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.
1,887 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/test-of-cable-shielding-does-it-matter.20538/
Shielding of low level signal cables makes some sense, the lower the signal level (phono signals) the more sense it makes. However shielding the last four feet of power cables is pretty much nuts.
Agreed. Shield the ones you need to. Note in my phono example I still couldn’t hear any difference. I used the Kimber pbj for years becaue of the low capacitance for mm carts. I now use rg6 based video cables. Shielded and low C.
Shielded mains cables (the wires themselves) are cheap and can lower radiated emission.
They are specifically handy when one has to drive speed controlled heavy duty motors with servo control wires running alongside those power cables.
The trick is to ground them properly for HF. This is not the same as safety ground which serves a totally different purpose.
Proper HF screening is basically creating an extended Faraday cage between 2 connected devices.
When one device is properly EMC screened (audio equipment can be but isn’t any more the moment you connect a cable) what a proper screen will do is basically elongate the cabinet’s enclosure right up to and around the transducer. The latter can be a pickup or something that is driven.
The moment you let wires ‘stick out’ the device can pick up RF again. The longer the wire that sticks out is the lower the frequency it can pick up can be. (This should be interesting for those using screened speaker cable as speaker enclosures are rarely all metal. The wiring inside the speakers isn’t screened and pick up RF.
Anyway… back to mains cables. Suppose one has a screened mains cable that is connected to safety ground with a short wire inside the amp.
That short piece of wire (several cm) is an inductor (high resistance) for frequencies used n cell phones etc. It works like a good connection for audible frequencies and well above that.
So the screen is basically an extension of the metal amp enclosure. It also works well as safety ground. The latter is the purpose of the green/yellow cable and why that is (should be) connected to the enclosure.
As the video showed the detector cannot detect the mains (audible range + several harmonics) on the cable any more. Regardless if current flows or not. So yes it does screen (reduce dramatically) LF fields but does a poorer job for very HF signals.
Suppose we have a nice rack and someone decided to use poorly screened interlinks for instance and to make it neat ties all these wires in one nice bundle then the screened mains cables might actually help lower induced hum in the audio cables.
Keeping mains and audio cables separated at least a few cm and only cross them at 90 degree angle will help reduce coupling effectively. There is no need for screening mains cables.
Having one screened cable (for the power amp for instance) running along side generic mains cables in the same bundle is pointless.
Also such a screened cable, unless it has filters inside, wont do anything against RF emission and immunity being lower for the connection itself (it helps a bit directly around the cable for lower frequencies) The moment you plug such a cable in a wall socket and the wires from the wall socket onward are NOT screened all the way further that means the cables are leaving the ‘elongated enclosure’ and will emit and receive RF as normal.
Also the safety ground wires will. The safety ground wires in the wall are high impedance for RF and low for mains frequencies.
That’s exactly what we need for safety ground and that’s what the wall sockets provide.
Safety ground NOT RF ground.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/test-of-cable-shielding-does-it-matter.20538/
Hello,
Shielding of low level signal cables makes some sense, the lower the signal level (phono signals) the more sense it makes. However shielding the last four feet of power cables is pretty much nuts. What about the other 99.999% of the power cables in the wall and back to the electric company?
Regards,
Greg
It’s not just phono signals that are susceptible. CD players, Blu Ray players, amplifiers etc are impacted.
Shielding power cables in your room makes a lot of sense as you want to keep the area around your equipment as clean as possible. Unfortunately at best it is only likely to reduce atmospheric contamination by a certain amount, so if you are really serious you would shield all cables; both power and interconnects, even if the are shielded as the shield is often the return signal. As solderdude alluded, unused ports act like antennas with a direct path to circuit boards, so it’s a good idea to fit dummy shielding plugs to address that issue. Going further, most equipment creates its own problems and internal power supplies should be shielded as much as possible.
I also noticed that solderdude questioned the benefit of shielding speaker cables when the cables in speaker enclosures aren’t. An interesting issue for consideration. So should the cables and crossovers be shielded?
Atmospheric contamination is real and should be taken seriously, not dismissed as snake oil.
Can you provide evidence to your claim?
I’ve no idea what you mean. I’m not claiming anything.
After all, I’m sure you’ve heard static noise on AM radio; it’s particularly bad around trams due to noisy power supply. Shielding that type of atmospheric contamination might be something worth considering.
Don’t take my word for it. Give it a try and you might learn something.
So should the cables and crossovers be shielded?
No, only when one receives radio signals that become audible (through detection or otherwise) via the speaker cables this would make sense, or when the XO/speakers are acting as a receiver. (never encountered this, the impedance and efficiency is too low and voltage levels too high)
I know of no such conditions except with those that live near very powerful transmitters.
In that case shielding mains cables and speaker cables may be one of the very last things to do. Not the first nor a necessary thing.
Shielding from influences in the ether can only be done by a Faraday cage that may have holes sized to the min allowed HF leakage.
This is not feasible in an apartment. ‘Electrosmog’ is all around us and it’s up to the manufacturers job to comply to certain immunity limits.
Limits that can only be reached when devices are connected using proper cables.
When mains and speaker cables would really need this there would only be fully shielded mains connectors, wall wiring would be screened, speakers would have metal grounded enclosures and speaker cable connections would be screened.
They are not, and for good reason… it isn’t needed in 99.999% of home audio installations. The remaining 0.001% requires special attention and will require more than screened speaker/mains cables.
What about noise that enters the house wiring that gets safely conducted under a cable’s shield into the equipment
Good point. At this point the salesman wound show you his wide section of mains filter products.
True, but hopefully the amount is so low it is virtually insignificant.
Tomi Engdahl says:
USB cable shield resistance technical measurements
https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/usb-cable-shield-resistance-technical-measurements.5662/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://hosatech.com/press-release/do-cables-matter/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.belram.be/a-quick-explanation-of-shielding-for-audio-cables-and-how-to-choose-it/
How to Choose the Right Cable Shielding?
Knowing what the difference is between each type of cable shielding is all well and good, but how do you which one is best for your application?
As a rule of thumb, remember this: choose spiral shielding for microphone and audio cables. If you are working with high frequencies where there is a lot of EMI, make sure to use foil aluminum shielding. Braid shields can be used to minimize low frequency interference and offer a better physical protection than other types of shielding.
Building and Testing Audio Cables
https://www.element14.com/community/groups/test-and-measurement/blog/2016/01/03/building-and-testing-audio-cables
What things would we want to see in good audio cable assemblies?
Everyone will have different requirements but from a general point of view these requirements would come out pretty high:
100% coverage shielded cables, grounded, to minimise capacitive pickup and RF pickup
Two and three cores for flexibility. The two-cored cable could be used for mono or stereo applications; for mono use one of the cores would provide the audio signal and the other core would be used for the ground connection. The shield would be grounded at one end. For stereo use, the three core cable could be used, and the shield would be used as the ground connection at one end. For balanced audio use (e.g. with XLR connectors) then again either cable could be used.
Ideally a controlled pair cable for balanced audio applications, to reduce the effects of as many modes of noise pickup as possible
For connectors the following properties would be good to see:
Ruggedness
Fully shielded
Easy to solder terminals
Conductors secured with more than just solder
A cable clamp
Strain relief
Testing Cable Assemblies
Some basic tests are obvious; the usual tests for shorts and intermittent connections can be done with a multimeter. I also wanted to check how effective the cable was at shielding from unwanted signals however. There are different ways that unwanted signals can be picked up. Capacitive coupling can occur if the cable is very close to another cable for example. Another source can be whenever there is changing flux nearby, i.e. inductively coupled noise. Radio signals may also be picked up; these should be inaudible but there is a possibility that mixing or demodulation may inadvertently occur in the attached electronic equipment. One test method would be to deliberately have a noise source nearby and see how much is picked up by the test cable. I decided to generate a square wave type of signal at high current and place it close to the test cable. I used an IRFZ44 MOSFET and a 48V DC supply; the load was a 25 ohm resistor (two 50 ohm, power resistors in parallel) so that almost 2A was being switched. I didn’t have an alternative power MOSFET handy, so I have to be careful not to exceed the safe operating area (SOA) of the MOSFET. The heart of it is shown below. The source signal into the MOSFET was an 8V 500usec pulse every 10msec; this would result in a 100Hz tone along with harmonics.
Note that most radio receivers will not pick up RF signals so low in frequency, but there are plenty of harmonics that could be received. I upped the pulse rate to 1 every millisecond (and shortened it to 100usec). With the cable connected to the radio I could easily hear a harmonic with the radio tuned to 20kHz with the commercial cable. Loud and clear! I swapped to the home-made cable and there was no signal received (just radio background noise). This is a convincing result that the shielding is exceedingly effective even at these relatively low frequencies.
Summary and Next Steps
A lot of topics were quickly covered in this post; cable requirements, connector requirements, how to assemble good audio cables and how to test them. It can be seen that it is entirely practical to hand-assemble audio cables that will out-perform many commercial ones, and confirm their behaviour with low-cost test tools. It was very impressive to see such outstanding results from the radio receiver method using the model 9533 and 9841NH cables that were tested.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Signal Interference and Cable Shielding
https://www.multicable.com/resources/reference-data/signal-interference-and-cable-shielding/
A well-engineered cable is comprised of many crucial independent elements. Recently shielding has become just as critical as any other design element. The growing complexity of today’s communications and control systems, coupled with the increased distances signal and control communications are required to travel, have exponentially increased electrical interference (noise) related failures. Depending on the application, cables can be adversely affected by EMI/RFI/ESI (electromagnetic interference, radio frequency interference, electrostatic interference) also known as ‘signal interference.’ Insulation alone provides no protection from signal interference – so to combat the effects of signal interference, proper shielding is vital.
Cable Shielding
Shielding surrounds the power-carrying conductors of the cable and protects it by (1) reflecting signal interference as well as (2) picking up noise and conducting it to ground. Multi/Cable offers various shielding options and varying degrees of shielding effectiveness. When deciding on the type/amount of shielding required, consider the following factors:
Type of signal interference – EMI, RFI, or ESI
Noise level
System configuration
Cable cost – is more shielding necessary?
Cable diameter, weight, and flexibility
Multi/Cable typically uses either foil or braid, or both foil and braid when shielding its cables.
Foil Shield: Good
Protection at frequencies greater than 15 KHz
100% coverage over core conductors
Lightweight
Low cost
Braid Shield: Better
Protection at low frequencies (up to 15 KHZ)
EMI/RFI resistance in power, control and data applications
High physical strength
MultiShield (Foil & Braid): Best
Protection across entire frequency range
High physical strength
Ease of termination
For extremely noisy environments and where physical strength is a factor, multiple shielding layers (foil/braid) are recommended.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.techhive.com/article/3063590/how-to-get-rid-of-hum-and-eliminate-other-noises-from-your-audio-and-video-systems.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.nti-audio.com/Portals/0/data/en/NTi-Audio-AppNote-ML1-Signal-Balance.pdf
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://missionengineering.com/measuring-guitar-cables/
https://producerhive.com/ask-the-hive/does-audio-cable-length-matter/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Turntable Cables measured noise . best cable? DIY?
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=33595
I spent a few hours today testing my cable selection…
Connected each cable to the turntable in turn, and to either my “flat Eq” (MicPre with Soft RIAA) or my 1616m phono stage… (measured both, results were the same allowing for variation in gain…) – turntable has Shure 1000e with SAS stylus on the tonearm – but is not powered on. (power still going through the transformer etc…. on standby… but motor is not running)
the cables varied in terms of shielding, structure and capacitance…. and a huge difference in hum pickup and noise pickup from the environment…
Every cable showed the same thing just at differing levels, – the Ground/power Hum came up at 50Hz, then a noise peak at 250Hz (power harmonic?), a bunch of hash is visible Between 12k and 25k, and another noise peak rising out of the hash around 23k. (all measured flat, not weighted)
Specifics:
Jaycar STP (auto) 50cm 100pf – Hum -60db, 250Hz -75db, Hash -75db, 23k peak -58db (with shield drain connected to ground at pre)
No Name Braided Shield connected to negative at pre 70cm 110pf – Hum -71db, 250Hz -85db, Hash -85db, 23k peak -68db
Amber Audio IC (shield connected to negative at pre ) 70cm 420pf- Hum -71db, 250Hz -86db, Hash -90db, 23k peak -79db
Cat5 Unshielded Twisted Pair 70cm 106pf- Hum -58db, 250Hz -72db, Hash -72db, 23k peak -52db
Couple of other comments:
1) with the shield drain wire disconnected all noise figures on the Jaycar STP cable got 2 to 3db worse
2) The Amber cable is high capacitance so one would expect depressed High frequencies – which is what was measured…. it seems on a par with the noname braided shield cable
3) Cat5 UTP is bad news in terms of picking up noise…., performance very similar to the Jaycar STP with the shield disconnected… it is low C cable – but it really badly needs some shielding.
So what is the best cable to connect (solder into…) your turntable to your Phono Pre???
What I am seeing is that
1) an external shield (connected to ground) definitely improves things (eg: the UTP measurements)
2) connecting shield to negative pole at the Pre end RCA seems to also provide good shielding
There’s lots of advice out there for DIY Interconnects – but almost none of it is focused on the requirements of phono… (ie 100x lower voltages, with matching susceptibility to noise/interference etc…)
Cat7 cable looks promising – very low Capacitance, with each twisted pair seperately shielded and then the whole bundle shielded… has anyone tried this?
RG6 ? (coaxial types)
The Cat5 UTP interconnect I made up yesterday achieves the goal of reasonably low capacitance, but it is acting as an antenna!
(Don’t have any Cat5 stp handy…)
The cheapie Jaycar automotive STP does better… but not as well as the “real” audio cables – I do not know the actual structure of the noname cable, but the amber cable is apparently also Shielded Twisted Pair.
Anyway for connecting a TT to a phono pre you need a low capacitance cable.
he LC-1′s arrived this morning
I measured some RCA-RCA adapters and interconnected 6 x LC-1′s then measured the lot….. 600pf
The RCA-RCA adapters interconnected to each other stand alone measure 80pf (my meter is +/- 10pf)
So I have around 87pf per 1.3m length of LC-1
Or an actual real world 67pf/m (20pf/ft)
with the cable being spec’d by BlueJeans at 12.2pf/ft… it is dissapointing to get a real world figure of a touch over 20pf/ft.
If I assume 12.2pf/ft – the RCA connectors on the end must have a capacitance of 34.6pf….. ouch!… more than 1/3 the C is the connectors!!
It Looks like my best option is definitely going to be to set up captive cables connected directly into the turntable….
Guess who forgot to check the cable for you
I will have a look in the morning. Anyway Jajcar plugs only measured a couple of pf when I measured them.
The blue jeans LC1 1.3m length is measuring well nigh identically for noise as my noname brand champion cable at 70cm. Which means that for its length it is performing better than anything else I have.
At a length of 70cm (or less) it should outperform all my other cables…
Great Stuff!
Higher capacitance cable is more resistant to HF noise (well it has worse response as frequency rises so that makes sense) – at line levels, near digital gear, High C cable might be the better option – as it will reduce some of the HF noise picked up from the digital processing by 3 to 6 db over an equivalent length low C cable….
My High C Amber IC (420pf for 70cm) is showing better noise rejection than any of my other equivalent length cables (including the LC-1) – not good for low C phono use – but it is also a good cable, and perhaps a great one at line levels and for pre-power interconnect?
With a double shielded cable, I would try using the outer shield to replace the turntable grounding wire, keeping it separate from signal ground on the RCAs. This direct connection from amplifier case to the deck chassis will have much smaller loop area than the usual separate grounding wire
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why do musicians ignore high-end audio?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM8sxFxmOUw
Is it the shoemaker’s dilemma? Or, perhaps they are so used to real sound that reproduced sound doesn’t interest them? Whatever the case, Paul tries to figure out why most musicians have crappy stereo systems.
Tomi Engdahl says:
DSD Audio on Mac or PC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d04NSIfvhpo
DSD Audio is not something most computers are designed to play nice with. Here’s what you can do to fix that.
Viewer comments:
Yes, thumbs up for Audirvana – it handles everything you pass through it and ‘talks’ directly to your DAC. Of course your DAC has to be able to handle DSD too!
Audirvāna sounds different streaming Qobuz, then playing Qobuz from its native app. I don’t know which one is more true since they both claim but perfect playback. But I like the sound of the Qobuz native player more.
Yes they both sound different.
I do DSD ISOs and DSD files (dsf and dff) using JRiver via PC. No conversion at all, native to my R2R DAC. In fact, I have set JRiver to convert on the fly all my files to DSD64. My PC is a mini itx fanless unit, both psu and cpu.
Opensource alternatives: Foobar2000 for Windows. Deadbeef for Linux
Adding a galvanic isolator between your Mac and the DAC is always a good idea. You only need one that will do USB 2.0 speeds because there are not any audio DACs that require faster USB. They now make a USB 3.0 galvanic isolator for upwards of $400 US, but I just got one that was about a hundred and does USB 2.0.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Some really exciting things you can do with DSP. Particularly FIR filters will let you have very cross over between drivers with linear phase.
There’s a price you pay to overcorrection: ultimately you can’t fix a box that breathes, or uneven dispersion, or port noise, or any host of similar inaccuracies. And there’s a trade-off in impulse response when overcorrecting in the frequency domain.
But it enables certain design decisions which just aren’t feasible with analogue crossovers. Steep and linear phase crossovers being the big one (much more linearity and a much reduced crossover region), as well as subtle tonal correction again with linear phase…
Tomi Engdahl says:
There is ALWAYS a problem when we rely on our instinct and not our knowledge. The traditionalist audiophile has no capacity to investigate what modern switched power supplies can do.
Even worse are the myth perpetuators – assuming that ALL switched supplies have EMI or switchmode issues.
Now, we all know that in a power amp we are listening to “the power supply”. The output devices modulate the output of the power supply.
The discussion of what power supply different is dofferent with different technologies and often impossible to answer with any level of competence without building and testing it.
It is VERY EASY to differentiate between DC and noise artifacts. It is tougher to differentiate between 50/60 Hz rectified DC and switchmode DC – with or without an oscilloscope. Even if we do find any difference, there could be no correlation between that difference and perceived sound.
Tomi Engdahl says:
SMPS is ok nothing wrong with it however providing the filter caps on the secondary are up to scratch
Tomi Engdahl says:
Tubes and switchmode supplies might sound like an odd combo, but it does not mean a wrong combo if done right.
“Tubes are very sensitive to EMI and switchmodes do radiate a lot of that”
Many cheap switch mode power supplies radiate a lot of EMI and some better ones much less. Not all switch mode power supplies are “evil noise sources”. With sensible power supply selection and placement the noise should be possible to keep in control. Classic linear tube power supplies are noise sources as well, but different type of noise.
Tomi Engdahl says:
I actually prefer OFC. There is so much CCA (copper clad aluminum) crap out there now.
Tomi Engdahl says:
From https://www.facebook.com/groups/DIYAudio/permalink/4617176425014834/
The following parameters can all impact the subjective bass response of a power amplifier:
1) Power supply rejection ratio
2) Damping factor
3) Gain modulation effects
4) Crossover distortion
5) Hysteresis distortion
6) Time domain response anomalies
The ear-brain mechanism is designed to perceive sound in both the time domain and frequency domain simultaneously.
Standard power amplifier objective metrics do not correlate well with subjective sound quality.
That’s why there always seems to be an element of mysticism and “snake oil” hype to the audio business.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Do you (or will you) buy Chinese audiophile products?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqgouROJ1mk
The comments, both pro and con, on my Boyuurange A50 MkIII tube amp review the other day left me no choice but to make this video. What’s going on with high value Chinese audiophile gear? Here’s the review, https://youtu.be/dExnR7CJMSo
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cables: home vs studio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STCwnwCl05s
Audiophiles spend thousands on interconnecting and speaker cables, but recording studios seem not to. Why is that?
Viewer connects:
Regarding the validity of very expensive cables, there is one issue that makes discussion tough even if we disregard things like measurements, blind tests, confirmation bias, etc. That problem is that some audiophiles have no sense for nuance in their vocabulary. The difference between cables is very small compared to the difference between speakers of different size, technology and price range. Therefor, when someone without capacity for nuance say that cables make a “huge difference”, it rings poorly with people that do understand it since if that’s a huge difference you’d probably have to spend quite some time using powerful adjectives to describe the difference between speakers in a satisfying way, relative to the cable statement.
So regardless of your stance on cables, don’t exaggerate since it does nothing but undermine your point. Educated people should use nuanced language.
lol He ‘worked it out with his buddy” translated…”I’ll keep making audiokwest infomercials because “my buddy” has agreed to “hook us up” with all of their (overpriced nonsense) cables.”
Iw worked in 3.000.000€ studio, not one single “snake” was anything else than normal but quality XLR cables. Why? Cos there is MILES, literally tens of miles of cables in there. Good luck on pulling your “home” studio with only with AQ cables…
You say cables matter and you’re basically telling the truth. But is it all of the truth?
Acoustic engineers knows that cables have to meet specific technical requirements, not necessarily price or aesthetic. They have to be sufficient – not necessarily expensive or exquisite…
Unless they play the role of jewelry, then “the inscription on the casing “matters.
some people never learn. If there is one thing to take away from Paul’s tons of valuable advices is that the voice you hear is a result of an integrated system. Sure there are bigger and smaller factors that contribute to the end result (starting backwards from room, loudspeaker etc) But in any system there always will be a weakest link. In YOUR system it might be the speaker cable. Or the interconnect. Or the DAC. Or anything else.
I don’t deny that there are a lot of overhyped products out there just like in any product category. It is enough to be happy if in YOUR system a cheap cable makes the same sound as an expensive one you don’t have to spend money on cables (for now).
The sound chain is important, bad cables can ruin your day.
It depends on how good or bad the cables you have that determine how much upgrade you get when you upgrade to more expensive signal cables.
When you come up to a certain quality then the difference between them and even better is very small.
You should not use the cheapest rca cables you got for free when you bought hifi equipment but one or two notches better.
Buy rca cables where you can unscrew the plug cap. Then you can see what the cable is like.
rca plugs do not determine how good quality the cable is. The cable also has a lot to say about the quality
“Cables make a big difference”. Paul, please. Anyone that has any hifi experience….knows it might make 2% difference. Can your ears tell. No. Just stop. Its electrical current and signal. Room, components, and the recording itself make the biggest impact. Yes, cables are snakeoil.
So thanks Paul for making my point: Given a fixed budget (you can spend money only once) don’t spend your money on that interlink, buy a new cartridge for your turntable. Don’t spend your money on that speaker cable, buy a better capacitor for your speaker cross over.
What I am trying to say is with the amount of money I have available to spend on HiFi, there will be always something other than a cable that has a bigger bang for my bucks.
Any way, looking at the light fixtures in the video, I wonder about the differences between lamp shades for high end domestic use and what is used in studios. I would love to hear more about that.
Your system is only as good as it’s weakest link, which includes cables.
that’s good. Cables tie the whole system together, crummy and noisy cabling WILL show up as veiled or even bad sound.
Some change for swapping cables. More change for swapping microphones. Biggest change for swapping singers. Got it.
LMAO @ “Audiophile Standard Cables”
stereophile made a recording of its founder, J. Gordon Holt, giving his well known excerpt in audiophile equipment, using something like 27 different microphones (!). Microphones differ quite a lot, and should be used for the appropriate circumstance. Cables fall into that same premise.
Mics are the same as speakers….the same way they make the most difference audible to us since they are the interface between the system and our ears, mics do the same. The best they capture the nuances and details, the better….
Yes, cables make a difference. Not a HUGE difference, though.
As you said, microphones make a bigger difference.
Don’t try to tell me that Belden doesn’t make some good stuff —
any of their balanced audio cables are better than 90% of the other brands out there.
Good question … and an answer that is unintended unmasking.
The same myth that everyone selling expensive high margin cables uses. Fact is that the 99.9% of the very best recordings you have ever heard were made with “standard” pro audio grade cables… and lots of them.
That is 100% correct. I recorded in Long Branch New Jersey years ago. I played on Meatloaf’s piano!., The cable hookups were the same brands make/models our band used and we were poor. I don’t hear people complain about Meatloaf’s recordings. P.S., the piano was an older Chubby Checker like piano. Nothing over the top specials. How about forget …
From a philosophical standpoint, cables might make a difference on the sound reproduction side of the equation but they surely don’t on the recording side. If an artist/producer is happy with the recorded material, it doesn’t really make a difference it if was done with state of the art equipment or run-of-mill home studio.
Microphone cable isn’t anything special. You can pay up to a few dollars per metre but that’s not going to make much of a difference over something that’s a dollar a meter. The better cable isn’t going to sound much better but you are going to get a cab that’s going to hold up better. Stuff that I see in stores is generally garbage, crappy connector and wrapped shield. Studios have kilometres of microphone cable so cost only has to be as expensive as needed. Haven’t bought any XLR cable for years, always build with neutrik connectors and cable that has a braded shield – much of which is still working after 5 to 8 years of abuse. The connectors tipicaly get up cycled when the conductors in the cable break. Tipicaly the connectors last for 15 years before needing replacement.
Cables are kinda funny. I live in the pro sound world spending most of my music time either recording or live shows and probably own a 1/2 mile of various mic, audio, and speaker cable. I enjoy quality music listening in my home but I am a realist. The biggest difference by far in the quality of home music reproduction is the room not the gear, and I must compromise a lot on the room design and treatments to satisfy my better half. I can easily hear this and I can measure this. Moving on to speakers, I find a good pair that mate well with my room size and dimension. These I can easily hear and measure differences. A quality DAC and decent music source is important and I can usually hear and measure the difference.
Comparing decent quality amps that work well with my chosen speakers in terms of impedance matching and dampening factor? Now it is becoming very difficult to hear and measure the difference at typical home listening levels. Comparing cables between Belden, Mogami, and “audiophile cables”? Sorry guys, I can no longer hear or measure the difference. As long as they are sized properly, well shielded, and not broken, there is no measurable difference I can see or hear so spending big $$ on cables makes no sense to me. I need to get more serious about the room reflections which are always the greatest challenge to get right, and offer the greatest benefit when we do.
You are a lot of fun Paul but I gotta call BS on this one. I guess I don’t rate the audiophile moniker. JMHO
It’s a matter of importance and cables are at the bottom of the chain.
They are as important as your systems power supply. But it doesn’t actually make sense to discuss this topic with the crowd where everybody has completely different quality levels of his system….! Sure you won’t hear much difference in an inexpensive (not say „cheap“) stereo rig.
Too (?) many people here are like Chevi drivers who never drove a car way above this level and therefore think „a Chevi is as good as ANY other car in this word…! They cannot even IMAGINE how a McLaren, Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini etc. will feel like to drive. And still they’re HIGHLY biased and OPINIONATED that everything above a Chevi makes no sense as it has also only 4 wheels, an engine and a few seats…and therefore it all makes no difference! Hope that helps
Your analogy has nothing to do with what I said. Read again the words. No matter what budget you have, there are many stuff in the chain you want to prioritize before you consider upgrading from studio-grade cables.
Make a priority list with the importance of the stuff in a stereo setup. I’m curious to see where you place the cables.
yes, sure there are more sound important things to eat right first (components, speakers and their correct setup etc) …in prioritizing cables come behind that as they give your system the finish. And finish comes at the end. You’re right
Actually High end amplifiers benefit less from clean AC power than cheaper ones because high end amplifiers have better power supplies that are designed to give cleaner DC power with higher peak current capabilities to the amplifier circuits.
Appreciate the upload, but wish the question was answered more clearly. Most studios probably don’t use AudioQuest because it is cost prohibitive for what is likely a constantly evolving setup and minimal improvement (if any). Knowing the CEO personally probably means you’re getting this at cost or close to it. For the viewer at home with less money but fewer changes to their setup they can still probably get by on good studio cables, or opt for audiophile stuff if they like flash and panache behind the rack. That’s just my experience and preference, though. I found more happiness in spending money on music vs. cables.
The longer the cable, the more negative effect on the audio. Studios use much longer cables. A potentiometer is not great for audio in the home setup. More potentiometers involved is worse. Analog mixers in a studio use many of them. Well, engineers know that neither cables or reasonable potentiometers need to be concerns for signal integrity.
After years of “trial and error”, I still cannot hear differences between standard and audiophile grade speaker and interconnect cables.
Copper is copper
Along with brands like Mogami and Canare.
In contrast to crappy brands like Audioquest, these brands actually take the effort to provide the buyer with specifications!
Btw, plenty “audiophile” cables are also available on Amazon nowadays.
Tomi Engdahl says:
What’s inside the boxes of expensive cables?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKp1lTaDyc8
Some speaker cables cost thousands of dollars and the most expensive ones have fancy and exotic looking metal control boxes attached to them. Are they to hide the snake oil or do they actually do something?
Viewer comments:
Well said! Especially about how the huge expense is harming the industry. I wholeheartedly agree that cables make a difference. My thought has always been that they do, except that I’d forfeit that difference level if it meant paying thousands…. You’re a very kind soul, Paul! I hope to visit PS Audio one day!
Thanks for the question and the answer. I have also often wondered why a wire needs a box.
That said, I don’t want one in my system on principal and financially. I strive to simplify the audio chain with fewest possible passive components of the best quality. I find that everything added subtracts some of the low level information I strive to reproduce.
I’d be interested in a follow-up video to this one since Paul upgraded to the Audioquest Dragon cables for their main listening room setup and why he became convinced that these pricier cables were worth it for his system.
Pretty good reply. As we go digital, it’s getting cheaper to connect our devices to each other without having to worry about cables. I use good 4K hdmi cables.
Paul, you are always so soft spoken. I very much appreciate the honesty and depth of your commentary. As an pro audio engineer and electronics enthusiast myself it is so refreshing to see the ” Hi-fi ” perspective. I have opinions too but try and not let that bias my understanding of what good sound is. I am sure us pro audio snobs are the worst offenders of calling out snake oil at the slightest provocation. Love your videos, keep them coming. Cheers!
Cables are not snake oil (although some…) I see them as a rabbit hole… you start looking for something that improves the system while it is probably beter to invest in better speakers or components. Some use cables as a kind of tone control.
Paul it’s taking out of both ends. Yes he opened many of those boxes, he knows they have complicated components in them but didn’t care to know how or if they work. Hmmmm
One can tweak anywhere in the system, if tweaking with cables is your thing then that is perfectly fine. It actually does not improve the sound as such, it alters it to make the overall listening experience more rewarding. I don’t really like unpredictable circuits in the signal chain. Rather sort out the root cause of why the sound is not to ones liking in the first place. Reminds me of tone controls, many want them but don’t want to use them, as reactive circuits, active or passive, can mess around with the coherent nature of the signal, that over long term proves important.
Someone needs to startup an affordable no-nonsense cable company called “Snake Oil Cables”. Ha Ha!……
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/ I like them, their prices are fair and they have good quality
One can tweak anywhere in the system, if tweaking with cables is your thing then that is perfectly fine. It actually does not improve the sound as such, it alters it to make the overall listening experience more rewarding. I don’t really like unpredictable circuits in the signal chain. Rather sort out the root cause of why the sound is not to ones liking in the first place. Reminds me of tone controls, many want them but don’t want to use them, as reactive circuits, active or passive, can mess around with the coherent nature of the signal, that over long term proves important.
Audiophiles are never really happy, there is always something wrong. Most don t even listen to music , they click from track to track and CD to CD . Where i just sit back and relax, nothing wrong and enjoy the music.
I’ve borrowed two pairs of cables with a box made by MIT from a friend a couple of years ago, and I was not a big fan of them. They just sound a bit muffled on my system, less detailed and the sound stage seemed to be further away. After returning them to him, he asked me if I liked them. I Told him my experience and he started to laugh, because he had the same experience with that cables on his system. I Can imagine that this cables will do their job on a very sterile sounding amplifier with high specs but with a lack of musicality, like a Hegel amplifier for example. Not saying that Hegel or MIT are bad at all, it’s not my piece of cake and many people love it. Audio is such a subjective thing…
Well, they are just RLC filters. Like fancy equalizers.
Sounds like the cable “designers” are trying to incorporate a one-size-fits-all Zobel Network into their cable!!!….which should really be the “Secret Weapon” inside the speaker cabinet custom tailored to the specific driver(s)!!!
…DAMN SNAKE OIL!!!
“Cable Designer” = Charlatan! There is no official title as a “cable designer:. Anybody who claims such title is by default a charlatan. Electrical engineers, assisted by chemical and mechanical engineers design electrical cables. Just another futile attempt to separate home audio reproduction for the rest of the electronics industry.
well I’m an engineer and I say just because it’s audio, that doesn’t allow them to change it from a science to a religion. The same laws ALWAYS apply..
While the quality of the wire used is important, I think much more comes down to how good the connectors are. Cheaper cables will have cheaper connectors. Expensive within reason cables will have much, much nicer connectors that do a much better job than the cheap ones. Connectors are one of the most costly components you see in a build and Artisan connectors are expensive to produce but have performance to match.
If you’re talking about speaker cables think of this, no engineer would ever make an unnecessary connection in a circuit. All audio equipment is designed to accept bare wire… THAT’S the best connection
Our cables are hand-spun from solid gold by magical fairies and insulated with only the finest unicorn foreskins to bring you the ultimate audiophile experience.
what are the dielectric properties of unicorn foreskin ??
I read an article many years ago in Stereophile where they created an amp/speaker combo that had impedance matching. They then used a wide variety of different cables of different lengths and the sound differences were tiny, even on very long cable runs.
You prefer your cables made from silver or gold? Copper cables is the industry standard.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Preamp specs to match a power amplifier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YnTTFkrcDQ
Power amplifiers have wattage specs that vary from a few watts to thousands. How to match your preamp’s output to your amplifier’s wattage.
Viewer comments:
By way of general comment … If you have such massive power that you are concerned you can’t turn it down far enough … you probably need to reconsider your choices a bit.
Most higher quality speakers will make your ears bleed on about 120 watts of amplification.
If you have a consumer electronics power amp with a max input voltage of 0,775V and you have a pre-amp capable of driving a 2V Pro-Audio amp with 100% head room (4V output) and the volume resolution is 1dB, do you then have a little over 2dB steps or nearly 5dB steps in your attenuator for that particular combination?
Also when Paul says their input sensitivity is around 1.8V, does he then mean peak value since the standard for professional input sensitivity is 1,227V RMS?
Yep … and 0.448 rms for consumer gear.
While sensitivity is a consideration, the matching issue most people seem to overlook is impedance matching. I see audiophiles who try to drive a solid state power amp with a relatively low input impedance over long cables with a tube preamp that has a fairly high output impedance, then wonder whey they are getting dull lifeless sound.
I’ve never considered that. Which numbers are considered low/high in amp input impedance and preamp output impedance?
It’s really more about the ratio, than the specific numbers. It also depends somewhat on the length and type of cable connecting them. Typically with a unbalanced signal, you want the input impedance of the amp to be at least 10X the output impedance of the preamp.
If you have a consumer electronics power amp with a max input voltage of 0,775V and you have a pre-amp capable of driving a 2V Pro-Audio amp with 100% head room (4V output) and the volume resolution is 1dB, do you then have a little over 2dB steps or nearly 5dB steps in your attenuator for that particular combination?
My preamp is 10db gain and power amp is 26db. Speakers are 90db/w. And its too much, specially if DAC output is above 2V, there are many that have 3V and they all say “its standard gain, should work fine”. I have to attenuate in Roon and HQPlayer. Tried RCA attenuators but they screwed up the sound.
May power amp manufacturers don’t even specify input sensitivity.
And pre/power amp gain are mostly in that range – don’t know how manufacturers expect us to match the components with such a high gain! Specially PS Audio stuff, 30db is ludicrous!
Reasonable voltage output on the pre-amp (2-4 volts) and low output impedance (100-200 ohms). Decent “gain” on the Power Amplifier (ie, how much voltage required for full output, typically around 1 volt rms.) and high input impedance (> 10k ohms). Just about ALL pre-amps and power amps built in the last 10 years will work well together if the connectors match. The only confusing part may be RMS vs. Peak voltage. Most pre-amps are specified in RMS voltage output, but not ALL Power Amps. There are NO reporting standards, but most reliable vendors use RMS for voltage and “continuous average” for Power Amp power output. Class-D Amp specs can be especially misleading, due to their peak-to-average power differences.
Long interconnects cable 4 m on the input ? or 4 m cable on the pre amp output.? And short on the input
I don’t know, but I would prefer to keep my CD player and record player, whatever source components, near my preamp (in the same rack), and with short cables, and let the preamp to amp cables be longer because my amp lives on the floor, well, on a stand on the floor. In my case the difference is 1 meter as opposed to 2, so it likely doesn’t matter for me.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Shielding is an essential part of a proper RCA audio cable. It is true that shielded cable has higher total cable capacitance than otherwise similar unshielded cable, but that’s the price you have to pay for the noise free sound. The cable capacitance can affect the sound going through the cable.
https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2010/03/19/unshielded-rca-cable-is-bad-design/
Tomi Engdahl says:
MEASUREMENTS: Analogue RCA Interconnects.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/05/measurements-analogue-rca-interconnects.html
Summary:
1. Analogue ain’t digital! Although in most ways the measurements are very similar (these are short lengths of interconnects after all), mild differences can be found.
2. Frequency response unchanged among the cables. Interesting. Some people talk about analogue cables as “tone control”. I don’t see it using these interconnects even with longer length (there is a hint of high frequency roll-off with the 16′ cable but really this is trivial) or different conductor material. Using silver interconnects, there are no changes in the frequency response to suggest these cables sound “brighter” as some contend :-).
3. Interesting Stereo Crosstalk performance. Stereo crosstalk looks to be sensitive to cable length. The silver cable had the least crosstalk up to 5kHz and then increased from there – this is possibly a function of the fact that it’s constructed as 2 separate cables as pictured above rather than the zip-cord arrangement of the other cables.
4. Measures like THD should not (and in fact does not) show a difference. After all, cables are passive “components” so should not introduce harmonics into the equation. As for noise floor, I suspect if I were to test under conditions with strong RF noise the poorly shielded cables would perform worse (may try this later), but in the home environment where I tested, obviously this was not a problem even in reasonably close proximity to the laptop, DAC, and E-MU ADC.
There you go. Analogue interconnects do make a slight difference and this is quite measurable particularly in terms of stereo crosstalk performance. Remember that these interconnects are of relatively short lengths so minor differences are really not surprising. The obvious question is – would humans be able to differentiate these interconnect cables based on listening tests? I honestly doubt it. Subjective listening using my test setup did not reveal any noticeable change with the long cable vs. the short silver cable. Realize that even with the long 16′ cable, stereo crosstalk was still below -75dB which should be inaudible – for comparison, high-end LP cartridges are only capable of 30-40dB crosstalk performance.
https://www.stereonet.com/forums/topic/104285-shielded-vs-unshielded-and/
There is no (sane) reason to choose unshielded interconnect cables.
My thoughts as well. I was looking at the Aurealis website and he has more unshielded options than he does shielded ones. I thought maybe I was missing something and people had preferences for unshielded in particular circumstances
There is no (sane) reason to choose unshielded interconnect cables.
And no sane reason to discount unshielded, unless you have interference issues.
If you are going from turntable then they will need to be shielded.
Turntable to Phono amp needs to be shielded. Turntable to SUT needs to be shielded. SUT to phono amp needs to be shielded. Apart from that shielding is not essential unless you live in a high interference environment or run a snakes nest of cables as Muon said. Shielding will raise capacitance and when poorly implemented will dull your top end. My advice would be to try both and reach your own conclusion. There is no fundamental reason to choose a shielded cable when you don’t really need it. Most likely in situations where shielding isn’t essential you will get a better result with an unshielded cable. There really is no fundamental law about this.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audio Hygiene 1: power cables
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lHPjcXhK4c
Why do audiophiles think that the last meter of high quality power cable does make a difference in sound while it is preceded by perhaps hundreds of meters cheap cable in the grid? This question is often asked with an undertone of skepticism. Time for some clarification.
Viewer comments:
“If you’re like me you have to take turns at the luxury budget committee.” I think that’s the best line I have ever heard from an audiophile
and yes, that describes me as well. Thank you Hans! Very methodical look at how power cables can really make a difference to your sound.
Hand, just found your channel and am thrilled with your fact-based, practical, no nonsense analysis of all things audio. Great job and thank you! Now, back to binge watching.
Thank you Hans. The internal topology of the equipment also plays a role. If the circuit is fulle balanced throughout then the radiated noise plays a much lower part in contaminating the final signal.
Before watching this video, I was a firm believer that upgrading power cables or interconnects was pure voodoo. This is the first explanation I have ever heard that makes sense. Although I have not had a chance yet to compare, I now believe that it can make a difference. Great channel Hans! You clearly explain things I don’t see elsewhere.
Thank you for making this video. I appreciate your explanation of some of the reasons why improved power cables make a difference.
I’ve been skeptical of power cable upgrades for a long time, but this winter I gave it a try. I started by borrowing a cable and using it with my Krell integrated amp. The change in my system was profound. I left the test cable in place and waited for my wife to notice without saying anything to her. She picked up an improvement immediately. Since then I’ve replaced the power cable on my CD player as well. The combined improvement is clear and I’m really happy with the results.
What about adding Ferrite chokes to the power cables that cannot be detached? I understand that the size and configuration of the choke determines which frequency it will absorb. In the past, I have used large chokes that were obtained from network routers. My understanding was to place them within 2 inches from where the cable enters device and to place one within two inches from where the plug attaches to the electric socket. Is there any good in doing this?
Most reasonable explanation I’ve heard for why quality power cables make a sonic difference. And now I’m off to prepare my pitch for the LBC (luxury budget committee).
I would recommend you to be careful when dealing with 230 volts.
Hans is being very wise by not helping you fiddle with 230 volt power cables. Even if he knew the answer (and I’m sure he does, as do I), he shouldn’t answer the question. I suggest you research “electromagnetic shielding basics”. You’ll get your answer pretty quick.
Han is definitely right on power cables placement at close proximity to signal cable is undesirable.
Thanks you.
So how come unshielded cables are considered much better by many – (apart from digital) i.e. interconnects, mains and speaker?
Hans, your clarification makes perfectly sense!
I have made DIY twisted and shielded power cables for all my audio components. BUT I have learned that when connecting the ground shield of the cable, it should only be connected to the wall outlet side and left open at the component side. I don’t know why it should be like this but that’s the way I have made my power cables. So have i got it wrong or should the cable shield be connected at both sockets?
It all depends a bit on the local grid but often connecting the shield on the grid side is a very good solution provided you use a 3 core cable and you do connect phase, nul and ground. Although some equipment doesn’t use the ground pin in the IEC power input. Please make sure you do keep within your local regulations. I can’t accept any responsibility for your actions (legal disclaimer)
Yes, twisted and shielded power cables make sense under two conditions: 1. Don’t ground the shield to the component. 2. Keep a distance of 1/4 to 1/2″ between the conductors and shielding, since shielding can constrict the sound (from PS Audio’s Paul McGowan).
Ulf Selmark For why you shouldn’t connect both ends of the shield to ground, read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_loop_(electricity)
Great video, I used to be a huge skeptic about aftermarket power cables. I was able to borrow a few from my local shop, and, to my great surprise, the sound quality differences were easily noticeable. My wife who is not an audiophile could rank the cables in a blind test easily.
There is no harm in trying them out, especially if there is a money back guarantee.
I was skeptical of power cords until I heard the difference.Makes the sound stage bigger and you can hear sounds behind you.But it wasn’t my system I heard it on. Want I want to know is how to make better power cords so I can replicate that improvement without spending a lot of money.
I completely agree with you, Hans. Some people don’t realize how this cables help your audio system. Most of the times, we have audio systems full of minor problems that bottle-neck any possible improvement in power. This is why I trust your opinion as an experienced audiophile. You clearly know how a proper audio setup sounds thus you can give real hints for improving an audio system.
Our local audio society had a Nordost rep do a demo of power cables, isolation feet and digital cables. The latter two I couldn’t tell if they made a difference, but no one at the meeting doughted the difference power cords made. He tested three models, priced from $200.00 to $6,000.00. It was quite an eye opener. By the way, the rep recommended that the preamp be the first device to be upgraded, followed by the power amps. Hearing is believing.
Excuse me… since one of my main sources is the desktop computer, should I replace also the power cord of the computer? or upgrading those of the Amp and of the DAC is enough?
Thanks
That depends on the situation. If the desktop is close to the [audio leads of your] stereo, then it might be useful. If Noot, I wouldn’t bother.
well done I first put my mains on a dedicated feed from my electrical box to the outlets for my audio system useing the best basic wire I could afford . this feeds hospital grade outlets. a high quality connection cable to a voltage conditioning device with surge protector and voltage stabilizing from there good quality Mains cable this does make a difference the first time I did this it sounded as if someone had pulled the blanket all of the speakers I started with the amplifier first feeling that if the investment was not worth it I would not go any further. it is the old story garbage in garbage out.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Will powered speakers ever be equal to passives?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQMurX_ITns
Speaker designers would love to place perfectly matched power amplifiers and active crossovers in their designs yet there’s a problem with that, one that has always held them back.
Viewer comments:
Thank you, Paul! This is, by far, the most insightful, no BS monologue you’ve ever done! I’m an audio engineer who has also been in home audio for almost 50 years. I’m so tired of all the crap from subjectivist audio people who think they have “golden ears” and don’t care or no nothing about accurate reproduction of music. Besides yourself, I always appreciated the thinking and engineering of the late Sigfried Linkwitz. He knew accurate sound and knew the correct way to arrive at it. While I appreciate what it sounds like and that there are certainly people who can listen and hear genuine weaknesses and strengths in a system (John Eargle comes to mind) many are just introducing their own biases and/or personal preferences into the assessment. Why is there never ABX testing in high end audio salons? Where are the measurments for the way overpriced speakers that are supposed to be the best? If you can charge thousands for a speaker then you can provide honest, accurate, correctly made measurements of your products do I person has a starting point on which to judge that model compared to others. THEN you can listen and compare.
With that in mind, biamping, triamping, et. al. with specific eq as determined by measurement and listening is always a superior way to design/build a speaker. It doesn’t matter whether the signal processing is done in analog or DSP; although there are many more choices when using DSP it’s the best way to go for sure.
You hinted at one of the biggest impediments to powered speakers: the tweakaphiles can’t change the power amp(s) every week because of some imaginary compromise in the reproduction that didn’t seem to exist when they originally bought the amp(s) a couple of months ago but, does now (Audiogon anyone?).
It’s been written that high end audio is on the wane. Only us old guys are still interested in really good sound reproduction. I contend that young people see through all the subjectivist nonsense and don’t wish to burn their limited money on over-priced, state-of-the-art-of-the-week equipment.
Keep up the good work and honesty.
Good points. Many companies can’t cater most of theirs stuff to middle and upperclass Audiophiles and survive. Options! People love options. Active setups provide options with a lot of fuss(receiver + amp + speakers). Many people are simply ordering stuff online, physically unseen, instead of going to stores and hearing this stuff on their own. Audio setups aren’t being pushed as much with TV anymore. A active soundbar and sub sits near every TV at Best buy basically and many of the sound rooms have been removed. I couldn’t even listen to Klipsch RP line speakers at this one best buy last week bc their tiny setup didnt have them, even at a BB with a Magnolia room. Their tiny setup was also not functioning properly bc the display controller had issues and only Klipsch techs can fix it. Ridiculous. With that said, it’s getting harder and harder to go out and hear the options that exist before you buy so with that, trusting the manufacturer to do it right with an active setup is likely trending up.
I’m an old guy with some experience in selling good audio equipment. Many times I’ve sold passive speakers where the buyer came back and said they didn’t sound the same at home. I believe powered speakers eliminate at least half the reasons that could happen. I think you are doing a vast portion of the market a big favor by eliminating the poor amp/setup in a passive system with good powered speakers. There are a lot of good ones to choose from.
Powered speakers can be great but as an older audiophile I have seen countless powered subs and speakers have their amps fail and need to be replaced and sometimes the company is no longer in business. I used to make a living as a young man replacing plate amps for people who had theirs burn out!
Paul, lots of manufacturers are doing fantastic, powered home speakers, ATC, PMC, Dynaudio and KEF to name but a few. More and more are jumping on the bandwagon. Recently heard some Kii three fully active speakers and was blown away.
No loudspeaker is going to have absolutely perfectly uniform response throughout its useful range. An amplifier which is designed to work with one particular speaker can be tailored to compensate for any non-uniformity in the speaker design. Speaker designs that would sound dreadful without compensation can often be made to sound decent if compensated properly, though a $2 speaker isn’t apt to sound great no matter what kind of electronics one attaches to it. I wonder if the poor reputation of powered speakers stems from the fact that many of them don’t start with the best quality speaker elements?
Also, another advantage of powered speakers you didn’t mention is that self-powered speakers can be made much more resistant to damage than passive ones. A stereo receiver will have no way of knowing how much power connected speakers will be able to tolerate; as a consequence, it will have no way of clamping outputs to a safe level unless it’s too anemic to drive speakers hard enough to cause damage. By contrast, an amplifier that’s designed for use with a particular speaker assembly can be constructed to detect when any components of an input signal would be dangerously powerful, and reduce the volume of such signals to prevent damage.
How much power can you deliver with a built in amp? I think you need really sensitive drivers that won’t clip with built in amplifiers. I also think that until a company like PS audio is dedicated to selling amp plate modules to even competitor manufactures of speakers this idea will not gain traction. Nothing like spending $5 grand on a pair of powered speakers and have one of the amps go out and the manufacturer is no longer around. With a passive system you can just go out and buy a new amp. Kind of reminds me of high end surround sound receivers that cost $2000 and three years later they’re worth $500 even though they have a high quality built in amp. People don’t like to have technological obsolesce kicking them in the financial arse.
George Zubeck According to Meridian you need half the amp power with their active speakers.
Active crossovers, DSP, speaker correction and so on and all the benefits it comes with will exceed passive systems. One important one for me is DSP controlled speakers play as good, with same sound characteristics on lower, medium and even higher volume.
Tomi Engdahl says:
What is better: FLAC or DSD?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NREJTmt180
Again a popular question amongst my viewers: what is better, high-res PCM or DSD. Well, that depends…
Tomi Engdahl says:
What you should know about audiophile hearing, part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkgRzLygNrU&t=0s
Our auditory system – our ‘hearing’ – was supplied to you at birth as many digital products are delivered today: limited, waiting for the firmware update. And after the first update, often many will follow over time. The difference is that our auditory system updates itself. It’s a process known as learning…
00:00 – Intro
00:29 – Start of program
02:10 – How I learned
05:07 – Spatial imaging
07:54 – Ear candy
09:29 – Comparing equipment
10:27 – Control your mindset
11:29 – The unreliable brain
What you should know about audiophile hearing part 2: comparing equipment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD_fwH-2OXk
In part two: How can we compare high end equipment reliably
Contents of this video
00:00 – Intro
00:30 – Start of program
02:38 – The criteria
04:57 – The levels
07:30 – The leveling
10:49 – Also don’t listen
11:40 – The wrap
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audio myths & dogmas #2: comparing audio sources
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqBYB6kEKec
Since publishing my first ‘Audio myths & Dogmas, October 2020, so many other myths & dogma’s passed my way, I had to make a part 2. So buckle up….
Contents of this video
00:00 – Intro
00:19 – Start of program
02:26 – What source sounds better?
05:17 – 384 kHz is the best?
08:20 – And MQA?
09:19 – CD versus streaming
12:25 – About. AES3
14:27 – The wrap
Tomi Engdahl says:
What makes a speaker sound musical?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqxuib91ZwM
Speakers are designed to reproduce music but not all are very good at it. What’s the difference between a musical and an a-musical loudspeaker?
Viewer comments:
Musicality is the point where the listener is happy to sit and listen, or stand and dance (whatever you prefer to do). The speakers can help because they all have their own sounds. Therefore speakers can be musical, but it’s always subjective to the individual. If the speakers kill the original music’s feel, then it can’t be musical, in my opinion. If you don’t like the term ‘musical’, you’re not wrong. You just have a different interpretation.
What a wonderful explanation of the dark arts of speaker building. My respect for Paul builds with every video in this series.
If the speaker sounds realistic (Voices, Strings and hats) i want nothing more.
For that i need a very well set up and treated room.
It’s the coherence, phase linearity (timing) and microdynamics (very light paper membrane).
Very enlightening video, because Paul knows and he learnt from the best. I got a very good memory of my first serious loudspeakers, Infinity Infinitesimal sub plus sats, oh yeah!
Paul does acknowledge that every maker has his recipe and that is true but unfortunately some loudspeakers are better at the trick of vanishing from the room leaving only the scenario. I recall having read somewhere that to make the entire hi-fi chain is not a wise move because every one else in the industry will treat you as a competitor.
A really interesting question; very hard to answer as a lot of it is down to subjectivity.
A large part of the answer is: A speaker that is revealing while connecting you emotionally to the music and …….your ears.
Everybody has different taste in speakers just as they do in music. Speakers sound different to each of us. I think as long as best guidelines are adhered to in design and build and a concern of balance and timing and tuning are maintained you will have a musical speaker. If you just slap together some drivers, a crossover and a cabinet then it is guaranteed that it will never be musical.There is no such thing as “the perfect speaker”, no such thing as a completely non-colored speaker. Some speakers get close to being almost completely neutral and some have a slightly more pronounced tuning. At the end of the day, it is our tastes that determine if a speaker sounds musical or not.
Good question.
In his book “Get better sound” Jim Smith suggests a slightly elevated response from 192 to 384hz acchieved in room by speaker position, a component or cable…
All speakers need to be at least 1metre away from the wall. Also , there are great speakers out there and ATC have the best top end in the business.
Paul is saying the : “Trick” in loudspeaker design is reduce 500Hz to 2K and this makes them musical. No. Music is created in the studio on flat response reference monitors. If you want to hear the MUSIC as intended your system needs to be flat. By all means, purchase an expensive equaliser and introduce your 500-2k dip. Big shout @Gurra Tell : You are correct.
Really mixed bag today…
1. You cannot listen to speakers in a vacuum because they would make no sound
2. You don’t want frequencies that are standing out – sounds like Kef to me and yet you recommend them.
3. You don’t want speakers bereft of bottom end – sounds like Focal to me and yet you recommend them.
4. 86-87dB sensitivity for good bass I agree.
5. Gentle V curve I agree
But everyone’s ears has different frequency response profile and that needs to be taken into account too. So the best speakers are those that sounds best to your ears and yours alone. One pair of speakers might sound great to you but not necessarily for the person next to you.
Music makes speakers sound musical, nothing else.
Frequency response is only a part of the puzzle. Yes it is probably the most important factor determining how a speaker will sound but it is certainly not the only one. If it were we could simply always pick the cheapest speaker with the frequency response graph that we desire and be done. We all know it is not that simple.
Judging from the comments we many have different definitions of what bass slam is. It is not how much bass, not about SPL, but the rapid attack and rapid decay of the sound. I have heard car stereos with enough bass to move your hair and rattle your eyballs in their sockets that had poor attack and decay of the impact of the transients, hence, no slam
There are two types of speaker really… ones that are used for reference (as in our studio monitors) and ones for entertainment…The reference monitors , by definition, ought to be as flat as possible but the others which are used for home entertainment or PA work can be tinkered with in all sorts of ways in order to give purchasers some interesting range of choice to wade through …
By the way that mic setup as seen in Paul’s video would only be used for impulse or gated measurements and would not go down to low frequencies…. the better way to measure the entire frequency range and not use gating is the well known ‘ground plane ‘ method. You turn the speaker enclosure upside down and tilt the top slightly forward and lay it on a large open area ( like a parking lot or the flat roof) and then you place the microphone 1 metre away from the speaker and on axis. This method provides extremely accurate results ( as long as there are no extraneous noises !!) Best do it on a Sunday in PS car park
First thing to understand is we all hear differently so it was my job as a audio specialist to help my clients discover the speakers and electronics that create that desired sound in their own homes or listening rooms. Personally I think there are many great sounding speakers the challenge is to have the opportunity to hear the speakers properly setup and complemented with the right equipment. The equipment plays a major role both in how the complement the overall sound, so that must be taken into consideration. As to your main question specifications and measurements are only a tool to help guide designers in the right direction. You cannot use measurements as a determination of sound quality and musicality. You can measure a number of great sounding speakers and they would have vast differences in measurements. Most good designers use tools and measurements to get them in the ballpark and then final results will be done by ear.
Not that true. A senior citizen hears less bass than a college kid, and experienced listeners like less bass and treble than non-experienced listeners; but the differences aren’t huge, and things we all agree on are things such as low distortion, constant directivity, fast and even decay, etc.
In spite of what audiophilia has condemned from the past, the Japanese/Cerwin Vega etc., had this figured out decades ago. At least with anything beyond audiophile grade recordings. The mass market offerings had some negative quality effects from obvious budget constraints, but distortion levels were just low enough, and they greatly buffered this with headroom and displacement. A mainstream, 100w system in most residential settings, was nearly twice as loud as what most listeners could even stand for any length of time, and right where most systems/speakers were still well below obvious, audible distortions. Still, the music actually sounded good and when referenced against live music and live studio work. Especially in the case of electrified music.
Home theater, surround sound and movie effects, has greatly muddied this idea of music quality. High end speaker manufacturers for theater products, with the exorbitant prices they charge, have to convince the listeners that these expensive speakers can “do it all” and essentially hand off the faults to the recording industry, which is just true enough. Meanwhile, many video/music heads who live around at least the 50/50 range with music and movies, will have a separate 2 channel system for music.
I can’t understand what a flat response has to do with the interaction with the room . All monopole speakers (and dipoles to a lesser extent), regardless of their on-axis response ,interact with the room through standing waves . On axis response is only a part of the acoustic energy your ear experiences , indirect sound makes a big contribution and is far from flat in almost all (except for a small minority of constant directivity speakers )classic monopole box design speakers . Indirect sound from 2 different speakers with both flat on-axis response can differ very wildly and they will sound different. The importance of on-axis response (flat or not) is immensely over rated . The polar resonse (from all directions , not only on axis) is what counts in my experience ,with constant directivity preferred. You cannot characterize (or demonize because it’s flat) a speaker’s sound based on it’s on-axis response only. What is also left out of this discussion is the optimal proportion of direct sound to indirect sound which also contributes greatly to a speaker’s sonic signature beyond the on-axis response ,flat or not. Therefore I sincerely doubt the existence of a certain optimal non-flat on axis response that makes every speaker , by pure magic , sound musical , regardless of polar response , direct to indirect sound proportion , and the sensitivities of an individual’s ear to the acoustic spectrum of frequencies . That makes no logical sense to me , nor does it have any scientific ground
Hey Paul, good afternoon. So, what do you lose choosing High Efficient Speakers? What is the trade off of it? You always mention the threshold of 90 dB between High and Low Sensitivity but your Sprout Bookshelf is 87 dB. I got a pair of KEF LS50 that is 85 dB and I understand that the sensitivity is low in order to have more dynamic and deep low frequency once it’s a Bookshelf Speaker, is that right? I have a vaccum valve amp. of 40 W per channel and I have no problem with power at all for a small/medium room, in fact, the volume knob is always before halfway. High Efficient Speaker makes sense only in full range speakers? I got confused here… Thanks!
High Efficiency • High SPL • High Impedance
Pick 2
So why not have flat response speakers and power amp and give me a full graphic EQ on the preamp to let me decide myself how to make it suit my ears?
This seems equivalent to having your speaker designer permanently preset your EQ versus the old days where you had a nice multi band EQ and you could tweak the frequency response to your liking at will. Seems like the old way was better.
It’s like color accuracy on a screen. “Natural” 6500k white looks “Warm” to me. “Cool” 6800k looks “pure” and doesn’t start getting “Cold” to my eyes until almost 7300k. I also don’t mind a bit of Over-saturation to make the image “pop,” over a more “flat” reproduction of the color-space, a screen calibrated to a significant fraction of the Rec.2020 standard looks “dead” to me. It’s the same with a frequency response. Your ear is not a microphone. It doesn’t “hear” sound “flat.” It is more and less sensitive in certain frequency bands, and based on your lifetime of neural training, it psycho-acoustically amplifies and attenuates what it things are more and less important to listen to. My eyes boost red and attenuate blue, so I need things “bluer” to look normal. My ears amplify mid-range and attenuate treble, so I need speakers that dip in the center and boost lower and upper ranges to sound “normal.”
Kind of drifting away from audio, but visual color perception is highly dependent on background illumination accustomization. I have seen a slideshow of the same scene with a red bias grading to a blue bias. All looked normal until you compared the ends of the series. There are also gender biases in color rendition (males tend to prefer the higher color temperatures.) Age is also a factor as younger folks tend to pick higher color temperatures as well. As with all biometric traits, there is quite a large dispersion of values so these are statistical descriptions, not iron clad predictions.
Ears work the same way, of course. One person’s brilliant is the next person’s harsh.
‘Flat speakers sound shite…’ Amps set to ‘Flat’ make any speaker sound shite… That’s why tones controls are a must! Compensate for rooms.. position.. recordings.. Basically what DSP does.. E.Q!!
When I purchased my speakers 20 years ago. The amp tone and loudness set flat. Speakers approx 1 foot from wall(bookshelf speakers).listened to each speaker with same amp(side by side comparison).and I brought my own familiar cds. Bought paradigm mini monitor
still listening with the amp tones set flat(I feel its cheating)if speakers dont sound good.move them/change song/or just get rid of them..the numbers just made it more confusing to buy.if a speaker too dull remove the grill.
These speakers go to 57hz.i get the sub to pick up from 65 to 75.
I would be happy with an amp with no tone controls.
I want to test listen these .elac ub5 .heard a lot of good reviews.
Not to forget,one’s ears ,our hearing curve of sensitivity , is important,we are all different,and that is what i,in some cases, need to establish first; only then can i equalize things,amps and speakers,and that is why opinions vary.I am a high end amplifier repairer and installer and i try to establish that first,sometimes with the couple; and that is the easiest part of the whole process,it all goes from there; of course age plays a tremendous part in the whole process, (as does the physical size of the person),but even people in their 30s and 40s have different sensitivity to the frequencies.
I say everything is mostly about the speaker. You can buy amps on specs. Speakers are completely subjective to me. I believe that a system should be built around the speakers and the room that they are going to be in. From a guy who was big in audio when dinosaurs roamed the earth – me.
Just buy components that sound good to you and be done with it . A lot of these manufacturers want you to scrap your system at a loss to sell you shiny new trinkets that are marginally better and 3x costlier than what you already have . Get off the merry go round . Buy new music instead .
I have often suspected that a lot of this is in our heads. Are we really trying to recreate the original sound field? Or do we think of the stereo system and a musical instrument in its own right? I suspect it is the latter. Hence if you were buying say a violin – you would not ask it to have an even response at all frequencies. Instead you would perhaps prefer one that was ‘bright’ or perhaps ‘mellow’. Perhaps it is the same with speakers.
If that is true, amplifiers will be the same. Regardless of their tech specs, we will find ourselves with a subjective preference. Accepting this makes it impossible to choose equipment based on paper specs.
just a thought: is it not better to make a speaker with least amount of crossover components and use dsp to correct for the room at the end user with their own ears?
DSP has limitations:
1) You can’t fix large dips as that needs a lot of wattage and likely more than you have and more than the speaker can handle.
2) Fixing any dips require pushing more wattage, which also means increasing distortion, so you have to measure that as well and see how much you can correct without distorting.
3) Fixing high-Q dips or peaks in the treble causes ringing.
A speaker is a speaker is a speaker. Like pizza, but when you have the same source and amp and you switch from speaker to speaker and get so many different sounds, that’s so fascinating
Tomi Engdahl says:
Stereo – Let’s talk about high end power cable for Stereo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAh1p17cSXo
For $3K, the difference should be so obvious that it knocks you out of your chair.
If I paid 3k for a power cord, I most definitely will chant myself to think there’s a 3k improvement. With that said, I DIY my own power cord with quality parts. It’s jewelry and I know I’m getting what I paid for. This way, I sleep better at night. Thank you for another honest and positive video.
“If I spent $3K, I want to be able hear the obvious improvement” — I agree 100%, I’d better hear something clear right away. $3K is a lot of money and not worth it if I have to listen carefully to hear the difference. It is a great video! When I bought my amplifier, I did the same. The dealer did a comparison between the amplifier that I was planning to buy and the better one (same brand) which cost 2 times than the one that I was going to buy. I could not even hear any difference. I was pretty good in constraining myself from spending money on unnecessary thing.
Acoustic treatment is the only measure which makes a huge differents in sound quality. The rest is the top 1 percent.
A good speaker implied.
Tomi Engdahl says:
How to assemble a LoRad cord set with basic tools
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oeUmZKtW0s
How to assemble a LoRad cord set with basic tools. A step by step tutorial.
Supra Cables made in Sweden. http://www.supracables.se
Tackar så mycket.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audio hygiene 2 Power plug polarity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV-ItoWRpQw
In part 2 we remain busy with the power cord. It appears that reversing the power plug can lead to better sound. If all else is done properly too, of course. (English and Dutch subtitles – Nederlands ondertiteld)
Tomi Engdahl says:
Improving digital audio signals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N66aDb7LZaM
Digital audio signals are only zero’s and one’s and can’t go wrong now, can they? Well they can, big time…. Well, in digital signals it’s more ‘small time’, leading to big analogue degradation. So what can we do to improve the digital signal?
Connecting your DAC #2: how digital can go wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grzoqEb2KMk
How come some digital connections sound better then others. It’s only ones and zeros, it either work or it doesn’t according to some……
Tomi Engdahl says:
Connecting your DAC #2: how digital can go wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grzoqEb2KMk
How come some digital connections sound better then others. It’s only ones and zeros, it either work or it doesn’t according to some……
Connecting your DAC #2: how digital can go wrong
http://thehbproject.com/en/articles/41/0/Connecting-your-DAC-#2:-how-digital-can-go-wrong
Against popular believe the sound quality of a failing digital connection first starts degrading before the connection generate glitches or stops working all together. Whether the degradation is audible depends on the quality of the equipment used and to a certain extend to the listener’s qualities. But how can a signal that only carries ones and zeros go just a bit wrong, pun intended. To explain this, I will take the AES-3 family data stream as an example, but about the same applies to any other digital audio connection.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Connecting your DAC #1: the interfaces
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWM8fOCCVW4
D/a-converters might have a variety of inputs. Most common are SPDIF and USB, but some come with AES/EBU or I²S. This video gives oversight on the interfaces used and their properties.
The written version:
http://thehbproject.com/en/articles/39/Connecting-your-DAC:-the-interfaces
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audio Hygiene part 0: what about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ9kYVMz51k
Not only the devil is in the detail, there you also find real audio refinement. Low level information holds the details that provide clues to the character of the instruments, the dimensions of the concert location, the place of the instruments within that location and so on. With personal hygiene you fight small things like bacteria, with audio hygiene you fight to keep the small things for they the details.
Tomi Engdahl says:
$4800 interconnect – Transparent reference XL vs siltech princess (Part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_3adPd-V-s
In this video, I will give my impression between 2 ~$5k cdn interconnect. I will be seperating the music clip to a second video incase of copyright issue.
Viewer comments:
As a semi-skeptical cable audio guy, I would love to get an opportunity to blind test between a $500 interconnect vs $5000 interconnect.
A $4800 cable with a built in passive filter… maybe? Because if its altering the signal audibly all by itself, that will make it a poor conductor.
Were any of these cables compared by putting one cable on one side of the system and comparing the sound of one side versus the other? It should be done with a mono signal and immediately switched between left and right as many times as needed to reveal any differences and their characteristics, or if no difference can be discerned. Of course this needs to be done properly in a double blind situation.
Serious Question – Why not balanced cables as the best possible reference? I assume you can’t get the ‘tweaked’ sound from them? In reference to the upcoming sound sample, the TR XL was the absolute clear winner in this setup BTW. It actually blew me away. The nuance of everything especially in the voices gave me goosebumps over your cellphone recording through Youtube. lol
Expensive tone controls. A few $ worth of capacitor, and/or inductor/resistor. The reason to bypass tone controls is because they degrade the sound. Why would anyone want a cable to work as tone controls to address other issues in the system? Keeping noise from entering (well shielded) and a good conductor wire makes for a “transparent” cable. Running the signal through any passive LCR filter is the opposite of transparent. If someone made the mistake of pairing a bright amp with very detailed speakers, then their system might not bite as much (with harsh highs) and such cables (tone controls to roll off the high frequencies) will likely make their system sound better. The only way to solve a problem is to get to the root. Cables that change the sound are doing a hack job at compensating for room or other problems in the system.
These cables are highly successful regarding the reason they were made, but won’t improve a hifi system at all.
Thomas, I’m a bit confused… MANY skeptics responding have been saying that “high end cables” making a difference IS PURE SNAKE OIL, and bogus!!..??? I mean, they sound so adamant that WIRES ARE WIRES!!
Thomas, surely you agree , don’t you?!!
Please, do the audio community a favor and DO set the record straight for your audience! Is there REALLY an audible difference in sound between cabling?? SAY IT AIN’T SO!
It’s hoaxes like these that give high-end audio a bad name.
$4800 interconnect – Transparent reference XL vs siltech princess (Part 2 -just music clip)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i3pIoAstN4
In this part 2 video, I played sound clip using 3 interconnects
Cables mentioned in this video are
Siltech Princess
Transparent Reference XL
Transparent musiclink
Please note these are played on a cheap pair of speakers and recorded with a Nikon D750 with onboard microphone.
Exasound E28 dac
Accuphase C222 premap
Mcintosh 2100 amp
Yter speaker cable.
Interconnect from Accuphase c222 to mcintosh amp is transparent super.
Monitor audio RS6 speakers
Tomi Engdahl says:
How to assemble a LoRad cord set with basic tools
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oeUmZKtW0s
How to assemble a LoRad cord set with basic tools. A step by step tutorial.
Supra Cables made in Sweden. http://www.supracables.se
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audiophile HiFi Stereo System for less than $500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcZ-QEubANM
This my review of NAD system paired with Google Chromecast and Schiit Modi 3 DAC coupled with a pair of Sony Sony SSCS5 3-Way Bookshelf Speakers.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Stellar Phono Circuit explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIj18dh60SY
PS Audio engineer Darren Myers shares the secrets of design in the new Stellar Phono Stage, a 700 part all discrete all FET design that’s never been attempted before. Extraordinary noise levels and remarkable sound quality is in store for vinyl lovers. Find out how it was done.
Tomi Engdahl says:
DIY Audio Home
“el escorpion”, a simple line stage in a cigar box
I need another line stage like I need another… well…
http://pmillett.com/el_escorpion.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.audioquest.com/streaming-computer-audio/usb-data-power-noise-filter/jitterbug-fmj
Many tens of thousands of music lovers are already enjoying better audio enabled by the original AudioQuest JitterBug USB Noise Filter—whether plugged into a car’s USB jack, or a laptop computer, or a USB “service-only” jack on an Ethernet Streamer, etc…
Employ one JitterBug in series between any computer, smartphone, NAS, streamer, or car audio system and a USB input. For an additional sonic improvement, use a second JitterBug in another unoccupied USB port—in parallel to the first—except with JitterBug FMJ’s front door closed.
A JitterBug in series with DragonFlys Black or Red always helps those wonderful creatures fly higher and faster. However, it’s best to experiment when putting a JitterBug in front of a DragonFly Cobalt—which itself employs some of JitterBug’s filtering, and so the two filters in series can help or hurt performance depending on specific equipment and context.
Regardless of which DragonFly or any other considerations, a 2nd JitterBug in parallel is always a delightful improvement as it pulls more RF Noise off the USB power bus—which is why and how a JitterBug makes just as big an improvement even when plugged into service-only or update-only USB ports on many devices.
Noise reduction and noise dissipation is AudioQuest!
https://alpha-audio.net/review/review-audioquest-jitterbug-fmj/3/
Pros
Works great
Easy installation
Affordable tweak
What does the JitterBug FMJ do?
JitterBug designer Gordon Rankin wrote me:
a) It realigns and removes noise from the D+/D- line, so the receiving side sees a much cleaner and more refined data stream.
b) It removes high-frequency noise from the VBUS/GND power supply. Any endpoint, be it a DAC or whatever, already has a low-frequency filter. Those are huge in size, and what really affects a DAC chip’s linearity is high-frequency noise — not low.
c) I put the JitterBug at the host side because I want all that EMI/RFI and other pollution that the computer is spitting out to stay there and not get to the endpoint.
The FMJ furthers (c) into making that work.
Differential noises on a data stream can cause error in reception of fans positive and negative pulses. Reducing or eliminating these by the JitterBug FMJ’s circuitry produces a cleaner differential signal, which in turn avoids catastrophic data-level events that looks like jitter to an analyzer.
The JitterBug FMJ worked well with most dongles in my testing. It added body/depth and rounded the top end off. The difference is obvious and skeptics should at least acknowledge that the device changes the sound.
The DragonFly Red shows great synergy with the JitterBug FMJ. Without it, the stage is much shallower and the top end is more aggressive. There is less note weight and the sound is leaner. Plugging the FMJ in adds body and depth, and it adds sweetness to the top end so that the sound is less bright. This also reduces the widescreen effect, which is very much outweighed by the benefits.
The JitterBug FMJ also works well with the Earstudio HUD 100, EarMen Eagle, Hidizs S9 Pro, Shanling UA2, and Apogee Groove – and the basic tenor remains the same: reducing brightness and adding body and refinement to the presentation. Without it, the presentation is shallower and edgier.
The FMJ did not do much to the shrillness of the Shanling UA1, which points to this device’s design issue: the glare may be unrelated to noise and may be caused by lack of the device’s digital filtering.
Why does JitterBug FMJ not work for you?
The JitterBug FMJ may not improve sound with a dac/amp with an independent power supply that introduces its own noise. A cleaned-up USB signal competes with the power-supply pollution – which may neutralize the gains.
There may be no benefit when additional interference is introduced from nearby electrical components.
Experiment for Yourself
The DragonFly Cobalt has some of JitterBug’s filtering technology built in. Until recently, AudioQuest had advised against using both together in series as it could have unpredictable results.
But some users find that JitterBug FMJ and Cobalt used in series creates an improvement in performance.
Concluding Remarks
JittterBug FMJ removes EMI, RFI, and switching noises – which helps maintain better low level detail because the DAC chip can reproduce information better. It does not remove audio bandwidth noise as that is better left to the DAC.
JitterBug FMJ is not the perfect solution but a handy and affordable one. It does not work black and white on the push of a button as it deals with issues adherent to the specific devices it is paired with.
It is also no miraculous sound enhancer as it does not add to the signal, it just helps minimizing its degradation.
As a net result, it improved sound quality in most of my applications to the point I don’t want to miss it. You can read co-blogger’s KopiOkaya’s take on the JitterBug FMJ here.
AudioQuest JitterBug FMJ Review – Quiet Riot?
https://www.audioreviews.org/audioquest-jitterbug-fmj-review-jk/
USB Noise
So what is behind the JitterBug idea? It is noise filtering. Goal is to preserve the signal (and therefore sound quality) along the lines.
Noise in computer’s VBUS and data line cause sound deterioration. Three kinds of noise exist, “Electromagentic Interference” (EMI), “Radio-Frequency Interference” (RFI), and switching noise which is usually high frequency (500Khz -> 2Ghz). They may contribute considerable pollution on the signal path and may increase jitter and packet errors. Running both lines through a single USB cable can cause additional interference and exacerbate the issue (so it is best to separate the two).
If the data line is not effectively shielded, nearby electrical components (e.g. switching power supplies, other fluctuating electrical/magnetic fields from computer circuitry) can contribute to EMI that might pollute the USB data.
AC noise is typically audible as added brightness to the music, glare that rides on the sound. The image lacks body and appears somewhat flat. This noise needs to be filtered out. Jitter causes distortion and packet errors that, in the worst case, may be audible as chopped up sound, like a tonearm jumping on the vinyl record.
Many dacs can be powered by the connected computer, but some also have a dedicated power input. This separation of power line and data line eliminates possible interference inside the USB cable now assigned to data flow only.
The remaining data noise is either little relevant and/or can be more easily filtered out, for example with an AudioQuest JitterBug FMJ or the iFi Nano iUSB3.0.
But, for the JitterBug FMJ to make an audible difference requires a “clean” power supply. A “dirty” power source would possibly mask the JitterBug’s positive effects on the data line.
If the dac is powered by the computer such as an AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt or Red, the JitterBug FMJ has to tackle both tasks, which is not optimal.
A similar situation arises when the DragonFly/JitterBug FMJ combination is connected to a phone. A phone has a lot more EMI as the components are cramped much tighter into a small enclosure compared to a computer. Turning the WiFi and phone functions off will already likely impro
iFi Nano iUSB3.0 – Clean The Stream Up
https://www.audioreviews.org/ifi-nano-iusb3-0-review-ap/
The first and simplest perplexity an IT enthusiast, or specialist, comes up with when confronted with the above situation is typically a variation of:
“Cmon… A bit is a bit! The PC just has to transfer a digital file to a digital device, via a digital interface. Don’t tell me you ‘hear’ deterioration in the process as there can’t obviously be – data will not deteriorate!”.
Of course it’s exactly like that. A bit is a bit, and the very same bits stored into (say) a FLAC file onto the PC’s hard disk will reach the externally connected USB DAC once sent over. No doubt. No error. Too bad that this is not the point.
Cables as trojan horses
DACs are devices supposed to take such digital data (FLAC or whatever files) and convert their contents “on the fly” (i.e., while still receiving them one little chunk at a time) into analog data (i.e. the music we all want to enjoy). So far so logic. The problem is that a few unobvious caveats apply.
First of all it’s important to understand that while EMI (Electro Magnetic Interference) and RFI (Radio Frequency Interference) investing, say, a laser printer while printing a Word page on paper is not going to significantly (or at all) change the quality of a 600 dpi printed text, DAC chips and the rest of the circuitry around them will greatly change their behaviour, and ultimately reproduce “different sounding music”, when subject to EM/RF (and other) perturbance.
And no, it’s not enough to protect (“shield”) the DAC against perturbances in the human audible frequency ranges (20-20.000 Herz give or take) because this is not “only” about preserving the DAC’s job result after it obtained it, rather it’s about making sure the DAC is not “disturbed” while it’s doing its job.
The bad news is in facts that DAC chips, and the electronics “around” them inside their box are sensible to frequencies up to a few Giga herz (!), sadly coming from a virtually infinite spectrum of possible origins.
Ideally, we would want:
a “side effect free” Power Transformer, to generate an as apriori-pure CC as possibile, and
shielded power transport cables to avoid “collecting noise on the go”.
Furthermore: the USB cable is another trojan horse for noise – and the more so if the same cable is used to carry both data and power into those DACs that do not have a separate input port for an independent power supply.
A PC 99.9% of the times has not been designed with audio-grade EMI/RFI prevention in mind, for the simple reason that it won’t be required by 99.9% of its uses. All sorts of “bad waves” (I’m again vulgarising here) do happen inside the PC, and do indeed propalate out via any connected electrical conductor – there surely included the USB cable, the same on which our “a bit is a bit is a bit” data is unawarely travelling.
What a mess. What can we do?
Well very simply put what I just tried to say until now tells us that first and foremost a “generic” IT system (a PC, a Laptop…) is for a number of reasons far from being an ideal choice as an “audio player” when audiophile-grade results are wanted.
To solve the problem there are three possible conceptual approaches
1. Adopt more “audio-adequate” systems as digital players, and/or
2. Adopt “higher tier” audio devices (DACs) equipped with appropriate “noise countering” circuitry, and/or
3. Adopt additional devices, stacked “in between” the digital player and the DAC to “correct issues” on the go
A super-simple example of type-1 approach is using a battery powered device as digital player: it will infacts apriori have less power-originating noise as it will not require a power transformer (although careful here: batteries are not totally noise-free either… but let’s not overcomplicate the story now).
Nano iUSB 3.0
Nano iUSB3.0 is an apparently unassuming silver “box” to be installed “along” the USB line, right in between the Digital Player (my Laptop, in my case) and the DAC.
As the name suggests, Nano iUSB3.0 support is limited to DACs getting their input data from a USB cable, and can’t be used on SPDIF inputs instead. It comes with its own power supply too. And, it serves 3 main purposes
1 – Nano iUSB3.0 provides clean(er) power
Let’s consider a DAC receiving both data and power from the USB cable. In such case I’ll connect the DAC to Nano iUSB3.0’s “Data+Power” output port. Nano iUSB3.0 injects the clean(er) power coming from its own clean(er) power supply in there, while at the same time cutting the link with the dirty(er) power coming from the host.
2 – Nano iUSB3.0 actively cancels (a lot of) incoming electrical noise
The concept is quite similar to Balanced analog lines: a second signal is generated identical to that of the incoming electrical noise, but in the opposite phase; the two signals are then “summed” together, which cancels the noise leaving the “good” part intact. iFi Audio calles the technology Active Noise Cancellation+(R).
According to better engineers than myself iFi’s approach is significantly better than cheaper “passive filtering” alternatives, which act on mid + hi freqency interference only. Active filtering acts on lower frequencies too.
According to iFi, this technology only inside Nano iUSB3.0 is responsible of reducing output noise floor by > 40dB (> 100x).
To give some indicative numbers, a standalone SMPS like iFi iPowerX has a declared DC noise floor of 1uV, same league as the direct competitor Allo Nirvana SMPS. Nano iUSB3.0’s DC output features 0,5uV noise floor instead.
3 – Nano iUSB3.0 “fixes” the USB data stream
Nano iUSB3.0 re-clocks, re-generates and re-balances the USB data signal. What does that mean?
As mentioned above, precise timing is a relevant factor when digital audio data (e.g. a FLAC song file) is streamed between a “host” (a PC) and a digital audio device “client” (our DAC), and sadly the host’s clock is not adequate to properly take care of this.
Nano iUSB3.0 reverses the Host/Client clock relation : it uses its own internal clock – Re-Clock(R) – to “pace” the stream incoming from the PC removing undesidered frequency variations (“jitter”) and other stuff.
Secondly: the presence of possible DC offsets between the two ends of an USB communication channel – e.g. due to ground loops, or to EMI – is another potential source of inconsistencies. Nano iUSB3.0 corrects – Re-Balance(R) – DC level differences at the two ends of the USB line to prevent these issues.
Nano iUSB3.0 rebuilds – Re-Generate(R) – the entire USB data stream from scratch, “cutting the rope” with inbound packet noise and providing the DAC with a “full-renewed”, correctly timed stream of digital data.
Last but not least: Nano iUSB3.0 does all this at USB3 speed (5 Gbps), which means it can process on-the-fly digital data streams up to the maximum resolutions currently supported by TOTL DACs.
Hell yeah !
I put Nano iUSB 3.0 up in between my laptop and two totally different level USB-powered “dongles”: Meizu HIFI DAC Pro and Apogee Groove.
The improvement when listening to the cheap Meizu HDP is nothing less than huge.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://alpha-audio.net/review/review-audioquest-jitterbug-fmj/3/
Serial or Parallel
We tested both serial and parallel throughout this test. That is, the usb cable to the Mutec (or dac) directly into the Audioquest Jitterbug, or the Jitterbug installed in the port next to it.
Serial is a bit more effective. This is not surprising, as it is then directly in the signal path and will filter the most. In parallel, the Jitterbug FMJ also filters and will also lower the noise floor, but relatively less than serial.
Please note that if you test parallel, you should check whether the other port is connected to the same USB controller. You can check this via the Device Manager.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Recordings vs playback equipment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1aurxWDAs8
What’s more important when it comes to great sound reproduction in the home? A great recording or a great playback system?
“If the source is wrong, everything else will be wrong”!
Viewer comments:
Great artists playing great music recorded on great studio gear mastered with a great producer and played on a great home system in a well optimized great sounding room is unfortunately a very rare combination.
Paul touched on it … The biggest source of dissatisfaction in the audiophile world right now is not the in-home equipment … it is crappy recordings. Like our questioner my system is nothing flashy but boy does is ever rise to the occasion when I play some of my best recordings!
Spending $10,000 or more on a system just to listen to brick walled fruits of the loudness wars is a complete waste of $10,000. Those recordings were made to grab your attention in shopping malls and grocery stores… not for hi-fi playback. They are mixed and mastered to be the loudest thing on the list… not for sound quality.
In the digital realm, the best recordings will be recorded without heavy compression or limiting and will tweak the VU meters at about -8 or -10 db, using the extra space for spikes and fullness, not for increased loudness.
As I’ve pointed out before … there is a reason why most people’s musical tastes dried up around the mid 1990s … which is just about when the quality of recordings took a nose dive into the empty pool of commercialism.
Even more important than the recording is the music it self. What good is a fantastic recording with played on a great system but the music it self sucks. I prefer great music that sounds less than optimal over great sound but I do not like the music.
Now that we have great recording techniques and great playback gear, let’s attract some truly great artists to those “audiophile” labels — that’s the weak link right there: we need exceptional music to go with exceptional production in the studio and exceptional equipment (especially speakers!) at home.
Tomi Engdahl says:
This is what happens when someone is not educated in the physics of electronics and try to explain audio cable characteristics. What is MII? It’s called EMI. And RFI is also EMI. And air is a (weak) conductor. And overall, cables at a few feet of length won’t affect your audio quality at a level perceivable in a blind test unless it’s really bad quality.
Secrets of High-end Audio Cables: How to choose / make them budget-minded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91cCufCB9JQ
In this video we explore the main aspects of high quality audio cables, highlighting the best materials and brands in order to buy or create your own high-end audiophile cables without spending a fortune!
Viewer comments:
In my 35-year experience in this matter, I found that the best-sounding loudspeakers cables had to be similar or identical to those used for the internal cabling of the wired loudspeakers.
With absolutely no exception, the more ambitious cables used between the amplifier and the wired loudspeakers, induced a loss of overall consistency. They may have seemed more resolved in first listening comparisons, but the option to go with the simpler cable used inside the loudspeaker always brought the most musical results (and there are good reasons for that if you think about it, as two different types of cables will never feature the same properties in the time and frequency domains).
In the section ‘conductors’ , the wire you presented with an inscription that look like corean is not silver plated copper but copper plated with tin for protection from corrosion. Other than this little mistake, great video!
If sound quality was so dependent on some of these design features, then they would matter just as much inside the amp as outside… Yet no reputable manufacturer has ever used OFC or better grade copper on the PCB traces or wiring. They of course know not to waste a penny on it to keep their own production costs low!
EMF shielding and signal degradation are concerns, but the length of cable most people will use are so short that these aren’t typically issue and can be addressed with clever engineering solutions like balanced cables which you briefly mention. OFC actually has the same conductivity as common C11000 copper, and the highest standard specifies only a 1% increase in conductivity. So as I like to say, if you can’t measure it, you can’t hear it!
I’m sorry to say but I’m disappointed that rather than clear up or explain consumer misconceptions this video propagates them.
I’ve never had a shielded cable make a difference in any of my systems. Well except a subwoofer signal rca that had to run across a pile of power cords was picking up a tiny bit of hum. Easily fixed with a cheap Acoustic Research shielded cable.
Tomi Engdahl says:
My Top 5 Inexpensive Hifi Tweaks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtb88_hbCFQ
Do you want to squeeze that last bit of performance out of your hifi system? These are my top 5 inexpensive tweaks that will hopefully improve the way your system sounds.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Phase Linear gear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNQH9K3soes
Phase Linear was once a revered brand amongst audiophiles. Paul remembers them and their founder, Bob Carver.
Viewer comments:
Phase Linear was truly the “bomb” in its days. Nearly every disco in Denver I DJ’d back in the seventies employed them (other than one that used a Crown), and boy, could they deliver. Also didn’t know that Bob Carver founded the company. Great video and walk down memory lane! Thanks, Paul!
I sense some jealousy from Paul. Whenever Paul brings up Bob Carver he has to make fun of him. He will make fun of him and then superficially give him credit. Pure jealousy. Carver knows his stuff
Bob is a wonderful man! Absolutely brilliant.. The Phase Linear board of directors voted to sell Phase Linear to Pioneer Corp.. Bob left and started Carver Corp..
The transistors that Bob used for his Phase linear amplifiers were the new high-power transistors designed for the high voltages of auto electronic ignitions. Also the “flame linear” issue was partially but not totally solved early on with a modification . A company called White Oak Audio makes a new control board that totally solves the problem.
Damn, forgot about the “flame linear” thing, thanks for that set of memories!
Tomi Engdahl says:
Sonoma vs Pyramix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WPhHteYWz4
The best recordings are made in DSD and the two main systems for the recording and editing of DSD are the Sonoma and the Pyramix. What’s the difference between the two?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Do different speaker cables and interconnects make a difference?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrWQo9rBmiI
I am so getting flame for this. If you disagree, and I am sure there are millions of you out there and going to leave a comment, at least please make it intelligent instead of the usual ‘snake oil’ , ‘you idiot’ comments.
I do however believe that the mark up on speaker cables are ridiculous and it’s the most over priced item in the stereo world. I am not saying I agree with it and I am one who will never pay retail price for cables. I am however saying that cables do make a difference. The question of price is a question on speaker cable value and it’s a completely different debate.
Viewer comments:
I think the main point put forward here is great, whether you think cables make a difference, and whether you can hear the different, most of the conversation is about whether you should spend the money, or is the difference you hear worth the cost. If you don’t hear it, then no. If you hear it, then maybe. If it brings you joy and doesn’t cause you problems, then yes.
Well of course good cables make a difference to quality of sound. It’s all about getting the best signal right throughout your system. Synergy is very important here. The resistance of the cables, their ability to maintain the signal right through the chain of equipment all plays a huge part in delivering the most accurate sound. Especially if you spend thousands on the best equipment with the best electronics. Using low gauge, non shielded, high signal loss wires will affect the quality of the signal & hence the sound when it reaches the speakers. Having said that, there would be a sweet spot on price / performance. Well if you have more dollars than sense, go for it. Enjoy your investment.
I made my own cables with average quality wire and banana plugs. I watched and listened to Pink Floyd the wall blue ray. Parts of it brought tears to my eyes. It’s all about the enjoyment you get from your setup not how rich you are.
When I set up my system which cost about $10,000 I tried about 8 different analog interconnects. Absolutely there is a difference. Even my untrained ears could hear which ones belonged in the rubbish bin and which ones where of best quality. It was then a matter of deciding on which of the best cables suited my system. As for speaker cables I just used a good one that the specialist recommended and stayed with that. I think it was about $15 a metre.
Last year, I thought it was worth $10 to find out if cables could make my music system sound better. That first $10 interconnect worked, and cables have cost me about $400 since. Wish I had caught on years ago.
Recently I had to make some (in wall) speakercables longer by 1.5 meter (5 ft.) to reach a new rack-mount NAD amp. Accidently I used rather new CCA (copper cladded aluminium) cables for that … and uuuuuughhhhh…. just awfull. After replacing the 1.5 m with decent full copper speaker cable I could enjoy the crisp clean music again… However, optimising a system is a question of balance, taste and budget… This said, no one should be affraid of missing out… affordable good cables exist. If your system is crapp, switch it of, unless hou love crapp sound. Bit if one enjoys music, even from an entree-level hifi… my advice: don’t to for CCA, nut choose decent copper instead. If budget allows it… one could to further….
My experience is like this. Speaker cables: as decent full copper cables as possible was a major improvement €9,- per meter. Had an option for audioquest speaker cables but they actually had a negative effect for me. Some decent analog signal interconnects between the hardware made a difference. Any digital signal: (yes i’ve seen optical goldplated cables as claimed by the manufacturer), used several different brands from low to for me high range price (up to €75,- per cable) and didn’t hear any change. Went for build and feel quality for digital cables so not cheap but certainly not expensive. The biggest accidental improvement I ever had was when I bought a new sofa. Just saying.
Cables do have capacitance and inductance, so they can in theory change or color the sound, however playing with lenght and gauge is probably all that’s needed to get the sound you want.
Keven Harvey again sorry there is more to cable design and sound quality than that
After trying 4 different cables : Amazon basics, kabeldirekt, audioquest evergreen, a home made one with the best cable(OCC) best connector. I was convinced that cables matters.
After research i understood why every cable manufacturer lies. Specially those who sell 1k cables and above.
The reason I like to buy cables in the $50 to $200 range is because they are in general better made. The second reason is because they look cool. If you have spent thousands of dollars on your hifi system you really don’t mind spending a little on cables even if it’s just for looks or ease of mind. …and those who are buying the super exotic gear just buy the most expensive cable because $3000 does not matter to them, they’re rich!
Ok so you used some expensive cables and they sounded different. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, your ears and mind can trick you pretty easily. But in the end you heard what you heard for whatever reason. The question is, which cable was more accurate or better? You can only determine that through testing and measurements. It would seem reasonable to me that if you used a length of quality standard wire (as in it wasn’t damaged or connected poorly) and then used a different cable and could hear a difference then that cable added something or colored the sound. Thus probably not better. However, if you LIKE that sound, like the way they look and don’t mind spending the money more power to you. It is no different than using tube amps. That does not mean they are more accurate though. If that were the case you could test every high end cable on the market and they would all sound exactly the same. And you would be able to measure the difference.
There is a significance difference between cables…capacitance, resistivity and inductance.
Not that the differences matter, except with speaker cable and then it’s only resistance that really matters.
It’s nice to see at least many of you have tried and are convinced cables make a difference in the sound. most audiophiles have known this for many years. For those of you who can’t get past the technical aspects maybe think about it this way. of course we know there is technical and electrical parameters that play a factor, and yes you can even play with some of these parameters and hear differences in the sound higher capacitance to lower inductance or another combination but which one provides the best sound is impossible to determine. Just like audio gear you can’t look at specification and know what it’s going to sound like. Specifications are virtually meaningless in audio , you simply have to listen. Same goes for cables, you simply have to try different cables in each part of your system that provides the most detail and best sonic improvement in that part of the chain of your system. There is no best or perfect cables for every system only the best that sound right in your system.
I was sure it was snake oil I got into this before there was any debate and I was sure it was BS. So I used my cheap monster cables for years. I upgraded my power amp years latter and thought I want nice looking cables also so I went shopping and said dam to spendy so I decided to build a pair. I bought high end connectors all gold platted awesome covers and crimped with a really good crimper and bought mid priced I think 10 or 12 gage speaker wire from one of the do it your self places, And built my cables. They are beautiful. I plugged them in and fired up my system and wow it sounded like shit. I was sure I had them reversed or a short or something. Polarity was fine I got my meter out checked continuity no shorts all was well, played with them and tried to find fault nothing, they were built right. I rebuilt the monster cables with the new connects that I had used for years and they sounded great. “HERE IS THE RUB” The reason people don’t want to here this. I spent a lot of money on my system Amp, speakers, preamp,sorce etc I don’t want to spend a $1000 on fu@king cables and I don’t think others want to either. Now if you make a video on what to use to build my own really decent cables or a buyers guide range of prebuilt cables say from $150 to say $350 cables that is one video I would love to watch.
The intend of the video is really to encourage people to have an open mind about it. I always buy used so I end up paying $150 to $300 a pair and their mrsp price are usually $800 to $1k. I really don’t like spending on cables even though I believe in them because they give the least return for the money. It’s hard to tell people what cables to spend on as it all depends on system synergy.
Having said all that, a big thank you for sharing your experience and hopefully it will encourage others to have an open mind about it.
Building cables is a difficult and specialised thing; not for DIY.
You don’t built your own watch, now do you ?
I can tell the difference in power cords and power conditioners. Upgraded cables I didnt hear the difference, but still I enjoy the quality construction and looks of reasonably priced cables such as some of the Audio Quests, Cullen, and A Better Cable. So on occasion I will go up to a few hundred.
Cables are different. Whether Speaker Cable, RCA cables, USB cables and Mains Cables. I use Chord speaker cables and moved from Odyssey to Epic with Epic sounding much less smeared and flat and much more open and defined. It’s an obvious difference (Some don’t care!). With RCA cables I noticed a smaller difference moving upwards but none-the-less there is a difference. I use Naim Powerlines as main cables as I will tell you now, these cables change the sound from tinny and brittle to solid and deep with a more solid rhythmic bass line that you can follow. I also use Vertere USB cable. I have a single wire USB and moved to a double wire (separated power and data line) cable and this added clarity, focus and again removed a lot of smearing and vagueness. Overall better cables help me hear more definition and take away harshess as they become more refined. However spend money on your electronics first.
You have to listen. And you have to care. If neither you can’t really comment on whether they make a difference. It’s really whether you feel the difference is right and worth while.
The internet can be hateful and jealous place.
Power cables do make difference. But they only make difference when the power section of power amp is not designed good enough.
Usb and other digital cables do make difference according to different kinds of them. Some provides good shielding, some rejects some frequencies, some offer galvanic isolation. There are measurable difference in digital cables. And sometimes audible.
A collection of cables that sound different (That’s all of them, right?) means that PERHAPS one is getting it right. That may only be in a particular instance.
Pretty much it’s snake oil. It may benefit you to try getting better sound this way but it strikes me as an exercise for the extremely bored.
What can and does illustrate the power and difference of cables, is a revealing system. I.g. Performance tires shine on a performer car.
Good vid, I obviously agree cables can make a difference, well at least analog cables. Digital cables such as USB and toslink I’ve tested out and couldn’t hear one bit of difference at all but that’s just me.
I think that is the most important, if you tested it and see no difference then that’s it. You took the time to do it. Thanks for the comment.
With higher priced cable I like to believe that you are paying for better grade copper and better insulation, This in turn will send a better signal to the speaker and just like that pure magic your sound is improved. Voila.