Cables, cables, cables...any tips? In the market (maybe)

I use the cables that come with my equiptment. If I have to buy cables I buy the cheapest I can get. Usually less than $10 and I leave it at that. I never agonzie over cables.

 

CD players come with cables. Dvd players come with cables in most cases.

 

Everything comes with a power cable. I've noticed they throw HDMI cables in with pretty much anything that needs it these days too. Can't say I've ever gotten an RCA cable that wasn't terminated vermicelli though.

 

I use those on my second system is not going to make a difference the CD player cost 20 bucks. The speakers came with the house they actually don't sound bad!

 

Ha, that's the beauty of collecting vintage stuff I recently bought a turntable from 1981 (date code sticker still intact!) and the attached cables are of unbelievable quality given they are 33 years old. I did replace the stock RCA connectors with gold-plated Canares, but it was just on principle, there was absolutely nothing wrong with them.

 

It's always good to have a system that keeps things grounded.

 

Not sure why I'm posting, as I usually regret participating in cable threads. I suppose I'll never learn, so here goes...

While on the surface it looks like a reasonable stab at a paper, scatching just a bit below the surface really makes me lose any respect I had for MIT. And, I have one of their level 1 digital interconnects, and like it. While I really like that they used VEE as their software tool to do these measurements (VEE is the only language I've programmed with in the last 15 or so years), their documentation leaves a lot to be desired. Not once did they describe what their setup is. Not once did they mention the generator used, the load used, or even the lengths of cables tested.

Oddities I noticed when reading it:

1-
MIT:"Not surprisingly, this cable will also exhibit measurable thermal noise. However, as we will show further on, this is not the sole, or indeed the major, source of noise in audio cables."
HdK: Not once did they ever show any measurements of thermal noise. Kinda hard for the reader to come to the conclusion that thermal noise is not the major source of noise then.

2-
MIT:"This noise, caused by the reflected energy which is redelivered, or "flipped back," out of phase, is the distortion element we are concerned with in this paper."
HdK: MIT uses this phrase, "out of phase" a lot in their description. The term "out of phase" implies 180 degrees of phase shift. Had they said, "phase shift" instead, it could be interpretted as being anything from 0.1 degrees to 180 degrees. 180 degrees of phase shift is a VERY LONG time when discussing audio signals. Unless we're talking 10s or 100s of kilometers of cable, it is hard to phathom how out of phase signals are reflected back to the generator in the audible band.

3-
MIT:"Interpreting the reflection measurement:
In each of the reflection measurement graphs, the thick black horizontal line running from left to right across the plot represents unity gain, that is, the magnitude of the signal MIT has input into the cable from the signal generator."
HdK: I'm not sure if they looked at the pictures included with the text, but I think they really mean "the thick white horizontal line" instead of black. Yeah, I know, anyone can confuse black and white. But really, come on guys, is it really that hard? They do this a number of times.

4-
MIT:"Note; all RRN measurement results presented in this paper have been averaged 20 times."
HdK: When you average random results 16 or 20 times, the result is pretty much 0. The fact that they get some spikies in their plots of competitor's cables implies there may be some coorelation at some frequencies. Anything coorelated is not random. Then again, it may also mean that their measured reflections are really huge when compared to the MIT cable. But, we are never given the opportunity to ever see what a single shot of this measured reflections are. Which leads into:

5-
MIT:"What cannot be shown here (unless we wanted to do a real time video) is the fact that each time the test equipment triggers and displays the one of the 20 individual measurements which were averaged for this result, that measurement contains a different set of magnitudes and frequencies."
HdK: Actually, the display element they've chosen to use in VEE can indeed store and display past waveforms. Or, they could have stored the waves themselves in containers in VEE, to be displayed on the same waveform display. No need for videos. And, each wave could be a different color.

6-
HdK: I still don't get their "consumed/reflected" plot. They say at unity (0dB) is the point the cable can no longer pass a signal. They put markers at the unity point, and at the +6dB point. But, all cables tested continue to increase as the frequency increases - beyond the +6dB point. The top of the plot is 10dB, with the cheap 12ga cable going off the chart long before the final test frequency. The only way I could come up with something that fits this chart, is to have a generator with a high source impedance driving a line and load with a significantly lower impedance. If this assumption were true, then this whole experiment is questionable at best, and completely bogus at worse. If they are using a signal generator with, say, a 50ohm output impedance, then this is nothing at all like a real audio amplifier with an output impedance well under one ohm. This is why I was wondering out loud above about the setup and the equipment used. But, getting back to the plots with points above 10dB, this is pretty cool, you could apply a high frequency signal to a speaker cable, and get back four or five (perhaps more)times as much signal as you put in. I think I might add this to my 'free-power' generators and power several small homes with it. Likewise, in the region where a cable 'works,' it only goes down to about -20dB at 0Hz. What does this imply? I'm not sure at all.

7-
MIT:"The noise measurement graph, like the reflection measurement graph, has a dark horizontal line running from left to right across it, representing unity gain. Anything negative to this represents a negative voltage, and anything positive to this represents a positive voltage."
HdK: The dark (as in white, described above) horizontal line represents a gain, but anywhere else it represents a voltage? Truly strange. Really, you can't represent gain and voltage on the same plot. For example, apply -1V to a device and get -1V out. This would be unity gain. But, it is also a negative voltage. So, where would we plot that phenomena? On the unity gain line, or somewhere in the negative voltage zone? Can't be at two places at the same time. I'm guessing they meant the white horizontal line represents 0V.

8-
HdK: Speaking of RRN plots, it would be nice if they shared with us the units of measurement on the RRN plots. Sure the upper half is positve volts and the lower is negative volts, but the full scale marks indicate +300 and -300, respectively. 300 what? 300 volts? 300 millivolts? 300 microvolts? With no clue given, it is next to impossible to attach any significance to what is shown. If they did share the units used, it would also be nice if they shared the amplitude of the stimulous.

9-
MIT: Finally, in the conclusion, they say:"A cable with low admittance in the reactive part reflects part of the music signal’s energy back to the source, where it is stored and then redelivered to the cable at a later point in time."

HdK: Assuming the source that the energy has been reflected back to is the amplifer (or signal generator in this test), no explanation is given as to why the amp (generator) would store this energy for some time only to redeliver it later. Or, even how it could store this energy.

There are plenty more aspects of this white paper that will cause more than a minor raise of the eyebrows, but I won't go into them because it would appear that I'm nitpicking. Also, I'm getting tired of typing. As requested, I've shared my opinion of this white paper. I sincerely hope that someone can shed some light on my confusion when reading this paper, as I'm sure it doesn't really make much sense to other readers of this forum.

 

It does take time and energy to type. Good response and thanks for taking the time. I find this sort of discussion much more interesting than most of the discussion. As you note, it is often what is not said or revealed that is most interesting, still, it can be hard to sort out what is poor writing and inept presentation and what is deception. I think you make points in regards to what can be simply clarified, and what may make little sense at all or represent testing paramaters chosen to give a result when those parameters may have no application in home audio.

 

Thank you for this. The consumer needs to know this stuff when they're being asked to shell out the readies. Some might go with blind acceptance for this stuff, after all, why would a manufacturer be anything but transparent (sic), but the reality is that this stuff needs challenged and is true especially for cables.

 

Every single CD. DVD and Blu ray player in my collection came with cables.

 

Last thing I bought was a Marantz AV7701 which came with them. Every DVD player I've bought (and with my crappy electrical system it was a lot before having everything on surge protectors, coffee pots included - yes coffee brewer as in the drink not POT or PHT to clarify for those in CA, CO, WA).

I'm not sure what equipment Steve gets. It's not common to get HDMI cables, but RCAs do come. Maybe if a majority of the equipment received is long term demos or freebies they don't include them.

 

I got a HDMI cable with my blu ray.

 

I got cables and a cookie with my music server.

 

I got a rock!

(thanks, Charlie Brown)

I received only power cables with the DACs I've purchased.

 

So many things come with disposable cables that my local GW won't even take them.

I don't know if they actually sound better, but I like the AudioQuest Evergreen as they are small, flexible and very well made. Much easier to route in my racks than my BJC cables which are also very well made.

 

I have the Evergreen and its a nice clean sounding untilitarian cable.
On my main Def Tech 7000s I had one Rockerfella not bi-amped but used full ranged with two bannanas on the amp end and two bannanas on the speaker end. In the lower bass input I used what I had around the Kimber 8tc and all was well. When new NOS tubes were introduced into the Vincent 236mkii I could hear and enjoy the subtle and not so subtle differences.
The big change happened in the last few days. I have not bought cables for speakers in a long time, atleast 6 years and I decided I should match the cables in brand or model at most. I decided with the help of John and Chris at Music Direct and much fun arguing that the Audioquest cv-8 with my Rocherfella would be great. Besides I can always send them back for full refund.
Well I dont know whats happened in the last few years with audio technology but the sound as usual is amazing. I dont believe the improvements that the ancillary parts, cable, tubes, new vibration gear, cleaners and knoweledge in seating have made stereo listening a revelation.
Years ago you bought the best amp, preamp, cd/lp/, and speakers and thats it. Recent gear has not only improved on a dollar basis but like I said the extras have made me get back into stereo like I did back in the late 60s and 70s. Not the quality but the excitement. !967-1979 stereos left something to be desired other than they looked great. A 1961 Fisher receiver, now thats a sound. But the 70s receivers had a certain style but all sounded like negetive feedback city.
Ofcourse the cables were all lampcord. and cheopo red and white interconnects.
It really is an amazing time , personally, cause everytime I make an improvement its an amazing one. In the old days of the 90s it took many dollars to get the same results. Im happy right now and all of us should be also. Take care, John M.

 

This is an excellent point. As system resolution has increased the amount of what changes a cable introduces can be more readily heard.

 

Any chance you would mind elaborating on this? I'm looking into getting some new cables for my system, and am trying to learn more about the different types of construction. Are you saying that solid core wire resonates or emphasizes certain frequencies? If so, what frequency range is most common? Does that vary depending on the brand or cable? I appreciate it.

 

It's an issue with solid core wire thicker than 24g. It's best to make audio cables out of multiple runs of smaller gauge wire, or use litz wire which individually insulates all the strands of wire it is made with. Both solid core larger than 24g and multi-stranded wire of any size will be inferior to using multiple runs of individually insulated smaller diameter wire.

 

I think it has to do with certain sizes of wire favoring certain ranges. If I recall, 24/28 AWG are used simultaneously in some nicer designs for a variety of reasons. My wires were 18AWGx2, which is not optimum, but it had a nice effect in an older, softer tube amp with my speakers at the time. When I changed the amp, the wires were less well suited, and I had to range around and find another solution. I tend to focus on horns, which need just a little bite but not too much.

When I bought my first hi-fi, my CD player shipped with a set of Lindsay-Guyer ICs (fat solid wire with magnetic RCA connectors). Those wires very much softened the digital harsh that was common in players of the time. Since then, I've always experimented with solid wire more than stranded. Everything I have now is Litz.

Good luck. Hope that helps.

 

Both of those posts are very helpful. Thanks.

 

After much research, many conversation and an obsessive amount of time auditioning and A/B-ing, I made the switch to ZenWave Audio. The difference with SCs between my BJs and ZenWave's copper SCs was day/night. It was literally like lifting a layer of muck (wet blanket, smog, etc) off the sound. Trust me, I did not want to believe and went into the auditioning phase as a skeptic, but the difference could not be ignored in my system.

I found the copper ZenWave SL and SMC cables were at least as good as the Shunyata Cobra SP for a fraction of the price in my system (the Cobras smoked by BJ SCs too!). Then I compared the ZenWave Cu cables to their Ag/Au SMSG cable and found the added detail and clarity, especially on delicate recordings, to be undeniable. Not as drastic as the initial step up from the BJs to high-end SCs, but I would bet that has to do with revelatory limitations of my current setup.

Dave at ZenWave is extremely knowledgable not only with cables, but all things audiophile and he was very helpful and available through my auditioning process. The switch to ZenWave was easy for me. I would recommend anyone in the cable or power market to definitely contact him and include ZenWave in your audition lineup!

 

You should address your concerns directly with MIT. Great folks that are always willing to discuss audio/cables.