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.
1,598 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Well they look like snakes….so….snake oil?
Tomi Engdahl says:
“Our customers are happy in their self-delusions!”
Eye wateringly expensive Audiophile Bling, nothing more.
It really is more. It’s lying in the course of commerce, and that should be regulated.
Lying is not only legal in the US, it seems to be encouraged.
“Astronomical” and “jaw dropping” are not words that should ever be associated with describing the sound after changing a cable.
Maybe for the prices!
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cable BS
https://www.stereonet.com/uk/news/wire-on-wire-experience-plexus8-cables-uk-audio-show-2022-launch
Wire on Wire’s Experience Plexus8 range of tunable audio cables feature remodelled cable geometry based on research using its patented REDpurl Adaptive Asymmetric Geometry, says the manufacturer.
Wire on Wire says that the Experience Plexus8 cables incorporate an extra pair of silver-plated copper wires to each interconnect with a re-configured flat-braided construction, resulting in a cable with increased conductor asymmetry consisting of alternating loop configurations with increased separation between conductors.
All are constructed from eight PTFE-insulated, silver-plated, multi-stranded copper wires per cable, with three different conducting filament gauges in an asymmetric, intersecting, non-parallel configuration.
Asymmetry is at the core of Wire on Wire’s method of achieving the highest fidelity. The design is said to reduce capacitance, crosstalk and harmonic modes and allows the audio cable’s electrical characteristics to be fine-tuned to suit different Hi-Fi components.
Wire on Wire’s owner and designer, Chris Bell, told StereoNET:
Asymmetric cable designs just sound better and are more adaptable for different hi-fi components and individual tastes than their symmetrical equivalents. The new eight-wire construction (hence ‘Plexus8′) extends the range of tuneable cable geometries that we can use to create the highest fidelity audio reproduction.
Tomi Engdahl says:
the producer for Radiohead thinks “mono” is the ultimate mix format, Audiophiles are literal cavemen.
Dolby Atmos music is “rubbish” and “stereo is optimum” according to Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich
By Mary Stone last updated September 21, 2022
“People are pushing things, and their priority is the technology, not the music.”
https://www.whathifi.com/news/radiohead-producer-nigel-godrich-is-unimpressed-by-rubbish-dolby-atmos-music-believing-that-stereo-is-optimum
Not everyone is as enamoured with Dolby Atmos as the music industry (and Apple Music) might have you believe. One notable voice of dissent, it seems, is Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich. He has shared his opinions on mono, Atmos and everything in between on the most recent edition of Jamie Lidell’s Hanging Out With Audiophiles podcast.
After Lidell broaches the subject of mono, Godrich replied “I feel mono is the most reliable audio format that exists, isn’t it? That’s what Stanley Kubrick thought – mixed all his films in mono because if you ever mix a film, wherever you go to watch it, the rooms are always set up differently, and it can be very, very disappointing when something that you’ve done in the rear[s] or is supposed to be happening somewhere, you suddenly can’t hear [it].”
Mono, stereo, 5.1… all this Dolby Atmos rubbish… is that music… you can’t get something that’s in 5.1 to ‘cook’; you never could. That’s one of the problems they’re having with Atmos, actually, is that you can’t master it. You can’t put, like, an overall compression on it, really.
people are pushing things, and their priority is the technology, not the music.
“And you know you could listen to Louie Louie by the Kingsmen, it’s mono, there’s no multi-track, it’s just brilliant – that’s music.”
“one of the reasons why music has become generally worse, and I’m sorry to say that, is that people think about technology more than the actual music they’re making. So sue me.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ah, yes, “I don’t know…therefore magic” combined with the ear knowing more than physicists. Classic.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://hackaday.com/2017/04/01/introducing-the-hackaday-passive-aligned-ferrite-active-quantum-crystal-nanoparticle-reference-sticker/
Tomi Engdahl says:
It’s Difficult To Read An Audiophile Guide As An Analogue Engineer
https://hackaday.com/2023/03/28/its-difficult-to-read-an-audiophile-guide-as-an-analogue-engineer/
Sitting on a train leaving the Hackaday Berlin conference, and Hacker News pops up Julian Shapiro with a guide to HiFi. What Hackaday scribe wouldn’t give it a click, to while away the endless kilometres of North European Plain!
It’s very easy as an analogue electronic engineer, to become frustrated while reading audiophile tracts, after all they have a tendency to blur superficial engineering talk with pseudoscience. There’s a rich vein of parody to be found in them, but nevertheless it’s interesting to read them because just sometimes the writer gets it and doesn’t descend into the world of make-believe.
This one is probably par for the course, we raised an eyebrow at the idea of comparing different speaker setups merely from sampled recordings, and rolled our eyes at the usual price-tag worship, but at least some of the acoustics stuff isn’t from another planet. The stand-out quote that motivated its write-up here though is the following, where he addresses the relationship between the audiophile industry and the audiophile press:
“Also, note that almost all hifi reviews are positive. This is because reviewers typically return products without review when they dislike it. They do this to maintain relationships with manufacturers and to give them another chance with new products in the future.”
Perhaps unwittingly it reveals in a nutshell the problem with the audio reviews. He’s dead right in that HiFi reviewers return positive assessments as a matter of course to maintain relationships with manufacturers, but omits the crucial point that they do so to maintain the hefty sums those manufacturers spend on advertising in their publications.
We’d suggest that better reviews would come from a truly independent publication giving the only HiFi verdicts that matter, blind tests and measurements from a high-end audio analyser, but we suspect that the industry lacks the courage to do so. Until that happens, almost everything remains subjective, and coloured by advertising budgets.
Julian Shapiro
Hifi Audio
https://www.julian.com/guide/hifi/intro
Tomi Engdahl says:
Know Audio: Start At The Very Beginning
https://hackaday.com/2021/06/02/know-audio-start-at-the-very-beginning/
aakash says:
Because coax cables are so adaptable, some people believe they can also be used as speaker cables. If you fall into this category, bow down because you are correct. It’s also not too challenging to use a coax cable as your coaxial speaker cable. https://nxtspeakerlab.com/coaxial-speaker-cable-perfect-guide/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/audioquest-suregrip-300-bfa-banana-gold-plated-plugs-pack-of-4/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ethernet cables: Everything you need to know
By Brian Nadel last updated May 13, 2020
A guide to Ethernet cables, from Cat 1 to Cat 8
https://www.tomsguide.com/reference/ethernet-cables-explained
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audio Design White Papers
https://rmsacoustics.nl/audiodesign.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
Mogami 2549 with neutrik xlr connectors. The 2549 has near perfect specifications for interconnect usage.
Tomi Engdahl says:
You could spend mega bucks on audio quest and get snake oil, or you could buy Mogami, and get what people who have serious recording studios use. It’s not even expensive.
Tomi Engdahl says:
I’ll answer the OP’s question with a question: Why is it that most recording engineers and virtually no highly regarded recording studios use cabling that audiophiles pay absurd amounts of money for? Mogame and Canare, among others, are well built cables that will sound just as good and last long enough.
its called Audiofoolery
Yeah. The audiophile world is inundated with myth. It’s interesting to me that they disregard or have never looked into what recording engineers and studios use. After all, one can never improve on the quality of the recording chain in any playback medium. Studios, even the best and most famous like you’ve mentioned, don’t use the stuff these guys spend absurd amounts of money on.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Just go and buy a studio grade Mogami cable with neutrik connectors. You won’t find a better quality XLR cable.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Well, if you really want the best cable they make, it would be the most expensive.
Unless you want to use your own definition of best. Then you can decide which is best for you.
Danny: true. Right up until we admit to the existence of charlatans, snake oil, and aggressive pricing.
There is a wonderful and illuminating exchange in le Carré’s “Smiley’s People”. Smiley turns to Toby Esterhase and asks: “Ever bought a fake painting, Toby?”
Toby denies any such thing. Smiley then observes that the interesting thing about buying fakes is that “the more you pay for a thing, the less inclined you are to doubt its authenticity”.
So it is with expensive cables, IMHO.
I would never buy one of their cables myself. But when the question seems to be which one of their cables is the best, I can only see one of two ways to answer that.
1. If they make great cables, better than anything else, wouldn’t the ones they say are best, be the best?
2. If it depends on the purchaser to determine which is best for their application, nobody but the purchaser really knows what criteria is to be used to make the determination of which is best.
In looking at some of the other posts and replies on this thread..
It seems the term “best” in the original question must include silver connectors, and some percentage of silver in the wires. The person does not like gold in wires or connectors it seems.
“aggressive pricing” is a difficult aspect to criticise in the world of hifi.
I’ve heard from multiple first hand experiences of startup hifi companies that are struggling suddenly doubling their VOLUME of sales after arbitrarily doubling their pricing.
If you sell more by charging more, it’s kind of a difficult thing to be mad at them for.
it’s not a matter of selling more because you price it higher… the quality of the material and manufacturing processes create the need to price it higher…. they are not just lieing ass meisers – out for a money grab… they don’t use low quality materials… like cheep cables use…
abbey road studios (and many other) cables cost about £1 a metre when bought by the reel. The very best RCA connectors found on the most expensive pre made cables are about £10 for a set of 4. If you want to go super fancy you can rhodium plate them at home for about £10 in rhodium (currently about 6 times the price of gold per gram!). Nordost PAY some studios to use their cables (now why do you think they’d do that if their products held up on their own
)
And yes, some of these companies do lie. I watched one large company delete all their latest YouTube reviews after I pointed out their phase flipping shenanigans, and saw another company chased out of my uni when they were found doing the same thing on a demonstration day there. And these are 2 of the biggest, most “reputable” companies.
And what are these “cheap materials” you speak of? Copper is as good as it gets for conducting electricity (well, silver technically conducts better but has issues with capacitance).
And yes, many companies sold more when they increased their prices, as I say I have first hand knowledge of companies seeing this in effect, as consumers we are lead to believe “pay more, get better”, and MANY consumers come up with a price point they wish to pay before any other consideration. No one says “I want a pair of speakers with x off axis frequency response and y transient response and z sensitivity” they say “what’s the best speakers I can get for £x”, and then the salesman’s job is to make the customer fall in love with whatever is close to that price point. Whilst there is certainly merit to this with loudspeakers as a theoretical best is impossible, every pair is the sum of its compromises and will vary wildly. With amps, cables and digital sources there is absolutely a “best”, and 99.9% of the time the limitation is in the 16 bit recording format. (And no vinyl is not a reason to go beyond, that’s got a way lower SNR, and no SACD or similar isn’t either, “high Res” releases are usually mastered completely differently, you’re listening to a different version of that song so comparison is moot)
I love mogami, very effective shielding. I like them better than more expensive brands
do you strictly ‘need’ very good shielding on an XLR cable. I would’ve thought minimal shielding would suffice given the way XLR works
I don’t like the spiral shield they use because it opens up on bends. For that reason I use Canare L2T2S or L4E6AT. They’ve got cotton string in there, too, to reduce microphonics (not really an issue in a home stereo system but it’s nice for mic cables).
I love Mogami because of the flexibility and the lack of memory in the wire. There really isn’t going to be an audible difference between any of the high-end wire manufacturers but there are differences in flexibility and memory in Mogami seems to be the best at having no memory when you unwind the cables.
If you spend £500 on an XLR you are officially a f#ckwit
If you’re buying audioquest, then you’re buying placebo, and therefore the one that costs the most will sound the best to you
“Cables can and do sound different, either through unusual electrical parameters or suggestion” – Siegfried linkwitz.
Bradley Jones hey, just because it’s a placebo, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. People get cured using placebo medication. If you believe a more expensive cable sounds better to you, then it WILL sound better to you, and that’s kind of all that matters, right? If someone cures themselves faster using placebo medication than by going without, then it was undoubtedly the right choice for them.
I’m only as much a skeptic as Siegfried linkwitz, the inventor of the modern crossover and undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable men ever on the effects of electrical parameters in a wire and their effects on sound. And only as much a skeptic as every single blind ABX test, that has shown cables to be indecipherable. Ok, maybe I’m a little more skeptical as I’ve caught 2 boutique cable companies demoing their “better” cables in side by side testing and flipping the phase in one channel on the “worse” cable.
As for what cables I use, well they use the same connectors that you’ll find in cables costing hundreds, or even thousands of dollars. And the wire I use is found in most of the best studios in the world. And even the solder I use is high specific with a very high silver content. But why? Well because the plugs are prettier, easier to solder and fit snugly. The wires come in multiple widths (important for snug braiding over the top) and colours, are flexible and have shielding that can withstand repeated bending. And the solder because it’s a joy to use, especially compared to modern unleaded stuff, and is eutectic. Oh and a pair of rca’s has never cost me over $30, even when they’re 1:1 clones of $500+ cables. Do mine sound, or even measure different to competently made cheap rca’s? No, of course not.
Companies that have a “range” of cables you should be particularly wary of though, as they have incentive to build in “unusual electrical parameters” as Mr linkwitz put it. If they use a particularly high capacitance cable, that will introduce a roll off to the high end, and they have 2 options there, use it in a low end cable so they can say their better ones have “more sparkle”, or in a high end cable and say it is a “warmer, less harsh” sound.
Also, have I used cheap cables that are NOT up to spec. Hell yes, poor shielding, no shielding, excessive resistance and capacitance, these things definitely exist. But there’s one way to ensure you’re not going to have those issues, build your own and measure them. All the parts from your most revered brands are out there, 99% from a handful of factories in china for the plugs, and there’s no need to look further than van damme or mogami for cut cable. For solder cardas quad eutectic is what i suggest for beginners, it really does make the job a breeze.
I do think cables are VITALLY important, without them my hifi doesn’t sound very good at all
FYI, as a hopefully interesting tidbit, placebos do not cure anyone. What they do is change the perceived severity of symptoms, but no trial ever has found any clinical results that would match it.
It’s literally all in the head, with no physical therapeutic benefit. Not that feeling better is a bad thing, I don’t claim that, it’s just probably worth mentioning that “feeling” is all there is.
yes good point, I guess like believing a cable sounds better may improve your perception of sound quality, but won’t actually change the objective performance of the system!
Well, it shows that Audioquest’s marketing is pretty efficient…
Robert Dockie no… I researched stuff – apparently most audiophiles prefer to use them… and they are the most expensive – and they do stuff like put silver in the mix… and and include a noise cancelling device attached to their high end cables…. (this im a little skeptical about but – if it’s pointless – it would be a lot easier to not include this thing than include it in the cable design and manufacture – ppl that work for them, disgruntled workers would blow the whistle)….
Bradley Jones 99% of audiophiles couldn’t tell the difference between them and a 5 dollar cable in blind tests. This is proven over and over again. Don’t waste money on other people’s imaginations
how big does the army of actually working audio scientists need to be to convince you that you have been tricked and just accept it and spend your money on solving that actually matters?
Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DIYAudio/permalink/6288970557835404/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://robbreport.com/gear/audio/slideshow/10-of-the-most-expensive-power-cords-audiophiles-can-buy/
No, those aren’t snakes or garden hoses coming out of the back of those power amplifiers; those are five-figure alternating-current (AC) power cords engineered for audiophiles. Like many things in the world of hi-fi, the efficacy of these costly cords (speaker cables can also be massively expensive) is not universally accepted. For those in the pro camp, the thinking behind audiophile-grade power cords is that AC power can become contaminated and is vulnerable to interference, which can affect audio system performance. Several companies offer power cables with varying features to address these issues. From cryogenic treatments to exotic and precious conductor metals, there seem to be as many solutions as manufacturers.
Tomi Engdahl says:
20k audio power cable introduced
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2011/11/20k-audio-power-cable-introduced/
An audio power cable costing over £20,000 has been described as “the most advanced cable technology ever developed”.
The Nordost Odin Supreme Reference Power Cord is the successor to Nordost’s previous best-selling power cable the Valhalla, which cost just under £4,000 for a 5m long cable.
Nordost says the Odin cable improves noise floor and resolution, increases transparency, dynamic range and freedom from grain, gives more believable sound staging, more natural life and musical dynamics, and a large range of tonal colours.
Other top-of-the-range audio cables include the JPS Labs Aluminata Series, which costs £2,396 for a 1m pair.
JPS says this cable boasts the “world’s first” Particle Aluminium Shield, an ultra-pure aluminium alloy shield that is so thick that noise at any frequency or severity cannot pass through it.
Transparent Audio’s Power Cord Series includes the Opus MM and MM2 lines, their most expensive cables at $30,000, and the cables focus on using an RLC network to dampen mechanical resonance and therefore reduce resonance in the audible range.
Siltech’s Emperor Crown, part of Siltech’s Signature series, uses silver and gold metallurgy to lower audio distortion, and is arguably the most expensive cable on the market costing $39,000 for a 2m pair.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audio Myths (A Selected Few Of Many)
© 2012, Rod Elliott (ESP)
http://sound-au.com/articles/myths.html#outro
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://paul-kemble.tripod.com/sound7e.html
Offsetting an audio amplifier
Differences between the two halves of a differential, or long-tailed, pair can be amplified resulting in a strong DC bias appearing on a directly-coupled output. These are not only wasteful but can result in non-linearities contributing to distortion and even the destruction of speakers. Common-mode rejection (in this case of the ripple on the supply lines) is similarly affected. A (below) shows a typical arrangement where the input offset voltage is related to the base-emitter voltages of the input transistors.
Tomi Engdahl says:
If cables are the main „problem“ in your system, you need more music, not more gear.
I am not saying that there is „no difference“. I am saying that most of the social media and audio press claims are bogus because the process and true capability to quantify and describe the differences are not present. Claims of more resolution and better bass make me run in the other direction!
Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DIYAudio/permalink/6294026030663190/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Mogami 2552 or 2534.
Some like Mogami W2549 for balanced it seems
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DIYAudio/permalink/6294026030663190/
Cable Question: preferred bulk cable for custom cables for each category; single ended analog, balanced analog, digital BNC/RCA, digital AES/EBU?
I know some like Belden 1505F for single ended analog, and some like Belden 1800F for digital. What else do you all like?
No preferred cable. If cables are the main „problem“ in your system, you need more music, not more gear.
I am not saying that there is „no difference“. I am saying that most of the social media and audio press claims are bogus because the process and true capability to quantify and describe the differences are not present. Claims of more resolution and better bass make me run in the other direction!
Canare L-4E6S star-quad for microphones. (And all balanced analog, really)
Yep, hard to beat for most stuff. Not cheap, but cheaper than some.
Mogami 2552 or 2534.
Also, some like Mogami W2549 for balanced it seems
belden cables are used in many of the finest recording studios in the world,,They make excellent cables..
Tomi Engdahl says:
A critical investigation into the properties of metallised film capacitors for high quality sound reproduction
https://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/61584/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Can We Hear Differences Between A/C Power Cords? An ABX Blind Test
https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
The Results
The complete Excel spreadsheet with all test results and participant comments can be accessed herein. After the test, Manny spent quite some time analyzing the results and responses to a post-session questionnaire he composed. I owe much of the following analysis to him.
The total number of correct answers was 73 out of 149, which amounts to 49% accuracy. That is no more accurate than flipping a coin, and therefore, no statistically significant detection of power cable differences.
Test participants were asked to rate themselves as to how much of an audiophile they considered themselves to be. The scale was 1 to 5 where 1 = “I’m not an audiophile at all” and 5 = “I’m a hardcore tweak.” (“Tweak” is the word Manny chose; I would not have used such terminology, which I find belittling in this context). The self-proclaimed hardcore audiophiles got 48% correct; the rest got 50% correct. Again, no significant differences based on whether or not a listener felt he was an audiophile or not.
Those above the median age of 50 scored 43% as a group; those 50 and younger scored 53% as a group. Those who frequently attend concerts of un-amplified music scored 44%, those who don’t scored 50%. Those who play a musical instrument scored 47%, those who don’t 50%. The 9 out of 15 participants who have invested in after-market power cords scored 48%.
The participant who scored best in the first group of 9 was a BAAS member who complained afterwards that it took him half the test to just become comfortable with the music and the sound. He rarely listens to classical music, and found the four selections off-putting. He also expressed a desire for more funk and rock-and-roll. Yet he scored the best of the lot in his test group, with 6 out of 10 correct responses.
The participant who scored best in the second group of 6 is a BAAS member who participated in Hone Your Listening Skills. He got 7 out of 10 right. According to Manny, even 7 out of 10 is not high enough to be statistically significant.
On the post-test survey, 14 out of 15 test participants (93%) answered “Yes” to the question, “Do you feel that the test procedure was reasonable in its attempt to answer the question of the audibility of power cords?”
Participants were 80% correct in their responses to the selection from the Berlioz Requiem. Manny calls this “very close to the threshold between chance and perception. None of the other selections produced responses higher than 60%. This phenomenon correlates with John Atkinson’s experience that his participants fared best on massed choral music. If any of us were mad enough to conduct another blind test of this nature, I would choose audiophile recordings of massed choral music for at least 50% of the musical selections. It would be interesting to discover if it would make a difference.
In post-test discussion, several of us noted that we had great difficulty remembering what A had sounded like by the time we got through with X. Several participants said that the way they dealt with this phenomenon was by ignoring A entirely and simply comparing B to X without giving thought to A.
Tomi Engdahl says:
ChorAlloy™
The growing line-up of ChorAlloy-plated connectors/plugs is already being fitted to Chord Company cables.
The upgraded ChorAlloy™ plating is available on VEE3 and PTFE RCA/phono connectors, ChordOhmic speaker connectors (spade and 4mm banana), BNC connectors, most USB connectors and the connecting pins of DIN and XLR connectors.
https://chord.co.uk/choralloy/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DIYAudio/permalink/6289905114408615/
Something running in my mind.
would it be ok to use MKS Wima instead of MKP in coupling the input going to opamp or an Amp (basically opamp high power)
Also if we’re to use Kemet R82DC or Epcos B325 PET for same above purpose
Reason -> MKP is nearly non available on reputed distributors in 5mm or 7.5mm lead pitch.
Technically yes, but personally no. MKS sounds bad in my opinion. MKP10 (red version) sounds OK but MKP10 (black box) sounds much better.
Any polyethylene or polypropylene is ok for caps in the signal path. Not ceramic, electrolytic, or polyester.
polyethylene and polyester are the same thing.
Wima MKS4 is film cap very good as coupling.
It can be argued that the junction (actual connection or bond with the plates) of dissimilar metals. can introduce a nonlinear effect like rectifier or RF detector, this also explain much about various audio cables and connectors.
Decoupling blocks the DC bias of the input circuitry
Personally I wouldn’t. Metalised capacitors are worse for distortion and not recommended for audio.
A cap is a cap is a cap.
Meaning: *parameters* matter…….. Brand? … not that much.
I never ever saw in any Electronics Book *any* equation mentioning brand, not one.
On YT videos and Audiophool forums? Tons.
Pick one education source.
unfortunately, a cap is not just a cap. But as you already have your opinion, we can agree that this opinion is only yours. The difference addressed here is MKP versus MKS/PET and their availability. Certainly legitimate considerations from an audio as well as a finish the project standpoint.
That being said, any part is dependent on the use case. One may or may not hear any difference. That could be due to our hearing capacity or the interaction of the part in the circuit. You will not break anything by substituting. You can always replace the substitute with something else if you determine a „flaw“ that can be attributed to that part.
Tomi Engdahl says:
If this is for Lab Equipment, call Beldon and talk to their representatives about the most ideal cable for the application. If this is for recording studio or radio station use, I use whatever Beldon recommends for everything except balanced audio cables where I use Canare Star-Quad. If this is for home audio, I don’t recommend spending too much money or consuming your time assembling cables, I like Hosa and Blue Jeans Cables as a pre-made cable suppliers.
Tomi Engdahl says:
No preferred cable. If cables are the main „problem“ in your system, you need more music, not more gear.
I am not saying that there is „no difference“. I am saying that most of the social media and audio press claims are bogus because the process and true capability to quantify and describe the differences are not present. Claims of more resolution and better bass make me run in the other direction!
Tomi Engdahl says:
From the technical point, just use good quality cables with copper inside, rubber insulation (good to bend many times) and solid plugs.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DIYAudio/permalink/6294026030663190/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://mogamicable.com/category/bulk/microphone/quality_balanced/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://hackaday.com/2013/08/27/building-a-high-end-usb-audio-dac/
Tomi Engdahl says:
“Astronomical” and “jaw dropping” are not words that should ever be associated with describing the sound after changing a cable.
Tomi Engdahl says:
I think they are comparing with no cable at all. I tested this, and the difference in sound is truly astronomical when using any cable at all compared to no cable.
Tomi Engdahl says:
“Our customers are happy in their self-delusions!”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Tube Amplifier Tone Stacks: Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BatwDYFJ9ug
Tube Amplifier Tone Stacks: Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZHM5BwPLRw
Tomi Engdahl says:
TOP 40 GREATEST SOUNDING ALBUMS OF ALL TIME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mn7w-3V_nI
In this episode I countdown my Top 40 Greatest Sounding Albums of All Time.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/VintageElectronicTestEquipment/permalink/6099400933510381/
Does it really matter which way you plug in a USA 2 pin plug? I’m in Australia and our plugs only go in one way.
I know the device doesn’t care which way but from a safety aspect isn’t it better to have the switch on the live side and not neutral?
In this case it’s going into a transformer primary, there is no wide pin so plug goes in both ways.
I want to tell you something. In most cases, the power transformer has asymmetrical leakage of the both sides of the primary to the case/secondary. If you disconnect the safety ground of the mains and connect a voltmeter there (using it as shunt and measuring voltage) you will read different voltage reversing the plug. I am making audio equipment for home audio, mostly with tubes. Phase matching primary windings of the transformers, especially if there is a phono stage in the system, can bring about 10dB down or more the hum from the mains. I am pretty sure that is valid also for old measurement equipment, because in that way we avoid leaking current to the safety ground wires and ground loops on the low levels.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ultimate Guide to Audio and Data Cables for Guitarists
https://guitargearfinder.com/guides/buyers-guides/ultimate-guide-audio-data-cables-guitarists/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Guitar/Cables
MEASURING GUITAR CABLES
https://missionengineering.com/measuring-guitar-cables/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ground boxes
https://www.entreq.com/products/ground-boxes-17667704
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://audiofool.reviews/2018/11/16/ttjv-usb-disruptor/
https://audiofi.net/2016/12/usb-disruptor-power-supply-dabiggenius-usb-cable-improved-perceptions/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://usbdisruptor.com/reviews/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/usb_disruptor_e.html
https://v2.stereotimes.com/post/usb-disruptor
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.yourcablestore.com/USB-Cable-Length-Limitations-And-How-To-Break-Them_ep_42-1.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/wtf_is_this_the_biggest_guitar-related_scam_ever.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
Adrian Ekstrøm
“For audio, in some edge cases, one can measure distortion resulting from ferromagnetic materials. To put it in perspective, it can get as high as 1000 times lower than audible distortion thresholds. IOW, totally irrelevant for actual component use even in the worst cases.
I do love seeing people fretting about the ferromagnetic leads on resistors used in their tube amps.”
Source: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/ferromagnetic-materials-in-audio-connectors.41867/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Did you check it for magnatisme
I want magnetism in dynamic speaker elements and transformers, coils and in magnetic tape
Tomi Engdahl says:
Six Common Mistakes Made When Recapping Vintage Electronics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeDKwi-GJRI
Short little video on common mistakes seen when recapping (replacing capacitors) vintage electronics. This would include vintage stereos, radios, equipment, CBs, ham radio receivers & transmitters, calculators, computers, you name it.
Hopefully this will provide you some tips and hints to use when you go to recap your piece of vintage gear.
Topics include:
- Mistaking Factory Glue for Leaking Capacitors
- Factory Boards and Manuals Marked Wrong
- Capacitors Installed Incorrectly
- Using Larger Capacitors Than Specified
- Buying Electrolytic Capacitors off Ebay
- Replacing Everything at Once