fidelity X-A1 amp (50 watts) and others have used considerably more power than this with like cable (again take a look @ the OTA thread which contains a great deal of info on the matter).
cdc OP
1,929 posts
CDC: 18 gauge may involve using a more complex design in order to get it to sound good (it will also never sound like, or as realistic, IMO, as the smaller gauge wire, when used as speaker cable, which is what I was attempting to coax you to try:-).
TWL is “right on” about feeding wire through Teflon tubing (it is not an easy task).
Yes, vibration is a concern when using oversized tubing in longer runs, but such tubing is not required with magnet wire. Magnet wire is coated with lacquer which serves the same purpose as the Teflon tubing and which also has similar (favorable) dialectic characteristics.
The best insulation is “air” and what I try to achieve in cable design is the next best thing (@ a reasonable cost) which is either lacquer or Teflon.
The good thing about the RS spool of magnet wire is that you get two useable gauges to experiment with (in regard to speaker cable), plus the 30 gauge can make decent IC’s. The M-C wire may be of the same quality as the RS stuff (which is not HQ cable), but you don’t need nearly that much, plus you should be experimenting with various gauges. Once the gauge is determined, then purchase high quality magnet wire from a source such as Michael Percy. HQ magnet wire (with a boutique “name”) can run as much as $8/ft from other sources, but Percy (and I assume other sources as well) carry HQ oxygen free magnet wire for “much” less than $1/ft in the 22-26 gauge range.
End of rant.
Dekay, the magnet wire I found has a clear enamel coating. So you’re saying I don’t need ANY tubing to protection it?
* Would this wire configuration have any funky inductance or capacitance like the Goertz stuff? Probably not, but I want to make sure.
* Should I separate the runs by 1/4″ or more? Or can the 4 bi-wire runs be bundled together?
* I found the Radio Shack wire. It too is enamel-covered copper and has 40 ft) 22 Ga / 75 ft) 26 Ga / 200 ft) 30 Ga. Not sure about enamel vs. lacquer coating.
I guess it couldn’t hurt to try thinner stuff. I am bi-wiring and could do 26 for the top and 22 gauge on the bottom.
Southwire (800) 444-3600 sells round, rectangular, and square magnet wire with nomex, kapton, or paper insulation. MWS (888) 697-9473 sells MULTIFILAR parallel bonded magnet wire said to offer consistent capacitance and impedance. Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire co sells coaings to apply to magnet wire. I couldn’t find Michael Percy.
Going to http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/wire.htm they recommend:
Wire Size 2 ohm 4 ohm 6 ohm
22 ga 3 ft max 6 ft max 9 ft max
20 ga 5 ft max 10 ft max 15 ft max
18 ga 8 ft max 15 ft max 23 ft max
This site also says when resistance gets too high it makes the amplifier look like a current source. “This means the speaker frequency response will tend to follow the rise and fall of the speaker’s impedance curve. The impedance of most speakers is not constant with frequency”. This could cause frequency response inconsistencies.
So since my speakers are 4 ohm and the run is 12 feet I felt safe with 18 ga. However since I’m bi-wiring I guess the 22 ga may work.
==>I don’t want to burn the house down from overheating some micro-thin copper wire! <== Hence the thought on using teflon tubing.
If people have been using 26 ga with50 watts or more, I would wonder how long a run they had.
Cdc, I used the 22ga radio shack magnet wire on my 3 meter speaker runs. You can go without the tubing because of the protective enamel, but the enamel can get rubbed off and there is a small chance of shorting the wires together. For this reason I used tubing on mine. I also separated the runs by 2 1/2" all the way. With single-conductor runs, capacitance is really not an issue. With wires separated beyond the distance where the fields can interact, inductance is not an issue. I used 3/8" tubing around my wires in order to get mostly air-dielectric, except for the few small contact areas where the wire occasionally touches the tubing. In this case, even the dielectric is not an issue. The tubing provides a sound-wave barrier for the wire, so it will get less vibration, than if it was bare. Since the wire hardly touches the tubing, the tranferred vibration is minimal.
You will not heat up the speaker wires or damage anything. The tables you looked at are about 1% loss tables, and they really bear no relevence to this discussion, where the cable length is under 4 meters. The resistance difference at 4 meters is negligable. There is no risk of damage or fire with this type of wire and a 50 watt amp.
Twisting is usually a better performer because it locates the forwards and return wires in close proximity and creates some field cancellation. When the forward and return paths are in parallel or twisted, this lowers the inductance substantially over separated wires. Braiding is really only for convenience to hold multiple pairs together. Braiding actually degrades the performance. If you select a braid that mostly makes the pairs orthogonal to each other, this will help. I would recommend using enough twisted-pairs to equal 10-12 gauge.
Any thoughts on silver or square magnet wire?
Naim uses square wire for some reason.
http://www.audiotweaks.com had people using 18 ga silver wire for $1.50/ft from http://www.tobackgold.com and putting 100% cotton shoe lace over it. Less resistance so can use a smaller guage wire for skin effect but less resistance than copper.
CDC: Never tried square wire. There was a thread (in the past week) @ Audio Asylum (in the cable forum) about the use of "soft" silver 18 gauge "round" speaker wire (its use required twisting in order to get it to sound right). I prefer copper over silver in the signal path, though have only experimented with Kimber, Homegrown Audio, silver cables from some tube preamp guru (can't remember his name) and a few of my own designs which used 26 and/or 30 gauge solid core silver. Per the poster this "soft" silver has a warm sound to it and does not require a lengthy break in period. I would like to give it a try, one of these days, for phono cables and for an interconnect that uses a rather odd design (I need bare silver for the IC). If Toback is in NYC then this may have been the source of my silver wire (the name sounds familiar).
I have listened to a few copper "ribbon" designs (speaker cables and interconnects) and thought that they all recessed the mid's a bit. I did not care for them, but others who were present liked them a lot.
One thing that I forgot to mention about "thin" single runs is that the left and right channel cables need to be separated from each other (8" to 12" apart is fine). This goes with many traditional cables, as well, but the single runs seem to be even more sensitive to this. The same goes with IC's (keep the left/right channels away from one another), and keep all cables off of carpet/rugs, etc., especially if they are made from synthetic materials. This is just another free tweak that improves the sound. I don't use anything fancy for this (just hang them from one component to the other if possible and if the cable is too long then I "hang" it with cotton ribbon from my wife's sewing supplies).
I will check out Audiotweaks in the morning (have not been there for a long time).
I have never used silver wire in my speaker cables. I did use it once in a preamp I modded, and it was too bright. If you use a SET amp w/ transformer induced problems like high-end rolloff, it can be used to somewhat compensate for that. I really don't like to use cables for tone controls though. Better to resolve the problems at the root.
I don't know of any inherent advantage/disadvantage with square section wire. You'll just have to take your skin-effect depth measurement off the diagonal. I am not the ultimate cable guru. I just made some DIY stuff that had some good design basis behind it, and it worked out. You can too.
Tomi Engdahl says:
OA-7, mikä viittaa englanninkieliseen termiin “GOAT” eli “Greatest Of All Time” (kaikkien aikojen parhain).
Tomi Engdahl says:
Brad Cooper there’s a reason we stopped using cotton as an insulator for cable so many decades ago.
Stanley Nuremburg they are hygroscopic, have low dielectric breakdown voltage, and support fungal growth. That’s just off the top of my head.
Evelyn Kiera Ivanova I love cotton insulation! I don’t want my audio to sound dry and inorganic.
I’m no electrical engineer, but last time I checked, cotton and leather are not the best conductors.
Brad Cooper they’re not the best insulators either.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GCUE4ZXbe/
Hey beat me silly with it and maybe I’ll hear the difference like a real audiophile… hmmmm
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/brands-category/quantum-science-audio
Tomi Engdahl says:
Here are the top 15 reviewers that audiophiles say they trust the most, and why their opinions carry weight: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/08/youtube-reviewers-audiophiles-actually-trust-according-surveys/
Tomi Engdahl says:
QSA Fuses in particular are directional! Direction of the primary fuse can only be determined using a voltage detecting screwdriver.
https://www.kempelektroniksshop.nl/quantum-science-audio/
Remove the primary fuse, re-insert the plug into the wall outlet, switch on the device and determine on which of the two contacts of the fuse holder the lamp in the screwdriver lights. This is the hot side of your fuse holder; the tail end of the arrow should point toward this side. However, only do this when the contacts are easy to access and you understand what you are doing. In all other cases you should listen to the fuse inserted in both directions. One direction will sound more detailed with a more natural timbre. This is the correct way.
“The SR Orange en QSA Yellow fuses contribute distinctly different to the sound. The SR Orange is all about a homogeneous, rather easy-going sound with nicely saturated tone colours. The QSA Yellow fuses on the other hand yield breathtaking dynamics, a silent background and a very clear and clean sound. Bass is extremely fast and deep. On the flipside, the QSA Yellow does not provide the richness in the midrange the SR Orange does. So there is no “better fuse”; it all boils down to taste, system and musical preference. Perhaps one could say the QSA Yellow is most suitable for the audiophile looking for excitement while the SR Orange serves the music lover who appreciates pure rendering of classical music best.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
And I should go with Nordost over Belden or Mogami because…?
John Davison What do the REAL Pros use? Oh, wait. Belden, Mogami, Canare. Stuff that just works, no BS required.
Tomi Engdahl says:
“The room is the most important, so amplifiers don’t matter” or “It’s all about the speakers, you can’t hear the difference between CD players”. How often have you heard people say things like that? It seems there are a lot of people convinced that once something is limiting the performance of your system, there’s no point in optimising other factors.
[Editorial] Bottleneck thinking in HiFi https://share.google/ZwyylE140jLiEX7KH
Tomi Engdahl says:
“Bottleneck distortion” refers to two distinct concepts: in computer systems, it’s when a slower component limits the performance of the entire system, causing lag or slowdowns. In information theory, especially the Information Bottleneck (IB) method, bottleneck distortion is the loss of information when compressing a signal, and the goal is to minimize this distortion while maintaining useful information for a specific task, balancing compression rate with information content.
Tomi Engdahl says:
In hi-fi audio, “bottleneck” refers to the weakest link in the signal chain that limits overall sound quality, often manifesting as distortion when the system’s components are overloaded or perform beyond their linear capabilities. Common sources of bottleneck-related distortion include an underpowered amplifier or under-specced loudspeakers driven at high volumes, mechanical limitations of the speaker driver, poor digital processing, low-quality source material, or room acoustics. Identifying and resolving the specific bottleneck allows for clearer, more accurate sound.
.
How Bottlenecks Cause Distortion
Amplifier Clipping:
An amplifier that cannot provide enough power for a given volume level will distort the signal, a phenomenon known as clipping.
Loudspeaker Excursion:
At high volumes, particularly with low-frequency sounds, a speaker’s diaphragm must move further. If it exceeds its physical limits or the linear range of the magnetic field, distortion occurs.
Digital Signal Issues:
Low-quality DACs or digital signal processing errors (like jitter) can introduce harmonic distortion into the audio signal.
Poor Source Material:
Low-resolution or poorly mastered audio files are inherently “bottlenecked” and will sound poor even on a high-quality system.
Identifying the Bottleneck
Listen for the Problem:
Pay attention to the type of distortion. Is it a harsh, aggressive sound (suggesting clipping) or a muddy, unclear sound (suggesting speaker distortion)?
Consider the Components:
Think about your amplifier’s power rating relative to your speakers’ power handling.
Evaluate Your Room:
An untreated room with hard surfaces can create reflections that degrade sound quality, making the room itself a bottleneck.
Resolving the Bottleneck
Match Components: Ensure your amplifier is appropriately matched to your speakers for the desired volume.
Upgrade Components: If your amplifier is consistently struggling, it might be the bottleneck.
Use Quality Sources: Opt for high-resolution, lossless audio files.
Improve Your Room: Adding rugs or other soft furnishings can dampen reflections and improve the sound.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The belief that there’s only one single factor that limits the performance of your entire system is widespread, and I’ll call it ‘bottleneck thinking’.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Experts reveal why most acoustic panels and diffusers are actually a waste of money.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/08/audiophiles-system-useless-room-treatments-experts/
Tomi Engdahl says:
His stance exposes the compromises labels often push when remastering classic albums.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/08/mastering-legend-refused-touch-classic-album/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Can someone explain to a novice like me, please: what’s the point of having great big fat cables if they are going to end up thin cables anyway when they plug into any gear?
it is expensive, and it look cool…
If we made a A/B test I’m quite sure no one could hear the difference.
Thick cables can save you some energy… But probably cheaper to adjust the volume.
Tight cables can kill some high frequency that most people don’t hear, and that can be fixed with just adjust the treble control 0,63%
Tomi Engdahl says:
Most musicians I know can enjoy music without caring much about the sound system it plays on. Audiophiles are a race unto themselves.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Some people buy gold plated silver wires, but that’s a big mistake! Best is regular (cheap) coax installed inside an end to end steel conduit, that fully shields against low frequency magnetic field from mains, and also extremely effective in keeping RF out (some amplifier designs are indeed disturbed by RF, when you can hear your phone wake up for example…)
or simple twisted cables…
Tomi Engdahl says:
Twisted cables with balanced interfaces yes very good. Twisted cables with unbalanced interfaces less beneficial, depends on case by case if beneficial or not so much.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Great big fat cables that are going to end up thin cables anyway when they plug into gear.
Look like hydraulic hose’s, is fluid power the way forward ?
Maybe that’s a lot of snake oil powering them.
Tomi Engdahl says:
I’m absolutely convinced the people who buy these have never looked at the internal cabling inside most amplifiers and many speaker internals as well