Would all cables sound alike under DBT test?...Probably not!

[Tony_Montana]

Looking at the some of [exotic] cables marketed out there, one see why the answer to above question is that not all cables will sound the same under DBT testing protocol.

For example, Silver speaker cables tend to be made of higher gauge [thinner] cables, or the silver Interconnect not having any Shields. If we compare them with standard speaker cable or ICs, one will probably note lower volume (especially in the bass area) for Silver, and higher noise or interference ratio for silver ICs.

Or, MIT cables have a secret patented boxes on their cables that will probably manipulate frequency response of the cable, and make them sound different than other cables.

And some cables are faulty by design such as Ribbon speaker cables that have excessive inductance (warm sound), or Silver/Teflon Interconnects that sound "bright" because of high frequency ringing due to undesirable properties of Teflon dielectric.

So if we do a round up of cables that are out there in a credible DBT test, it should no be assumed automatically that all of them will sound the same

[Beckman]

For example, Silver speaker cables tend to be made of higher gauge [thinner] cables, or the silver Interconnect not having any Shields. If we compare them with standard speaker cable or ICs, one will probably note lower volume (especially in the bass area) for Silver, and higher noise or interference ratio for silver ICs.

Or, MIT cables have a secret patented boxes on their cables that will probably manipulate frequency response of the cable, and make them sound different than other cables.

And some cables are faulty by design such as Ribbon speaker cables that have excessive inductance (warm sound), or Silver/Teflon Interconnects that sound "bright" because of high frequency ringing due to undesirable properties of Teflon dielectric.

So if we do a round up of cables that are out there in a credible DBT test, it should no be assumed automatically that all of them will sound the same

Couldn't agree more. The question is why use cables to attenuate or add distorition to a stereo. Why not use an equalizer?

[pctower]

Looking at the some of [exotic] cables marketed out there, one see why the answer to above question is that not all cables will sound the same under DBT testing protocol.

For example, Silver speaker cables tend to be made of higher gauge [thinner] cables, or the silver Interconnect not having any Shields. If we compare them with standard speaker cable or ICs, one will probably note lower volume (especially in the bass area) for Silver, and higher noise or interference ratio for silver ICs.

Or, MIT cables have a secret patented boxes on their cables that will probably manipulate frequency response of the cable, and make them sound different than other cables.

And some cables are faulty by design such as Ribbon speaker cables that have excessive inductance (warm sound), or Silver/Teflon Interconnects that sound "bright" because of high frequency ringing due to undesirable properties of Teflon dielectric.

So if we do a round up of cables that are out there in a credible DBT test, it should no be assumed automatically that all of them will sound the same

I wonder if anyone remembers "Jack's Secret Sauce" from Jack In The Box' early days in the late '50s. Perhaps some cable company acquired Jack's secret recipe and that's what they are really stuffing inside those mysterious black boxes.

[markw]

Looking at the some of [exotic] cables marketed out there, one see why the answer to above question is that not all cables will sound the same under DBT testing protocol.

For example, Silver speaker cables tend to be made of higher gauge [thinner] cables, or the silver Interconnect not having any Shields. If we compare them with standard speaker cable or ICs, one will probably note lower volume (especially in the bass area) for Silver, and higher noise or interference ratio for silver ICs.

Or, MIT cables have a secret patented boxes on their cables that will probably manipulate frequency response of the cable, and make them sound different than other cables.

And some cables are faulty by design such as Ribbon speaker cables that have excessive inductance (warm sound), or Silver/Teflon Interconnects that sound "bright" because of high frequency ringing due to undesirable properties of Teflon dielectric.

So if we do a round up of cables that are out there in a credible DBT test, it should no be assumed automatically that all of them will sound the same

No problemo. The "problemo" is that many like to go by the catch phrase "all cables [missing part] sound the same" but conveniently disregard the all important [missing part] that qualifies this, which is "of similar length, guage and construction".

Now, wether the difference in length, gauge and construction is worth the tremendous disparity in price between the low end and the high end is another matter entirely. One might more logically question where the point of diminishing returns levels off, and this may not only be based on acoustic differences, although it really should be.

[skeptic]

I pointed out on another thread that comparing cables to each other makes no sense at all and all such tests are invalid. They should be compared to an ideal shunt, as close to one as you can get, or put in a circuit which includes a duplicate shunt. The difference between the cable and the shunt is the magnitude and nature of the distortion of the cable. It should be pointed out that the same cable can give different results when being connected to different equipment. Therefore recommendations based on the results in one sound system may not be relevant to the results you would get with a different sound system.

[okiemax]

Couldn't agree more. The question is why use cables to attenuate or add distorition to a stereo. Why not use an equalizer?

Equalizers are practically being given away at eBay auctions. I see auctions for these things starting at $1 and ending up with no bids, and those that do sell, frequently go for prices that are lower than their shipping costs. Depreciation from the price when new may be the worst of any audio gear. Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

[mtrycraft]

Looking at the some of [exotic] cables marketed out there, one see why the answer to above question is that not all cables will sound the same under DBT testing protocol.

For example, Silver speaker cables tend to be made of higher gauge [thinner] cables, or the silver Interconnect not having any Shields. If we compare them with standard speaker cable or ICs, one will probably note lower volume (especially in the bass area) for Silver, and higher noise or interference ratio for silver ICs.

Or, MIT cables have a secret patented boxes on their cables that will probably manipulate frequency response of the cable, and make them sound different than other cables.

And some cables are faulty by design such as Ribbon speaker cables that have excessive inductance (warm sound), or Silver/Teflon Interconnects that sound "bright" because of high frequency ringing due to undesirable properties of Teflon dielectric.

So if we do a round up of cables that are out there in a credible DBT test, it should no be assumed automatically that all of them will sound the same

Greenhill already demonstrated that some cables do sound different and it is not a mistery why.

MIT has no secret components. It is patented and stated. It is for RF not audio.

I'd like to see the high frequency ringing from a teflon cable.

Ribbon cables have very high capacitance and very low inductance. Some amps go into oscilation with high capacitance. That si not a wiare fault but an amp fault. Poor design as others can handle it.

So, the answer is rather simple, 12 ga to 16 ga.

[pctower]

Equalizers are practically being given away at eBay auctions. I see auctions for these things starting at $1 and ending up with no bids, and those that do sell, frequently go for prices that are lower than their shipping costs. Depreciation from the price when new may be the worst of any audio gear. Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

Check out this paper starting on page 16:

http://international.infinitysystems...rt_science.pdf

and this:

http://www.jblpro.com/LSR/PDF/White%20Papers.pdf

and especially this:

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/a...ec/ai_70035922

[Pat D]

Greenhill already demonstrated that some cables do sound different and it is not a mistery why.

LOL! Oh, but Greenhill isn't scientific enough for PC Tower. Of course, that doesn't prevent PC and others from accusing of of saying that "all" cables sound the same, or even that "everything" sounds the same.

MIT has no secret components. It is patented and stated. It is for RF not audio.

I'd like to see the high frequency ringing from a teflon cable.

Ribbon cables have very high capacitance and very low inductance. Some amps go into oscilation with high capacitance. That si not a wiare fault but an amp fault. Poor design as others can handle it.

STOP confusing us with facts.

So, the answer is rather simple, 12 ga to 16 ga.

That's too easy! Not expensive enough!

[okiemax]

Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

Check out this paper starting on page 16:

http://international.infinitysystems...rt_science.pdf

and this:

http://www.jblpro.com/LSR/PDF/White%20Papers.pdf

and especially this:

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/a...ec/ai_70035922

After reading these articles, I think I see why equalizers are so cheap on eBay. My guess is many users are disappointed with results from these devices, and may see them as a hifi liability. After looking at several on eBay, however, I can see how the meter readers might go ga ga over these things. A person could spend many pleasureable evenings making adjustment after adjustment to all those controls.

I have to confess, the gadget lover in me was attracted to a couple of remote-controlled equalizers on auction, particularily a Sansui with a remote that could be hidden inside the cabinet ( at $50 "Buy Now," but no takers). This unit might be worth $30 to me, considering it's entertainment value, and how it would impress my non-audiophile friends, who don't even notice my cables.

P.S. If I end up buying one of these things, I think it's only fair that I send Beckman the bill for having brought up the subject.

[Resident Loser]

...I have no idea why equalizers don't seem to have a market...perhaps, most of them are cheaply-made, with the ability to screw things up more than fix them...less than octave-width, which really renders them glorified tone controls...misunderstanding their abilities and incorrect use by consumers may also have given them a bad rap...outright misuse is fairly common; it would seem as though most users employ them as overall "gain devices" as opposed to equalizers...

Now for the fun part...PCT, I'm not sure what sort of follow-up research you did re: your citations but, after reading them, off went all my buzzers and bells...the first two "white papers" were authored by people who would seem to have more than a passing interest in their respective organizations proprietary ideas and products. Both schemes seem aimed at the professional market and perhaps, at some future date, may filter down to the home audio enthusiast in a reasonable and reasonably priced form.

The co-authors of the third reference are even more firmly entrenched in the marketing facet of the industry...one of them seems to have been, at various times: an electronic publisher, a media company director and even the editor and webmaster of the site cited itself(say THAT a few times)...other titles include: sales manager, manufacturers rep, marketing manager and director of sales. The other was named director of business development of a well-known name in pro audio apps, has held other "key sales and marketing positions", was VP of sales and marketing for another. regional sales manager and manufacturers rep for yet another.

Hardly trying to denigrate these gentlemen's abilities in their respective fields of expertise, but I always have to take what certain folks say with a grain of salt...especially when they all seem to badmouth one thing in deference to something else they seem to have...er, shall we say...an "interest" in...

jimHJJ(...but, of course and as always, that's just me...)

[pctower]

...I have no idea why equalizers don't seem to have a market...perhaps, most of them are cheaply-made, with the ability to screw things up more than fix them...less than octave-width, which really renders them glorified tone controls...misunderstanding their abilities and incorrect use by consumers may also have given them a bad rap...outright misuse is fairly common; it would seem as though most users employ them as overall "gain devices" as opposed to equalizers...

Now for the fun part...PCT, I'm not sure what sort of follow-up research you did re: your citations but, after reading them, off went all my buzzers and bells...the first two "white papers" were authored by people who would seem to have more than a passing interest in their respective organizations proprietary ideas and products. Both schemes seem aimed at the professional market and perhaps, at some future date, may filter down to the home audio enthusiast in a reasonable and reasonably priced form.

The co-authors of the third reference are even more firmly entrenched in the marketing facet of the industry...one of them seems to have been, at various times: an electronic publisher, a media company director and even the editor and webmaster of the site cited itself(say THAT a few times)...other titles include: sales manager, manufacturers rep, marketing manager and director of sales. The other was named director of business development of a well-known name in pro audio apps, has held other "key sales and marketing positions", was VP of sales and marketing for another. regional sales manager and manufacturers rep for yet another.

Hardly trying to denigrate these gentlemen's abilities in their respective fields of expertise, but I always have to take what certain folks say with a grain of salt...especially when they all seem to badmouth one thing in deference to something else they seem to have...er, shall we say...an "interest" in...

jimHJJ(...but, of course and as always, that's just me...)

Dr. Toole is God on this board. You are risking excommunication.

[Resident Loser]

...I just calls 'em as I sees 'em...let the chips fall where they may...

jimHJJ(...I guess that's why I'm still doin' what I have been for 35 years...)

[Resident Loser]

...many pleasureable evenings making adjustment after adjustment to all those controls..."

Probably one of the misconceived reasons for purchase and why EQs have a low rep...

For the most part, and when used as intended, EQs should be a "set it and forget it" component...even octave equalizers are difficult, if not impossible to set up by ear. Using program material further complicates the task...A calibrated source, such as a test disk or disc(media dependent) and an SPL meter are the minimal required tools. I've found graph paper, not just a little patience and an understanding spouse to also be invaluable. One must keep in mind, they do have limits and should be used judiciously, functioning as a frequency "equalizer" and not a "gain device"...

Not that just "playing around" with 'em can't be useful however...it will give you some idea of the level of malarkey that abounds in "audiophile land" re: air and inner details and such...

If you want to tweak a poor recording, simple tone controls are usually more than sufficient...that's of course if you have any!

jimHJJ(...worked for me...)

[Beckman]

Equalizers are practically being given away at eBay auctions. ...Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

With the popularity of surround sound receivers that have equalizers built in there is no need for such devices in todays market for the average consumer. As for two channel audiophile's I think they look down upon anything that alters the sound of the music by attenuating the signal for a certain frequency range. I personaly have an integrated amplifier that does not have any equalizer controls on it and don't find that it needs them.

My main argument to begin with was that any sound difference in an aftermarket cable over standard 12 gauge zip cord can only be caused from an attenuation in the signal over some part of the audio frequency range (usualy higher frequwncies giving a warm sound to the music). So why spend large sums of money on what is basicly a passive crossover when one could purchase an equalizer for $50 on ebay and have an active crossover?

I think the answer has a lot to do with the audiophile crowd that feels the more you spend the better the sound, and don't know anything about signals, systems, Laplace transforms and electric & magnetic fields.

If I had $2000 to improve the sound of a high end stereo I would look towards room treatments.

[Beckman]

P.S. If I end up buying one of these things, I think it's only fair that I send Beckman the bill for having brought up the subject.

How about you send me a check for the price difference between an equalizer on ebay and a high end set of speaker cables

[Tony_Montana]

I wonder if anyone remembers "Jack's Secret Sauce" from Jack In The Box' early days in the late '50s. Perhaps some cable company acquired Jack's secret recipe and that's what they are really stuffing inside those mysterious black boxes.

Whatever is those boxes (and a passive one at that) will probably do more damage than not. Electrically, the best signal transfer is the one with least component in its way.

By the way, did anybody find out what was in the Jack's secret sauce

The "problemo" is that many like to go by the catch phrase "all cables [missing part] sound the same" but conveniently disregard the all important [missing part] that qualifies this, which is "of similar length, guage and construction".

Very true. I hope PCtower add that line next time he accuse AR memebers of not hearing difference between cables or components

They [cables] should be compared to an ideal shunt, as close to one as you can get, or put in a circuit which includes a duplicate shunt.

That might be harder than it sound, especially for run-the-mill consumers. How would you create a shunt?

Greenhill already demonstrated that some cables do sound different and it is not a mistery why.

So the line I have seen you use alot such as:"nobody in the world been able to demonstrated differences between cables" is not true any more. Wouldn't you say?

Ribbon cables have very high capacitance and very low inductance.

Not according to Audioholic's speaker cable face-off article. Gene mentioned that Ribbon cables had the lowest measured capacitance out of all the cables in this face off, at the expense of high inductance. Here is the link

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...eFaceoffp2.htm

So why spend large sums of money on what is basicly a passive crossover when one could purchase an equalizer for $50 on ebay and have an active crossover?

I raised that question a while back in CA, and everybody jump down my throat saying that EQ will add distortion. Little do they realize that passive cables will manipulate the signal more than active component such as EQ does. And the worst part is that if cables doesn't work out for you, you can not change its setting

[pctower]

Whatever is those boxes (and a passive one at that) will probably do more damage than not. Electrically, the best signal transfer is the one with least component in its way.

By the way, did anybody find out what was in the Jack's secret sauce

Very true. I hope PCtower add that line next time he accuse AR memebers of not hearing difference between cables or components

That might be harder than it sound, especially for run-the-mill consumers. How would you create a shunt?



So the line I have seen you use alot such as:"nobody in the world been able to demonstrated differences between cables" is not true any more. Wouldn't you say?



Not according to Audioholic's speaker cable face-off article. Gene mentioned that Ribbon cables had the lowest measured capacitance out of all the cables in this face off, at the expense of high inductance. Here is the link

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...eFaceoffp2.htm



I raised that question a while back in CA, and everybody jump down my throat saying that EQ will add distortion. Little do they realize that passive cables will manipulate the signal more than active component such as EQ does. And the worst part is that if cables doesn't work out for you, you can not change its setting

I hope PCtower add that line next time he accuse AR memebers of not hearing difference between cables or components

Just to keep the record straight, I'll bet if someone could go back through all the old archives of AR and AA for the past 2 years for purposes of seeing who used the phrase "of similar length, guage and construction" the most they would find that I've used it more than everyone else combined.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As for two channel audiophile's I think they look down upon anything that alters the sound of the music by attenuating the signal for a certain frequency range. I personaly have an integrated amplifier that does not have any equalizer controls on it and don't find that it needs them.

I have news for audiophiles, your room already alters the sound of the music. Has anyone here heard of a mode or a node? Resonances?

Eq is a VERY valuable tool in the hands of the educated and experienced. It in combination with acoustical eq(bass traps, absorption foam, diffusor and reflectors) can transform a really bad sounding room, into one that has quite please sonic qualities. Of course CHEAP eq's don't help in any situation. One octave eq's are less than worthless.

Not many people know what to look for when purchasing a EQ, so off to ebay. Most purchase cheap, usless eq's, so off to ebay. Most do not have the associated equipment that it takes to even make a very good eq helpful, so off to ebay.

Eq is not the problem, ignorance, inexperience, and lack of education are.

[Beckman]

Not many people know what to look for when purchasing a EQ, so off to ebay. Most purchase cheap, usless eq's, so off to ebay. Most do not have the associated equipment that it takes to even make a very good eq helpful, so off to ebay.

Eq is not the problem, ignorance, inexperience, and lack of education are.

Just out of curiosity, where are these good eq's. It seems like there are a ton of really cheap ones out there. I know McIntosh makes some, but are there others?

As for having the associated equipment to make a good eq helpful, why couldn't a good eq be helpful to any stereo?

I am not looking for an argument, but posing serious questions

[Beckman]

And the worst part is that if cables doesn't work out for you, you can not change its setting

You could always go out and spend another $1000 on cables that produse that warm, detailed, open sound.

[mtrycraft]

So the line I have seen you use alot such as:"nobody in the world been able to demonstrated differences between cables" is not true any more. Wouldn't you say?

No, not at all, I would not sat that. The 24 ga speaker cable in that test is not considerd to be a product that qualifies as a speaker cable. Broken.
16ga or better are. Try that on.



Not according to Audioholic's speaker cable face-off article. Gene mentioned that Ribbon cables had the lowest measured capacitance out of all the cables in this face off, at the expense of high inductance. Here is the link

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...eFaceoffp2.htm


Well, please check out this link:

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

Check out what cable 6 and 11 are as identified on page 2 as and then check out in figure 2 on page 3 as to which cable has the most capacitance. How about cable 6 and 11? Oh, he identifies them as ribbon cable?

Maybe ribbon cables changed over the years? Please note that this is a peer AES journal paper

[mtrycraft]

STOP confusing us with facts.

Oh, no. Did I do that again? I'll stand in the corner for a time out

[skeptic]

The proper use of an equalizer to enhance the sound of a home audio system almost certainly is beyond the capabilities of most audiophiles. The home use consumer type spectrum analyzers, noise generators, and microphones doesn't give satisfactory results based on my experience with them. It takes a well trained ear familiar with the sound of live unamplified music and extraordinary patience. It normally takes me about two years to adjust one to my satisfaction after everything else has been optimized. However, after a mere two months, I am making surprising progress on my Bose 901 enhancement project. The real problem of the moment is getting the bass right. That's often tough.

While a 10 band equalizer doesn't offer nearly the precision or flexibility of a 27 or 30 band equalizer, what it can offer is substantial improvement. It seems to me that a 30 band equalizer or a parametric equalizer would require the use of professional grade measuring equipment and a technician experienced in using it. It's simply mind boggling imagining trying to get results by ear with something that complicated.

[jneutron]

Gene mentioned that Ribbon cables had the lowest measured capacitance out of all the cables in this face off, at the expense of high inductance.

Gene stated that a specific ribbon cable in his faceoff had lowest capacitance of those measured.

I do not recall him generalizing to all ribbons.

Without going to a coaxial system to constrain the magnetic field, flat, wide conductor ribbons separated by the insulation, placed face to face, will have higher capacitance and lower inductance. If they are placed edge to edge, they will have low capacitance and high inductance. The same if they are face to face, but are far apart..

Ribbons that are multiple wires, alternating, will be somewhere in the middle..

But the generalization that all ribbons are (one or the other) cannot be made..organization of the conductors will still play a large role.

Cheers, John