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.
1,557 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
http://www.hifi-forum.de/viewthread-59-597.html
I know, i too am one of them but not in the extent that i’d go spending 20k on a power cord or a speaker cable.
The sureest and the best way to improve ur system is to make sure u have these three basic thingas in order and of the bestr quality that u can afford.
they are
1> speakers
2> Program recordings
3> Rooom acoustics.
these are the 3 main things in the signal chain and the rest follow. the cables and all form just a fraction of the SQ that u derive.
i too question the burn in period of cables and amplifiers. it is complete BS. it is all phsychological.
You need a good system to hear what changes the cables and such make. Your source and speakers are very important, say as important as your amp !
Cables – electrical parameters LCR. The question is what quantity of LCR will work well with your setup? I have noticed changed in quality with different interconnects and speaker cales. It is a case of getting the right kind of sound from your system, true you can call them tone controls but they dont add much to music signals kind of subtractive type.
Tubes – He agrees that they are better for RF applications without saying what is wrong with their use in AF. Tubes do sound different and some of them may sound more natural too. How can we say for sure the live unamplified sound we hear form the band playing is not distorted ?
Vinyl – For more than 3 decades I have listened to reproduced music and Lp’s were dominant during early part of it. The technology has improved so much that now we have affordable high quality turntables, cartridges and phonopreamps, this is making a big difference in your vinyl playback setup, they do sound 100 times better today than in 70′s. May be this is also contributing to the renewed interst in Vinl discs.
Dont be an audiophile, just enjoy listening to music of your taste through the system that gives you the sort of sound you like.
In my personal opinion, i feel the author has a point….but it is way too exagerrated and projects a very wrong picture of the hi-end audio. Some of my justifications,
1) Biwiring : Audiophiles use this is as “one” of the technique to balance the sound in thier system. Impedance, Capacitance & Inductance are three main paramters with cable. You cannot perfect all parameters; You can only balance these parameters to a desired levels ; While bi-wiring brings down the impedance of the cable, it adds to the problem of capacitance and inductance (hence the cable acting like a xover). In a given system – the magnitude of the impact due to these three parameters can vary…so utimately this is a subjective decision (this means that biwiring can definetly help in some systems)
2) Cables : Cables make a big difference to the sound; I think the author has been paying a huge premium for “branded” cable and feel’s a bit let down. The above statement on bi-wiring will explain the complexity and the impacet of bad vs. good cables. While cables do make big difference…value for money is another discussion (If anything, the article encourages DIY cables…but again, who has the time for DIY!!).
3) Valves : Every audiophile knows that the second-harmonic distortion of the valves are the key to the pleasant sound. Clear proof that the author is trying to discover a knowledge which is common-sense to most audiophile’s. But this is a matter of personal taste and we defintely need to respect the same..
4) Break-in : The break-in period is true…but the duration depends on the product…ofcourse not all products need 200 hours of break-in.
5) Power-Conditioner : I never knew my “Denon 3801″ can produce such smooth sound until i had one in my system…thank’s to Mr. Murthy who made it affordable to own one. We live in a country … where the electric supply is highly polluted by industries and commercial centers. The article has no scientific arguments to this effect…its just a perception.
..don’t take me wrong guys. This was to keep the discussion alive and to ensure budding audiophile’s are not mis-guided. I’m sure there are many more audiophile’s who understand these as much as i do (or more)….add in your comments.
IMHO cables do make a difference but not like the kind of difference siva is referring too.
take for example the power cord. r u telling me that by installing a piece of 1 meter cable at the end of a power chain taht was 100-200 kms long(god knows what type of cables they use) i will be able to ‘clean’ the power being deliversd.
that is complete hogwash.
Regarding the cables and the comments made on RLC, biwiring etc – I dont think we are rigorous enough when we brandish about terms like RLC, impedance, capacitance etc around here. The comments made neither explore the topic technically in depth in all its manifestations and consider all factors, neither do they help to debate it on practical terms. If anybody could PM to me and explain how RLC of a 12 gauge wire bought from the electrical store around the corner is sufficiently different from the RLC of VDH to affect speaker performance, I would be forever grateful to them. Or how biwiring, while trading off capacitance for impedance, is any different from doing the same tradeoff using paralell wiring?
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/dwduyp/the_ten_biggest_lies_in_audio/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-ten-biggest-lies-in-audio-2012-list-any-updates.29312/
Audio lies:
1. Cables
2. Tubes
3. Analogue
3a. Hi-Res
4. Sighted listening tests
5. Feedback systems
6. Burn-in
7. Bi-wire
8. Power conditioner
9. CD treatments
10. Golden ears
- Esoteric speaker/hardware isolation/dampening solutions?
- frequency enhancement crystals/gemstones?
- cable risers?
Unmeasurable audio frequencies.
R2R DACs sound better than delta sigma DACs
Tomi Engdahl says:
Lies, Damn Lies, and Cables
Fun, Feathers, & Games in The High End
An Overdue Response, By Francis Vale
https://vxm.com/21R.64.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
Speaker Wire
A History
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.soundguys.com/cable-myths-reviving-the-coathanger-test-23553/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.audioholics.com/gadget-reviews/speaker-cable-and-audio-interconnects
Tomi Engdahl says:
10 Audio Cable Myths and Facts
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/10-audio-cable-myths-and-facts
CABLE MYTHS1. Conductor skin effect
In some applications like power transmission lines, an electric signal tends to travel through the surface of a conductor and avoids traveling through the center of the conductor. Many cable companies claim that their design limits the skin effect and measurably improves your sound.
The TruthWhile skin effect is a very real issue for large scale power transmission, audio signals are in such a low-frequency range that the skin effect is negligible at best. The skin effect is only an issue in high-frequency applications. 20kHz is the highest frequency that humans can hear. If we calculate the skin effect on a 12 AWG speaker cable like Gene from Audioholics does in this article, we find that the skin effect results in a loss of only -.014dB. Your speakers, room acoustics, and the human ear have a much larger effect on your sound than the skin effect.
2. Cable break-in
Don’t be fooled – any company that claims this thinks they can trick you into hearing better sound after a month or two. “Break-in” is a commonly used term throughout the industry. It is the idea that the dielectric of a cable changes and aligns itself to the electromagnetic field of the signal traveling through the conductors.
The Truth
There is no scientific evidence to support the idea of cable break-in,
3. Cryogenic treatment
Cryogenic treatment is the process of freezing cables to -320 degrees Fahrenheit before use. The claim is that freezing the conductors of the cable at ultra low temperatures aligns the crystalline grain structure of them resulting in desirable improvements.
The Truth
Again there is no scientific data to support this notion. Cryogenic treatment can improve the durability of certain metals, usually steel, by stabilizing impurities.
4. Cable signal direction
You might hear this phrase tossed around quite a bit. It’s the notion that a cable has an established signal direction, the direction in which it was initially used, and that this signal direction should not be reversed.
The Truth
The reality is, assuming the connector ends and terminals are the same, the cable will work in both directions and the performance will be equivalent.
5. Cable elevators, risers, or lifts
The claim is that the cables’ magnetic field can interfere with the surface it is laying on. Essentially, the magnetic field can “reflect” from the surface back into the cable and cause distortions.
The Truth
There is no evidence to support these claims, and these unnecessary devices are merely for looks. They are in no way proven to improve cable performance.
CABLE FACTS
1. Shielding is Important
In the modern age, wireless signals are all around us all the time. The rapid growth and spread of technology means that these wireless signals will become more widespread and more likely to cause unwanted interference. Cellphones, wifi, and Bluetooth signals can enter your cables, but shielding can block these signals and preserve your sound quality.
2. Length is a Factor
No matter how well a cable is designed, cable length will always impact performance. As the length of a cable goes up, so does the risk of unwanted interference and signal loss.
3. Conductor material plays a role
The best conductors to use for audio cables are pure silver or pure copper. Both are valued for their high conductivity, but copper is more widely used due to the high price of silver. Additionally, some variations are constructed with silver-plated copper. However, because the metals have different conductivities, the sound is more likely to travel through only the silver plating and not the copper.
The purity of the conductor will affect performance more than anything. Look for Oxygen-Free High Conductivity (OFHC) conductors. This means that a significant percentage of oxygen and other impurities have been removed from the conductor resulting in high purity.
4. Wire gauge should not be overlooked
The amount of wattage your system is using will determine the total gauge size needed for safe and optimal performance. The standard is 14 gauge wire minimum for the transmission of 250 watts of power. Many electronic devices use much less than this
5. Quality connectors matter
Truly, the best connectors are no connectors at all. But, if you can’t hardwire your system, gold plated connectors are the industry standard.
The bottom line is:
Choose connectors based on your personal needs and the type of connection being made. Overall, always choose quality connectors.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Do audio cables degrade over time?
Unless you’ve done something specific to damage the cable, the answer is not likely. Most damage to cables happens due to repeated plugging and unplugging or poor manufacturing. Using quality cables and disturbing them as little as possible can go a long way to getting as much life out of your cables as possible
https://thehometheaterdiy.com/do-cables-go-bad-over-time/
Tomi Engdahl says:
What is the lifespan of a cable?
In a nutshell, if you purchased a cable that is manufactured to international standards, and wired indoors according to proper guidelines, your cables are generally expected to last based on a design life of at least 20-30 years.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Myths About Speaker Wire
https://www.jensenspeakers.com.au/blogs/news/myths-about-speaker-wire
Myth 1: All Of Your Speaker Wires Should Be the Same Length
While it’s true that the quality of an audio signal does degrade the farther it has to travel, this does not mean that every speaker wire that you purchase needs to be the same length as every other wire in your home theater speakers.
Myth 2: You Need to “Break In” Your Speaker Wires
One common myth is that you need to “break in” your wires by sending a small electrical charge through your home theater system in order to achieve the best possible results.
Myth 3: Thicker wire Is Important
Many stores will try to sell you on the idea that for the best possible audio quality, you need to purchase thicker (and therefore more expensive) speaker wires. This myth is actually “sort of” true but there’s definitely diminishing returns on thicker speaker wire. Common 14 AWG speaker wire will sound great in under 20 meter runs of speaker wire which cover 99% of install cases.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://ethanwiner.com/myths.html
Myth: Digital audio sounds worse than analog, and the lack of digital’s fidelity is revealed as a sterile and harsh sound that lacks warmth, depth, imaging, clarity, and any number of other vague and elusive descriptions.
Fact: Analog tape compresses dynamics and adds distortion, which can be a pleasing effect for many people (including me). But for pure faithfulness to the original signal, modern pro-quality digital wins hands down every time. It is true that when digital audio is recorded at too low a level, the result can sound grainy. This distortion is in addition to the hiss that an analog recording also has, and it is caused by using an insufficient number of bits. That is, recording at too low a level on a 16-bit system is similar to recording at a normal level on an 8-bit system.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Loudspeaker Technology Part 14: Cables – Behind the Myths and Magic
https://www.empiricalaudio.com/computer-audio/technical-papers/myths-and-snake-oil
John Watkinson puts on his snake-oil-proof clothing and looks at speaker cables. Finally, some clarity behind the myths and magic that surround technical aspects of speaker interconnections.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://beginnerguitarhq.com/xlr-cable/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://routenote.com/blog/what-are-xlr-cables/
https://djtechreviews.com/dj-accessories/best-xlr-cable
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://ehomerecordingstudio.com/microphone-cables/
https://higherhz.com/best-xlr-microphone-cables/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://audiokauppa.fi/products/audioquest-thunder-virtakaapeli
Tomi Engdahl says:
Using HEXFETs in High Fidelity Audio
https://sound-au.com/articles/hexfet.htm
Tomi Engdahl says:
I will add that if you want to make your cables directional, combine the shielding with ground only at the source end. But you would need to mark your cables doing it that way.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2324569074469604/permalink/3362134337379734/
I am a car audio guy who also dabbles in pro audio. With car audio equipment there is a noticeable break in period. Meaning after I’m done with a job and the tuning is handled, I have them come back in a month or so and re-tune after the speakers and subwoofers have broken in.
My question is this…
Is breaking in pro-audio equipment a thing? If so, what’s the best way to break in speakers and subs?
Not exactly sure about PA speakers….
But I do KNOW that this applies to In-Ear Monitors/Earphones. They sound NOTICEABLY different after pumping some pink noise thru for about an hour or two.
We have it too, – or used to at least. We just call it a “burn in period.” Glue and other materials need to loosen up so you can hear what they actually sound like though with some speakers, they send them out ready to go. A lot of manufacturers do it these days but it’s probably more common with the higher end ones. Especially if it’s going to a commercial facility – that downtime might be costly.
I’m not going to comment on whether ‘breaking in’ is, or isn’t a thing. What I will say is that that the brain is an incredibly complex thing. It will absolutely attenuate parts of the spectrum that are harsh over a period of time listening to a system. Almost like an eq. If you run the same show night after night on the same less-than-perfect system, in the same problematic room, you can really notice the difference between your perception at the beginning of show night and the end of the night. Your ears will adjust. I wouldn’t be at all surpised if endorphins and Adrenaline make a difference too.
It’s a thing some audiophiles believe in. Only times I’ve heard professionals mention breaking in speakers is when laughing at said audiophiles…
I guess it could theoretically make some difference if you don’t change any settings ever, but professionally the tool I use primarily is the EQ. It’s not like the shift from ‘mint’ to ‘broken in’ just suddenly happens anyway so I’m likely gradually shifting the EQ to counter the break-in anyway.
Any dynamic speaker has a “break in” period. Glue cracks, cones flex, and creases form. It is less noticeable on live sound systems as they generally do get moved and constantly adjusted. Even a permanent instalation has adjustments made based on the band and audience.
Now, instrument speakers….that’s a whole different level of break in and tone snobbery. Although I am extremely happy with how my latest hemp cone guitar speaker has been getting a little less shrill and more “full” sounding every time I play through it.
This is not a thing. At all.
Jesus.
I imagine it is more dependent on what materials the drivers are made of and how long/loud the quality control checks are.
I would think it would be petty quick considering you are getting 1200 cycles per minute minimum with audio.
Tomi Engdahl says:
XLR Connectors. Pros & Cons
https://gearspace.com/board/all-things-technical/442918-xlr-connectors-pros-amp-cons.html
When it comes to XLR connectors, it seems that most people rely heavily on Neutriks.
My question is what is the benefit of using their ends over another brand using the same exact cable? Is there a drop in signal strength, or is it more of a durability issue?
Thanks, and I look forward to hearing some of your responses.
-N
At least in America, there are only a couple of “professional” grade XLR connectors. Neutrik, as you mentioned, Switchcraft, and perhaps, Cannon (if they are still manufactured).
Any of them should be perfectly suitable as far as performance is concerned and I know that Neutriks and Switchcrafts come in a variety that includes gold plated contacts which tarnish less (none) than the nickel over brass.
I use Neutriks almost exclusively on my XLR cable assemblies because they are robust, and easy to assemble. As well, Neutrik is pretty good about correcting ideas that don’t work so well in their designs. It is really just a matter of choice. The Switchcraft connectors have as good a rep, and I use other of their connectors as “first call” all the time. These include the 1/4″ phones, mini-phones, the TA series, their RCA, etc. Great stuff.
So pays yer money and takes yer choice.
Some people swear by Switchcraft, claiming they have better connection with the gender counterpart, but I hate them. Their standard XLR assembly is clumsy, breaks easily, and is hard to remove. Neutrik has the very easy to use, and very effective chuck assembly that clamps the chord more effectively. They also look betterthumbsup. Definitely worth the extra $1 I think.
Neutrik 100% except for TA3′s which are Switchcraft.
For what it’s worth, I talked to the guys at Redco about this a few months ago, and they also felt like the engineering on the Neutriks was better in terms of strain relief, solderability, etc.
They did say, though, that for road applications where connectors are apt to get stepped on or otherwise abused, Switchcraft gear can be a bit more robust.
We had Neutriks at a national cable network and after experiencing audio breakup in the mic lines they were all replaced with Switchcrafts. Never had a problem after that.
I see Amphenol XLR connectors marketed in Australia but I’m not sure about the U.S.
Definitely Neutrik for me – never had a single problem in 30 years or so.
For new cables, though, I have upgraded to the new Neutrik EMC XLRs.
I have found that Neutriks are tougher to mate with Neumann mic’s than the Switchcraft – for some reason it’s a tight fit. The Switchcraft goes in much more easily.
That being said, I use mostly Neutrik XLR’s – ease of assembly and repair over the Switchcraft.
That’s because the Neumann has the corrugated rubber ring in the bottom of the XLR – this is needed for the Switchcraft connector to stop it moving.
With the Neutrik connector, you can take out this ring and it will mate perfectly and easily.
Here we standardized on the UK made DELTRON xlr connectors. Very robust and long lasting. Deep wells on the lugs to accept lots of solder. Also the lugs are larger and accept heavy weight copper cable such as Mogami Neglex W2549. Deltron also resists bending and deformation very well.
Of course the others brands are good too.
If the Neutriks xlrs are metallic then they are equivalent to Switchcrafts but I don’t like the all-plastic ones. I don’t much like the twist-on shells which pass torque onto the freshly positioned cable. Switchcraft 1/4″ and rcas are more robustly made and I find longer-lasting.
Neutrik Speakons are remarkably well-designed and made, but again, the twist-on shell seems to be a system-wide weakness. They’re always coming undone, on xlrs, trs and speakons. I have to rewire a speakon every month or so, especially the monitor cables which get plugged/unplugged with regularity. I like and use the right-angle adaptors.
I do prefer deeper solder cups, whoever makes them and I find the Switchcraft grub screws hold the rubber bungs really well, if you take the trouble to line up the curved pressure plates properly. Yes, they require a couple more tools and some peace & quiet to effectively repair in the field, but so do Neutriks require pliers to efficiently tighten down the screw-on shell and they both need a soldering iron.
I think, but can’t prove, the nickel plated pins keep their coatings intact longer than the gold plated pins, which I frequently see worn down to bright silverish metal. When I make new cables, I either use canare L-4e6s or mogami 2791, with aa3fb/aa3m plugs.
On some jobs, I use what I’m given and I can’t help noticing how long-lasting some of the ancient Switchcraft cables have held up.
Happy soldering,
WalterT
90% Switchcraft here. They are more robust then most of the competition when used in the field. I have some from the 70′s that still work fine. For studio use, doesn’t matter much as long as they are not Chinese knock-offs.
Deltrons are nice, but hard to find in the US. They do make the best banana plugs.
In my experience, if they are properly torqued down, Neutrik XLRs do just fine in the field. The torque on the screw-down endcaps is transmitted smoothly via the black insert perpendicularly to the cable. I’ve not ever seen a standard bit of Belkin or Mogami single-pair mic cable twisted from the pins by tightening the endcap… although I might be able to believe it if a large rubber cable (think SJ) was used for some reason.
I’ve had far more connector failures from older Cannon and Switchcraft XLRs (and cheap 3rd party clones) from the setscrews coming loose (or, worse, out) and relieving the pressure to strain relief the wire. Try finding those screws, either in your cable trunk/bag/drawer/plastic bin, or as replacements on the road… and without any one of them, the connector is worthless, except for the parts.
I’ll still buy Switchcraft TS/TRS when I must… but my first choice has been Neutrik since they showed up on the scene. I totally agree with nixing the all-plastic shells… metal only (nickel, bright or black) for me.
YMMV… one man’s opinion for well-nigh two decades.
HB
I use both Switchcraft and Neutrik here in house and for remote recordings. I prefer the Neutriks due to the ease of construction but both are, IMHO, GREAT and both do the job for which they were intended.
I guess it is worth mentioning that the Switchcrafts are not available with the gold plated contacts but the Neutriks are in case that makes a difference to you.
While Neutrik are undeniably easier to attach, Switchcraft appear to have machined steel shells while Neutrik have significantly weaker moulded metal, almost as weak as “pot metal” (some sort of die-cast zinc alloy).
That said, ease of construction (and occasional repair) is more important than “ultimate toughness” to me. That spells “Neutrik”. I have yet to see a broken Neutrik shell… but I have seen (and repaired) several cables with Switchcraft shells bent so badly by carelessness (i.e., run over by a cable trunk) that I couldn’t straighten them. Lop off the offended shell, strip the wires down while the gas iron heats up, zip open the Neutrik bag (much easier to carry that loose parts, IMO), and solder it up. Done, and done.
Any of the pro audio magazines (remember those?) ever do a XLR “shoot out”? My experience with unplanned crush testing is opposite of HB’s. I have seem far more pot metal Neutriks cracked apart than steel Switchcrafts that got bent. Plus a row of Switchcraft XLR’s plugged into the back of a console just looks better to me. So there.
THE MOST important thing about an XLR connection is the soldering job from wire to connector.
Sure a bad XLR end will crap out fast, but not faster than a bad soldering job.
End of story.
#27
7th January 2013
We’re fortunate to have more than one source of quality XLR’s.
There are many cheap and nasty chinese Neutrik copies
Do you find the Deltrons tend to tear up your hands from the rough edges?
I had a few of them, thinking they would be more resistant to crushing than the Neutrik boots, but was put off by the rough finish. IIRC, Neutrik bought Deltron a number of years ago. I haven’t seen any new ones around here since then.
The new Neutrik XX-series seem to have addressed the only complaints I had with the older X-series: the boot threads inside the shell, so it’s less likely to be crushed and split, and the latch receptacle on the male connectors is just a recess now instead of a hole in the shell, so it’s much less likely to be dented (the same design Switchcraft has used for as long as I can remember).
Geoff
new Switchcraft AAA series are nice. Almost as easy to put together as the Neutrik and they look nice.
Tomi Engdahl says:
http://www.phaselinearhistory.stereomanuals.com/
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Vishay MKP 1837 Review and Modification
https://audiophile-musings.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-vishay-mkp-1837-review-and.html?m=1
In Part 1 and Part 2 of the Esoteric Shunt Capacitor series, we saw that your idea of an ideal capacitor may be what high-end manufacturers already make, however, getting detailed specifications for these beauties are data kept private as trade secrets. But as mentioned using your ideals you may be able to find a similar capacitor designed for use in non-audio applications. Such it is with the radio-frequency Glass Capacitor, one designed for use in environmental extremes and ultra stability.
But other esoteric shunt capacitors already exist such as dielectrics made from Teflon, those pricey yet silky paper-in-oil types, and of course the famous Vishay MKP 1837. For the moment, I want to focus on the 1837 and its attributes. Later, I will share with you a simple upgrade to this already stellar little capacitor. Lastly, in a separate article, I will share with you how different choices in shunt capacitors; how these different styles change the sound based on what capacitor you shunt and what bandwidth it occupies. This is a pretty revealing tale so grab a hot cup of your favorite coffee and let’s get busy.
Tomi Engdahl says:
AudioQuest NRG-X3 Review (AC Power Cord)
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audioquest-nrg-x3-review-ac-power-cord.32257/
Nope. They are the same.
Again, you couldn’t get more identical results. The two graphs have landed on top of each other perfectly.
Conclusions
Company advertising for NRG-X3 is very specific with respect to reduction of noise and distortion. No matter if we test the cable directly or through a piece of audio gear, there is no detectable difference despite the incredibly precise nature of our measurements. This makes statements like this from the review of said cable by Stereophile quite dubious:
“The AudioQuest NRG-X3 delivered more music, made more sense of the music, managed to more fully convey the artists’ intentions, and made me a happy guy.”
Making more sense of music? Fully convey artists’ intentions? Good grief.
Lack of safety standards is a concern. We don’t know the abrasion resistance, temperature rating, etc. either. So better not run over the cable or place it next to hot items.
On the positive front, the cable does seem to have lower DC resistance and is flexible. And at $99 price I paid, it is not hugely expensive. So if you bought one, I am not going to chase you. Personally I have better use for my money than spending it on power cord so can’t recommend the AudioQuest NRG-X3.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Speaker cables
Apinaa koijataan
On noissa eroja tiettyyn pisteeseen asti, mut epäilen tosiaan itekkin – et noiden kalleimman ja halvimman mallin välillä on eroa äänellisesti.
Väitän, että kukaan ei oikeesti huomaa eroa bilteman 2,5 neliön kaapelissa ja tässä. Mittareilla eron sähkönjohtavuuskyvyssä voi huomata, mutta kukaan ei korvalla kuule
itseasiassa joihinkin ns highend kaapeleihin on ympätty komponentteja, jotka muokkaa vastetta. Tällöin voi erot jopa olla kuultavissa, mutta se onko tällainen muutaman euron osilla muokattu soundi parempi – jääkööt ostajan murheeksi. Muutoin on tosiaan se ja sama, kunhan liitokset ei pätki ja tarkoituksenmukainen johtimen poikkipinta-ala. Toki joku saattaa maksaa hienosta ulkonäöstäkin.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Don’t see any point in creating lines, where the hobby is still ok and where it goes somewhere beyond. There are quite a lot of controversial things, related to audiophile.
I personally prefer to justify any of these things only in terms of: did the person, who was dealing with it, actually enjoyed the final result and the time spent?
If the answers are yes – I see no point of not to be glad for the fellow community member
From
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DIYAudio/permalink/6209845982414529/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Coaxial cable is OK for unbalanced signals, or triaxial cable.
Shielded twisted pair is right for balanced signals, or star-quad or twinaxial cable.
For best optical use single mode glass fiber.
Tomi Engdahl says:
impedance matched system does not mean that shielding is irrelevant. Having impedances matching can in some cases very slightly help.
Balanced interface can work quite acceptably without shielding over twisted pair wiring.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Are you the guy who did this with speaker cables? With the conductive 3D printed parts? (Carbon fiber is conductive).
You want to know how I know this is nonsense?
This can NOT be the correct solution for both line level and your speakers cables.
It’s going to be incredibly wrong for one of them or both (my money is both).
A blind test would likely fail if you did a great job making the cables.
If you can detect these cables in blind testing it will be because you ruined the sound.
You can go pull patents made by scientists and engineers and see how they tackle skin effect.
They didn’t do it like this… no point in going after skin affect if you have to create an antenna in the process. For your speaker cables it didn’t really matter… for line level you can screw up the signal.
you can’t solve these solutions better than the industry without training, experience and access.
That said, you talk about blowing up an amp output.
Some amps are truly picky when it comes to the capacitance in the cable.
It’s one of the reasons why people think better cables sound better.
They do not.
Different cables sound different when the amp doesn’t want to see high capacitance and you are comparing 2 cables with wildly different capacitance.
Another place you can notice a change in audio is between the phono stage because it’s an incredibly high impedance and therefore turns your RCA cables into an antenna.
Wanna check the quality of your cables go toss them on a phono pre-amp.
Pretty sure these will pull in a local radio station and buzz every time you get a phone call if used in that way.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.in-akustik.de/en/cables-and-accessories/reference-air/audio-cable/reference-nf-2404-air-007187007/
Air Helix structure
Extremely low capacities thanks to air dielectric
Super Speed waveguide
Low longitudinal inductance resulting from braided lacquered conductors
PE network jacket preventing micro-vibrations
Braided shield made of low-oxidation copper
Tomi Engdahl says:
Secrets of High-end Audio Cables: How to choose / make them budget-minded
https://youtu.be/91cCufCB9JQ
Tomi Engdahl says:
http://www.image99.net/blog/files/category-diy-cables.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
16 bit CD vs 24 bit streaming
https://youtu.be/dirITnwJG6k
Tomi Engdahl says:
Does that wiring scheme really make a difference audibly?
some “crazy” unshielded cable designs can make difference by picking up much more noise from environment that a proper shielded cable design. In those cases the the “crazy” design could sound different, but not usually better (I don’t like extra unwanted mains humming and RFI added to my audio).
Tomi Engdahl says:
my experience is that special power cables are generally less important than interconnect cable in HiFi system tuning.
There are though some cases where power cable can make difference – if you have decided to use poorly shielded interconnects, then switching to use shielded power cables can reduce the amount of noise from power cables to interconnects.
Tomi Engdahl says:
I’m just saying if you have a specific issue, and there are wires constructed to fix that issue then of course it makes a difference. Things like humming, inductance, capacitive coupling, ground loops. Etc.
If you don’t have any issues in the setup then of course the wire isn’t going to effect it.
I’m not talking about opening a soundstage
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why not build the DAC & power amp into each speaker enclosure and send digital audio over fiber optic to the speakers.
You’re putting the speaker as close as possible to the analog signal and the fiber optic digital link is pretty much impervious to noise.
Then you don’t have room for snake oil to get more transparency.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Do audiophile cables really make a difference?
Most people can’t tell the difference, is my first point.
There is a theoretical superiority in having a better quality cable and a better quality connector, all things being equal. Thin, cheap cables can have a higher resistance to the signal, which may drop the amplitude, and worse, may do so at some frequencies unequally.
The law of diminishing returns applies strongly though. Replace a 50 cents wire with a five dollar cable might be rewarding. Replace a five dollar cable with a 50 dollar cable, that would take some exquisite hearing to notice a change, assuming it is detectable.
All bets are off with high frequency data cables, but that’s a different issue.
https://www.quora.com/Audiophiles-Does-the-audio-cable-make-a-difference-in-terms-of-sound-quality
Tomi Engdahl says:
If there’s no problems with your current cables, there’s literally nothing to improve or overcome, simple as that.
Indeed, it is snake oil. Decent budget quality with good termination will do the job, with the proviso that this applies to domestic cable lengths, and that the speaker cables should be sufficiently thick. If you want to read more, see here: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/06/musings-audio-cables-summary-non.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-the-cables-matter.10318/
Cables make a huuuuge difference. No cables, no sound. With cables, your system works.
All joking aside, there should be no difference with any competently designed cable with good connections. By this I mean, using the proper cable for the signal type (no 28 gauge for speakers, no 10 gauge solid for interconnects) with well crimped or soldered connections and a tight interface with connections.
Unlike many here, I do believe I have heard, very, very, very minor differences between cables. In those differences, I couldn’t say one was better, just that they sounded like there were very slight differences in how things like high-hats and cymbals sound. That said, I have very little confidence that I could reliably pick between two quality cables in a blind test.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc422iIvCcY
Yeah, because everydoby knows snares sound better if you use a filter for your hard drive’s SATA power cable.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.howtogeek.com/802075/what-you-need-to-know-about-speaker-wiring-cables/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.howtogeek.com/802075/what-you-need-to-know-about-speaker-wiring-cables/
https://themusicessentials.com/editorials/can-coaxial-cables-be-used-as-speaker-cables/
The audiovisual world can be a complicated one at even the best of times.
Competing hi-fi brands and an ever-growing set of devices and technologies can make it difficult to know where you stand – and even professionals can sometimes have a hard time navigating home theatre! Today’s question focuses on a specific query, in relation to the cables we use to connect everything together: can coaxial cables be used as speaker cables?
Can a Coaxial Cable Be Used as a Speaker Cable?
Coaxial cables are distinct from standard hi-fi speaker cables, in that speaker cables are commonly much thinner and lighter. Speaker cables comprise two rubber-shielded copper weaves, which constitute the ‘hot’ signal and earth connection; they are not copper-shielded as they do not require protection from RF interference or other electromagnetic fields.
However, classic speaker cables and coaxial cables are nonetheless capable of serving the same function; coaxial cables can be used to supply speaker-level signals, provided they are terminated with the correct connectors for the system in question. There is no functional difference between the copper core of a coaxial cable and the ‘hot’ core of any other cable; as such, coaxial cables can be used safely in a few applications unrelated to high-frequency transmission.
What are the Consequences of Using Coaxial Cable?
There are some considerations that should be made before you use coaxial cables for your speaker system, though. For one, coaxial cables will have a thicker gauge of conducting wire than conventional speaker cables, which can increase both the capacitance and impedance of the wire. These can have tangible impacts on the quality of your signal, with longer runs of wire causing significant roll-off of higher audio frequencies.
There is also the logistical practicality of using coaxial cables for an install.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.electricalengineeringtoolbox.com/2017/07/how-to-calculate-inductance-of-electric.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
They sell a lot of snake oil but I’ve found their USB ground isolator useful for breaking a ground loop when other options weren’t viable. Unless you have a ground loop that thing isn’t going to do a damn thing for you because that’s the only actual benefit it will provide.
An audio LAN stream is going to come through perfectly or not at all. If you are using digital audio the only place you need to spend your money is on a DA.
Tomi Engdahl says:
USB isolators can be useful in solving ground loop problems.
Twisted pair Ethernet is transformer isolated on both ends of cable. You can get ground loop issues only if you use shielded cable. If shielded cable has ground loop issues, then replacing the cable with unshielded will solve the Ethernet related ground loop problem immediately.
Tomi Engdahl says:
It’s not easy to approach a high-end audio setup in the 21st century. Advancements in digital audio technology and extraordinary claims by snake oil salesmen have made high-end audio a complex field.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Their so-called “TechTalk” was a wash or unscientific drivel from a representative of the Aussie distributor of AudioQuest cables with “ZeroTech” and “DBS” (Downright Bull Shit). They then proceeded to compare the cables (with no attempt to do it double-blind) on a pair of shit-ass B&W speakers that didn’t even measure within an industry “standard” +/- 3dB! They ALL heard differences with the more expensive cable winning of course!
Tomi Engdahl says:
So…….maybe this person should learn what the idea behind XLR connections actually is. No, you don’t break the the 3 conductors out of the cable (i.e. and out of the shield) and intentionally separate them in air. Part of the reason balanced connections are balanced is that the conductors are tightly paired together, commonly twisted. Why? To make them “occupy the same space”. Why? Because then noisy external fields coupled onto them couple the same to each conductor. Why? Well…physics. But it makes the coupled-in noise a common-mode signal. Yeah but why? So they are rejected by the differential drivers and receivers (assuming his EQ even has those for real). It would be fun to look at the TX and RX circuits being connected by those cables to see if they are even differential.
Tomi Engdahl says:
This should be illegal… PC Audio Product Scams
https://youtu.be/Bc422iIvCcY