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.
1,278 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Direct coupled amplifiers have a flatter frequency response than transformer coupled amps. I’ve worked transformer couples amps (tube and solid state), capacitor coupled amps and direct coupled. Transformer coupled amps cutoff the high of the audio spectrum (tend to have a warmer sound) and capacitor coupled amps cut off the lower end. And as far power amps are concerned I have never seen a high powered audio amp with an output transformer and I’ve worked on amps as powerful as 400 watts per channel.
Tomi Engdahl says:
If you can’t measure a difference it isn’t real. The transfer function doesn’t lie. These multi thousand dollar cables behave identically to much cheaper off the shelf cables. You could’ve made that much money on your mixes without spending so much on cables.
If you think I’m full of it consider this: they also charge thousands for “premium” digital cables. There is literally no reason for this. The 1s and 0s do not become 1ier or 0ier because you put a fancy piece of wire between them. They’re either there or they aren’t. It’s a pass/fail situation. And yet the page for this is full of the same snake oil claims saying it “frees digital sources to reveal harmonic and spatial details with more tonal richness and dynamics”. Nope. Just marketing fluff to sell expensive product.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The real question is when do people decide they can actually hear enough difference to justify spending $25k.
somewhere between stupidity and confirmation bias. I’m not absolutely certain of the exact point because I’m too poor.
“A fool and his money are easily parted.”
“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
— P. T. Barnum.
(If someone is going to cash in, why not you?)
Audiophiles are basically a group of people bragging about being robbed
This is what you tell yourself. “I could sell pianos and not know how to play them. Maybe I just don’t have the ears to hear these amazing cables, who am I to judge?” Then fleece those idiots for all they’re worth.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The speed of light in vacuum is 2.998 × 108 m/s, which is approximately equal to 1 ft/ns. In most coaxial cable and many twisted pair wires, the speed of an electrical signal is about 2/3 of this. This also applies to most untwisted “normal” speaker cables as well.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audiophile responses be like: For $1000 more, I would go for HE1000SE, cut a hole in the middle, remove the plastic layering for a more analytical lean. Should last well until V2 is released in a month.
Bro, I recorded it on a $20 used SM57 and free plugins. What are you trying to hear?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AudioEngineerShitPost/permalink/3613768085524450/
Tomi Engdahl says:
I think that there is a lot of wishful thinking that a power amp has a “big” say in sound quality. This would only be true if the speakers, their setup, room and source were optimal. Generally the pictures of listening spaces shown here show that huge improvements could be made without spending any money.
I do not think that class D is the “best” sound. It can however, be good if the rest of the system is properly chosen. You need speakers that do not have big swings in impedance and >4 ohms (better 8ohms) above let’s say 5 kHz.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DIYAudio/permalink/6801470429918745/
Tomi Engdahl says:
SMD in audio vs through hole
https://youtu.be/4ZUBda5oIUo?si=-VcER5n_vV6vZ0iq
https://youtu.be/iJazCWnAmkM?si=CpZEgH3GBAWo6tm4
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why capacitors sound different?
https://youtu.be/mCk50RTtrT0?si=uGNo-v3TaNdv682z
https://youtu.be/FQOWd-mObFQ?si=DD-w6q7ejPgM1E9W
Tomi Engdahl says:
I suspect that the conclusion that was made was not right. I suspect that some component type change when going to smaller size, and not the component size itself, was to blame. Maybe someone selected wrong type capacitor – for example many ceramic materials used in capacitors that pack lots of capacitance to tiny component are not suitable for high quality audio to go through them.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/497838033628570/permalink/6442990092446638/
I’m not going to make fun of this. Field coils are really cool. You can tune the q of the woofer to the application. Open baffle also does some pretty neat things. My suggestion to you is to get out of your shell and listen to some different things because you missed the mark on this one.
Cant people just use the Qts and other characteristics to match a set, build a box and crossover make it sound good, yeah its all rocket science but some people will sit there for 2 days and use mathematics to work out all the problems. just saying! Field coils are just a problem increaser ad ridiculum
There has been a resurgence of field coils in recent years. The old appeal to antiquity that’s been such a disease in audiophilia hitting its ultimate end, I suppose. The tweakers love them because they can adjust the strength of the magnet by adjusting the voltage and thus the Qes of the driver to “tune” the sound to what they feel like for that moment. Because, you know, why should anything in the audio system be remotely consistently accurate in playback?
So, you see field coils, various funky cone materials, kid leather surrounds even phenolic spiders (something abandoned in the ’30s because they were so ridiculously non-linear with even a modicum of excursion) and, yes, badly designed open baffles. (Good open baffles can be quite good, but you never see them used with field coils, but rather bad designs that were considered cheaply built even for the 1930s.)
The whizzer cones are not the least bit surprising. Fullrange driver enthusiasts are the least knowledgeable in the hobby of how speaker drivers actually work. They brag about how they’re “crossoverless” without understanding that they’ve only traded off predictable, reliable crossovers based on electrical components for the mechanical equivalents that are much more difficult to manufacture to any consistent degree and that will change over time as materials alternately harden and soften, even with changes in humidity. Plus, they get to “enjoy” cone breakup that would otherwise be addressed with a proper electrical crossover. Otherwise, the exact same formulae are at play, the same phase relations, everything. The full cone for low frequencies decoupling with breakup for the inner section to operate at higher frequencies until only the dust cap does treble or just the cone side of the triple joint when the whole cone goes into a mess of out of phase squishiness. A whizzer cone just adds one more “way” to that mechanical multiway with a single motor. Just…blech.
very well explained.
You don’t see so much nonsense in auto racing as your gear is constantly getting measured and tested.
If it doesn’t make your car demonstrably faster then nobody cares what you think. Anecdotal evidence is laughed at when tuning engines for max torque and horsepower.
I’ve never heard “I don’t care what the testing says. I can tell the engine is making hundreds more horsepower because I can feel it and so can my wife in the kitchen.”
Field coils are obsolete tech, just like tube amps. They are not the most efficient way to do thing, and are very coloured in all cases i know. They were invented from before they could make fixed magnets strong enough to drive a cone, and were largely obsolete when fixed magnet tech became mature (first wilth alnico magnets, later with ferriet and neodymium) and beat field coils with ease in power and reliablity. But it can be fun to play with. But paying 29K for such a thing, no way. And no, they are not the ultimate in hifi. A fixed magnet driver that is build right will sound much more neutral, and will be easier to make sound good. So field coils are a niche, and should stay a niche for people who wants them. And they should not cost that much, it’s very simple technology, not so hard to make.
Btw, i have tube amps, i know their limitations and strengths and I still love them. I also got very clean class D (Ncore) amps, and i love them also, in the right application. the latter is way more hifi in the sense of true to the source, but the former can sound very pleasant to the ears also, as good as clean neutral in the right setup.
I prefer reverse, tubes on top and class D on bass. And that is how i use my main system, with dsp to seperate the frequencies and eq the system to the room.
I don’t like tubes on bass actually, as they don’t controll the woofer good enough like a high damping factor class D amp can. I prefer the tubes on top as they add harmonic distortion (the so called “warmth”) that i like, that no class D (how clean they may be) can give.
I don’t mind dsp today as some (the ones i use) are so high resolution and clean that they are defacto unhearable (beyond the limits of our hearing). That is a recent archivement, but one i was waiting for since a long time (i’ve used professionally dsp’s since the late 90′s for high power systems, but not for hifi).
Measurements!? Don’t you know you’re supposed to “trust your ears”? It’s how anyone manages to sell garbage for five and six figures that performs worse than a cheap Best Buy setup.
I remember fing field coil loudspeakers in some old valve radios as a teeneager raiding jumble sales. my assumption then was that it was cheaper to use copper windings than to get what was probably a more expensive and exotic magnet material for a decent SPL.
It certainly was in the older days plus the field coil windings often served the dual purpose of a choke for the power supply in the radio itself. Plus, field coils didn’t demagnetize as readily from use as those older grades of alnico. (An issue that didn’t really go away until Ticonal-X/Alcomax became borderline cost effective in the early ’70s just in time for the cobalt crisis to end the reign of alnico.)
yeah this is it exactly; the oldest Leslie rotary speakers use a 15″ field coil jensen woofer that’s also part of the amp circuit. wasn’t feasible to make strong enough permanent magnets in the late 40s/50s. i think the alnico 15″ jensens sound nice too, but there’s a lot of bass response from the field coil ones. i just wish that hifi nerds hadn’t shot the prices up; makes it hard to find one for a Leslie that needs it
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/497838033628570/permalink/6855015131244130/
What do you get with “a culmination of two years’ relentless development and an unwavering commitment to acoustic perfection” to improve the sound of tubes? Gut the tube and stick solid state in there.
https://agdproduction.com/agd-gantube88kt-mkiii/
Got to love the heatsinks inside. I’m sure those will work very well. (How about that cosmetic getter?)
Tomi Engdahl says:
This is the very definition of snake-oil, convince gullible buyers that it is somehow a ‘tube’ amp by putting a MOSFET in a glass bottle. Bizarre.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.thomann.de/blog/en/a-guide-through-the-jungle-audio-cables/
Tomi Engdahl says:
What is Transient Response in Audio?
https://thegreatestsong.com/what-is-transient-response/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_(acoustics)
https://majormixing.com/what-are-transients/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nickel is another popular magnetic metal with ferromagnetic properties.
https://youtu.be/_c69twCBxxU?si=kPCFcjrO_2WcUd-U
Tomi Engdahl says:
“I’ve never stopped listening to vinyl. I was very disappointed when the CDs came out because I didn’t like the way they sounded. So much was lost with CDs, and then MP3s, they took away much of the depth, all the panoramic quality in three-dimensional, or even five-dimensional, of the audio experience. So cool to see the resurgence of vinyl. Beyond sound, there’s the touch experience, the art, the notes you can read without using a magnifying glass, and the act of putting on an album. “It’s a lovely little ritual that I never get tired of.”
– Jimmy Page
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0Sr945DFHozbA5v6ePFN7rH7ESnDp3EieNnY28uHwXZnwfuZVQQZmPYXo99DNzGR8l&id=100083594911619&post_id=100083594911619_pfbid0Sr945DFHozbA5v6ePFN7rH7ESnDp3EieNnY28uHwXZnwfuZVQQZmPYXo99DNzGR8l
Tomi Engdahl says:
I’ve never preferred listening to vinyl. I liked when the CDs came out because I liked how clean and accurate they sounded. So much of sound was lost with vinyls due non-idealities of the median. I have to agree that there are good and bad souding CDs. A good vinyl has usually quality between those.
I can agree that when MP3s, many of them took away much of the depth on sound.
I don’t care too much the resurgence of vinyl. Beyond average sound, there’s unnecessary rituals (that some people seem to value) before you can start listening.
Tomi Engdahl says:
John Dyck CDs 16 bits limits the sound dynamic range to around 90 dB compared with about 70 decibels (or much less like 55 dB with vinyl wear and cheaper record player).
On frequency response CD can go lower than vinyl. In practice the lower limit of CD is a very low 2Hz and the upper limit a tightly defined and rigid 22kHz (half the 44.1kHz sampling frequency of CD). The frequency response is very flat over the frequency range.
For vinyl limits range could from typical ~20-30Hz limit. The frequency response for a conventional LP player might be 20 Hz to 20 kHz, ±3 dB.
Some sources say that vinyl in best case can be as low as 7Hz to as high as 50kHz, depending on the hardware and any low frequency (rumble) filters applied. In practical systems the you rarely get near those extremes.
Tomi Engdahl says:
no CD can go past 22 kHz. That’s hard limitation.
the 16 bits as such was not a serious limitation, 90 dB was already “enough” in this application. 44 1 kHz sample rate was less ideal choice.
Tomi Engdahl says:
I’ll take the stereo seperation, resolution, and lack of noise for a more reasonable price any day over vinyl.
The signal to noise ratio, and total harmonic distortion is so much better with digital, that there is no comparison unless you are invested in a vinyl record making company.
Ritual is what leads to complacency!
Tomi Engdahl says:
I do not miss the Tick, Pop and Scratch brothers
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/can-anyone-explain-cable-risers
Can anyone explain cable risers?
Can anyone explain why cable risers do or dont work to improve the sound. Thanks.
Are you talking about those little stands you put you speaker cables on so they’re not on the floor?
Cable risers are for those are seeking “street cred” from their audiophool friends. You can bet your bottom dollar that NONE of the various recording/mixing/mastering facilities are suspending their cables during the making of a recording.
Nor do they place bags of rocks or crystals on their interconnects, speakers and such.
If folks would spend more time and effort acquiring the very best source materials to playback and fixing the response anomalies found in their listening room, they would be rewarded handosmely with a much better sounding system…
-RW-
Not something i worry about but some carpets are prone to static electricity which can only be bad.
Also, running wires parallel to each other and in close proximity over a distance is generally not a good idea due to em field interaction and risers are one way to avoid that.
They do nothing except seperate you from your money. It’s called wealth transfer.
Cheers
“You can bet your bottom dollar that NONE of the various recording/mixing/mastering facilities are suspending their cables during the making of a recording.”
I like that answer. All the recording studios I’ve worked in had the cables bundled together running across the floor or up inside a drop-ceiling. (We did keep power cables away from audio).
But I would agree with the theory to keep cables off the carpet.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Is there ANY phenomenon, man-made or natural, that DOES NOT affect high end audio systems? Is there any phenomenon in nature or man-made that an audiophile CANNOT hear? This includes anything occurring in the Milky Way.
Cheers
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://drop.com/talk/104/audio-myths-a-mostly-civilized-discussion/2755622
If one can stand paying $30.000/2m and it makes him happy, no problem.
The question is how close from FRAUD is selling such staff. I wonder what do you think about that.
He grabbed a cable from behind and showed me like it was a Holy Grail: DIRECTIONAL interconnect.
With an arrow on a plug showing… direction? It was plain fraud, so I was stonewalled for a minute or more, standing with the cable in my hand like an idiot in front of the professor and I didn’t know what to say. Then I asked him what is the arrow for and the answer was what I did expect: I should connect transport to preamp according to the direction of sound (SOUND!!!). And then he looked at me, looked at my face which probably looked like the face of a mime who didn’t get applause, and he explained that sound (SOUND!!!) flows from the source (=transport) to destination (preamp).
The cable costed $100. Looked like $30 cable (IMO expansive) + an arrow engraved on the plug for $5. Which makes it a pretty good margin.
I didn’t discuss, didn’t argue, just left. Maybe he believed in it? Than was it a fraud or not?
RogDirectional cables make sens if shield is connected only to source ground. Any other type of directional is nonsense. Maybe I’m wrong, and connecting shield to ground on both sides don’t make any noticable difference? In my diy rca cables I allways connect shield only to source ground (if there is any extra shield)
Here is something about connecting to both / one side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AShielded_cable
mean RCA interconnect cable? If yes, then not connecting shield @ one side makes a BIG difference
500plusNope. The seller was trying to sell a product which – he claimed – sounded MUUUUCH better when connected one (right) way, making an audible difference when inverted. This interconnect cable had a small arrows engraved on RCA plugs, there was also an instruction how to use it (!). And I really do not know the physics which is behind that (ridiculous) theory.
In my last post I wrote that “not connecting shield @ one side makes a BIG difference” because there would be no signal at all. And that’s really BIG difference
“no signal at all”, nope. you take cable that have two conductors and one shield. two conductors are ground and signal. third: shield is connected only on source side. Some instrumental cables, RCA, and even USB are build that way. USB doesn’t require arrow indicators, because ususaly USB A type is from source. To get any profit from that built you have to connect the right way, from source to reciver.
http://forums.mrplc.com/index.php?/topic/24493-shielded-cable-ground-both-ends/
“I have worked in the electromagnetic induction field for over 10 years and I can shed some light on this for you. You only ground ONE end. If you ground both you create a physical loop that is essentially an antenna for stray magnetetic lines of flux(noise from other surrounding power) When grounding both ends you create an inductor which will soak up this noise and cause possible problems especially with communications wiring. In order for the both ends being grounded idea to work, one would have to have a RF Filter or choke on the ground. It’s just easier and more effective to stay away from that kind of filtering by only grounding one end thus any induced noise travels in one direction and goes directly to ground. Hope that helps.”
Take a look interconnect supra cable. red signal blue ground, and drain wire which is connected to shield. and drain wire soldered only to source
500plusOk, you have gained my interest. I have browsed roughly through Supra website but found no single explanation about the meaning of arrows.
However, it seems a voodoo for me, but skeptical is my second name
This cable setup (as you have described) means that you have two wires – signal and ground – wrapped in a nasty antenna connected to ground @ (say) source side…
But the cables look good and robust, at the other hand.
Mi.RogFor audio frequency (20kh) you need few kilometers antena long ( wave lenght = c/f ). For giga hertz few few meters actually act as a antenat so ferrite beads are used. I’m skeptical too, but that drives to research and knowing better everything. Sadly lot of vendors don’t explain arrows or even any tehinical data like cable capacity. I’m choosing allways Mogami they provide a lot of technical data. You can easliy find topic on google about “directional cables” with explanations like connecting shield to one end. In my system I havent found any problems with noise, I assembled interconnects with directional shield and without and both worked the same. MAYBE if I had problem with emi / rfi then I would hear difference.
Mi.RogCable are directional due to shielding design, You always shield from the source and not connect on the other side.
There are hdmi cables that are directional that have a direction as well as audio cables. Some shielding was only connected at one end so it did not act like an antenna, and minimize ground loops. The arrows showed the direction of the shield thus leading to a directional cable. There are plenty directional cables out there.
Mi.RogCable risers produce no audible or measurable performance gains beyond the threshold of something like interference, which an even slightly decent cable can already solve. It’s purely snake oil sold to affluent consumers with more money than they know what to do with.
The biggest snake oil salesman I know of is Ted Denney of Synergistic Research. His genuine equipment: amps, DACs, exc are of great quality obviously, but his accessories are pure pseudo-science-Fiction grade nonsense level snake oil, and the claims made pertaining to some of these products including his cable risers should absolutely fall under false advertising and fraud – but for as slimy as Ted is, he’s not stupid. He advertises his brand of products as “Subjective Quality”. Everything is “Subjective”, meaning all of his wild claims are basically moot; only an idiot could ever believe it
He’s honestly a genius, but his products are mostly bullshit. There’s no way to hold him accountable for false advertising when he’s straight up low-key acknowledging that his products ARE in fact nonsensical. But Ted walks the walk; he drives a Ferrari, has a car collection, dresses like a stud, wears a fancy Rolex… That’s all his customers need to see to look beyond his casual salesman persona. He’s in my mind the mostly slimy but brilliant snake-oil salesman in the audiophile industry.
Mi.RogI believe those arrows are for the supposed direction the crystal is drawn.
There are white papers that mention how cables can have measurable differences, from Belden in their Iconoclast Line, and of course the Essex Echo. MasterBuilt (the guys that make the $12,000/Meter USB Cable) claim to such papers too, yet refuse to release them.
KhronusThey refuse to release the papers! Now we’re squarely in Area 51 territory!
Tomi Engdahl says:
There’s little wrong with ferric cored coils, as long as they’re not driven into saturation… much the same about that bipolar capacitor… without knowing the value, a film cap will be much larger, – prob’ly have to be attached with some leads off the pcb, – which often negates the “intended” benefits…. if in doubt, replace it with a new bipolar…
far too many imaginary myths among audio freaks without proper knowledge…
Tomi Engdahl says:
If you have the parts- just go ahead…. The problem with x-over mod’s is that component tolerance can also give small changes that may be audible – but is it better – or just different? There is a tendency to believe that any change is to the better, while it is just – slightly different… then there’s also the psycologial part to it….
Tomi Engdahl says:
Vinyl is physical printed accoustic sound!
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.hificollective.co.uk/semiconductors/dexa-newclassd-single-opamps.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.olimex.com/Products/USB-Modules/USB-CAP/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Any quality turntable has a ground wire.
Norman Skinner And quality amplifiers have a ground screw on the back to attach it to.
What is the reason for the additional ground connection when it goes to the chassis ground on the mixer and thats tied to the phono input ground anyway?
Was wondering about this the other day as someone asked me to replace the cables on a 1210 mk2
so static charges and any other EMF/RF picked up by a high gain cartridge can be discharged away from the signal path. Less of a power ground, more of a “noise drain”
Or you get some hum, because of ground loops.
Tomi Engdahl says:
high end freaks buy expensive power cables and power strips to “change” the sound.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/review-create-audio-ultimate-gold-rhodium-nano-fuse-tweak?fbclid=IwAR1e-UKlPHoF7elUXbjtQGcnPxueoE_qzrXJxGoPGzPkJJBF-4lrKn-ejzA
Tomi Engdahl says:
There exist balanced a speaker and headphone output. They are quite rarely used or wanted, because standard non balanced works well enough on those applications.
Some high end hifi systems use balanced headphone outputs. An amplifier with bridged type speaker output cab be considered to be a balanced speaker output.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Actually speakers and headphones are inherently balanced loads. You can use any cable you like and probably won’t have any problem. The real advantage of balanced connections is between two pieces of gear that may be connected to different grounds. A balanced connection does not rely on “ground” for the return connection so is more immune to ground loops.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Claiming a measurable benefit is a rookie mistake. Proper cable scammers go subjective!
Tomi Engdahl says:
Speakers, speaker cables… everything has to be “burned in,” according to these kooks.
https://nordost.com/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-cable-burn-in/
Bob Bybee Burn in for Burnouts? I jest of course.
Tomi Engdahl says:
There’s also the “quantum effect”, where speakers need to be listened to in order to burn in. It’s not enough to just play audio through them without anybody there to hear it. The sound waves emanating from the speakers hit the listener’s eardrums, and then create a waveguide feedback loop which adjust on a molecular level the patina of the speaker’s voice coil. That’s why many will say “doesn’t my hi fi sound great?” but others will say “meh”, because everybody’s eardrums are a bit different so the voicecoil had adapted differently. That’s why you should never allow anybody else to listen to your system during the initial burn-in stage.
Well, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. If you’re going to go woo woo, go full woo woo and have fun with it.
Belief in audio woo woo is a sickness – we should get into the woo woo business! Might as well profit!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/497838033628570/permalink/7057174461028195/
Tomi Engdahl says:
MEASUREMENTS: Do power cables make a difference with audio amplifiers?
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/02/measurements-do-power-cables-make.html
Audiophile Power Cords – Do they really make a difference?
https://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/power-cables
Tomi Engdahl says:
Should Audiophile Power Cords Be UL-Listed?
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/should-audiophile-power-cords-be-ul-listed.26853/
Nov 25, 2018
#1
Should audiophile power cords be listed with Underwriters Laboratories?
Are most audiophile power cords UL listed or not?
Which ones are UL-listed and which ones are not UL-listed?
Do we care if a power cord is UL-listed?
Should we care?
The answer will depend a lot on local, due to regulations, and technical common sense – if some one needs to ask it, most probably the answer he should be given should be “do not use non UL listed power cables”. …
UL certification is about a lot more than “stepability”. Flexibility and resistance to abrasion is part of it, but so is insulation voltage rating, fire resistance and behavior, resistance to chemical/liquid attack, etc. People love to disparage standards but sometimes they are actually pretty good and useful things to have.
The great majority of audiophile power cords are certified to obey the regulations. IMHO those which are not are exceptions.
Shunyata, Nordost, Transparent Audio, Kimber, Audioquest, Cardas, …
I specifically checked my Shunyata before responding to you, and I see no UL Listing; neither does their website say anything about that. So where did you get that information? I also just checked Transparent and MIT
i use 12 Absolute Fidelity power cords; none of which are UL listed. they are delicate and not meant to be stepped on. and that is essentially what UL Listed is about; step-on ability.
The UL Standard 817 which is only about line cords is 180 pages long. That’s a whole lot more than just being stepped on.
Any and all audiophile products sold should meet all the required safety standards.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.soundguys.com/vinyl-better-than-streaming-20654/
https://www.diffen.com/difference/CD_vs_Vinyl_Record
Tomi Engdahl says:
From a technical standpoint, digital CD audio quality is clearly superior to vinyl. CDs have a better signal-to-noise ratio (i.e. there is less interference from hissing, turntable rumble, etc.), better stereo channel separation, and have no variation in playback speed. The arguments against digital audio come from the fact that no matter how precise the sampling (~44,000 times per second is standard), the breaking down of music into binary data can never match the smooth and continuous nature of analog vinyl. Just like a million little square pixels can never make a perfect curve in a picture if you look closely enough.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/CD_vs_Vinyl_Record
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/cd-dvd-blu-ray/71-tests/110-blu-ray-and-dvd-tests.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.audioholics.com/how-to-shop/audio-terms-and-definitions
Tomi Engdahl says:
Speaker Wire
A History
by Roger Russell
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm?fbclid=IwAR0hf1mVNx9Nw3uXbmtnDth3QpSEG-yHlow8dW1f-S5y3TNFA9wLpAonkno
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.audioresurgence.com/2019/09/why-audio-cables-sound-different.html
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/cables-measuring-the-differences.578171/
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/02/measurements-do-power-cables-make.html?m=1
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ElectronicParts/permalink/2303258459863476/
One of my Audioquest Evergreen cables started having an intermittent left channel. When I did the RMA they said if I sent a pic with the ends cut off I didn’t need it mail it back, they’d just send a replacement. So I decided to strip the wires and see what’s in there.
A lot of shielding, outside, then each channel had its own shielding, then there’s a shield (?) wire, and the ground/positive
Funny thing is the inside shielding, the shield wire, and the negative wire all collect together at each RCA jack.
Other than that it’s just 22 AWG wire in there. So not sure how much these are better than something at least as beefy
Why are the wires solid? For a cable that’s being used day-to-day, being bent and unbent, the wires should be stranded and flexible, not solid and stiff.
Also it would be prudent to scrape the bare copper to see what’s underneath. It should be solid copper – nowadays many cheap chinesium cables are made from CCA – copper coated aluminum. That’s why they don’t last long.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Looks like ordinary Belden shielded pair.
the foil is the screen, the bare stranded is the drain and is only connected at one end , it’s not the signal ground which is a separate wire
Tomi Engdahl says:
the foil is the screen, the bare stranded is the drain and is only connected at one end , it’s not the signal ground which is a separate wire
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://allforturntables.com/2023/09/17/choosing-the-right-speaker-cable-copper-vs-silver-vs-aluminum/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-does-an-audio-grounding-box-work.37758/