Can someone give me an explanation of this please

[Sumdumgi]

I'm not an engineer and my technical prowess is limited to opening bottles of beer & wine.

In layman's terms what do these tech specs for an interconnect tell you ?

IC 1

• Resistance (Ohms/m @ 20°C) : 0.044
  Capacitance (pF/m) : 61.14
  Inductance (µH/m @ 1 kHz) : 0.401

IC2

• Resistance (Ohms/m @ 20°C) : 0.0266
  Capacitance (pF/m) : 71.90
  Inductance (µH/m @ 1 kHz) : 0.416
  

Thanks
SDG

[Dannish]

It tells you that cables that measure different sound the same. Don't they?

[Sumdumgi]

Dannish wrote:

It tells you that cables that measure different sound the same. Don't they?

I knew I'd get that response from someone

Had my fair share of foo over the years and just wanting to clarify what the specs on the box mean.

[rabski]

To me, the specs mean that the quoted values are so low that no perceivable difference in sound could be down to the effects on source or amplifier of resistance, capacitance or inductance.

[Sumdumgi]

rabski wrote:

To me, the specs mean that the quoted values are so low that no perceivable difference in sound could be down to the effects on source or amplifier of resistance, capacitance or inductance.

So, in essence, the cable raw materials and method of manufacture produce a difference in specification so negligible that the output signal to the amplifier would be identical ?

As a matter of interest one is a silver/copper mix, the other all copper.

[rabski]

Sumdumgi wrote:

rabski wrote:

To me, the specs mean that the quoted values are so low that no perceivable difference in sound could be down to the effects on source or amplifier of resistance, capacitance or inductance.

So, in essence, the cable raw materials and method of manufacture produce a difference in specification so negligible that the output signal to the amplifier would be identical ?

As a matter of interest one is a silver/copper mix, the other all copper.

This being the tech section, all I'm looking at is the figures you have quoted. With this in mind, the materials and construction methods are irrelevant. IMHO (where are you Serge?) the LCR values quoted are so small that I would not anticipate any effect whatsoever. Just possibly the capacitance might have some influence if used between a MC cartridge and a phono stage, but other than that, no, I can't see anything having any effect whatsoever.

[SergeAuckland]

rabski wrote:

Sumdumgi wrote:

rabski wrote:

To me, the specs mean that the quoted values are so low that no perceivable difference in sound could be down to the effects on source or amplifier of resistance, capacitance or inductance.

So, in essence, the cable raw materials and method of manufacture produce a difference in specification so negligible that the output signal to the amplifier would be identical ?

As a matter of interest one is a silver/copper mix, the other all copper.

This being the tech section, all I'm looking at is the figures you have quoted. With this in mind, the materials and construction methods are irrelevant. IMHO (where are you Serge?) the LCR values quoted are so small that I would not anticipate any effect whatsoever. Just possibly the capacitance might have some influence if used between a MC cartridge and a phono stage, but other than that, no, I can't see anything having any effect whatsoever.

I'm here! Been out all day Pre-recording some shows.

Absolutly agree, the figures quote for series resistance arenegligeable, as is the capacitance unless your cables are very long. Inductance is again pretty irrelevant on ordinary length cables.

What this says to me is that the two cables will perform identically under any sort of domestic conditions for normal length cables.

Buy the cheapest, the prettiest or the one with the best quality connectors (it'll last longer).

S.

[Sumdumgi]

SergeAuckland wrote:

I'm here! Been out all day Pre-recording some shows.

Absolutly agree, the figures quote for series resistance arenegligeable, as is the capacitance unless your cables are very long. Inductance is again pretty irrelevant on ordinary length cables.

What this says to me is that the two cables will perform identically under any sort of domestic conditions for normal length cables.

Buy the cheapest, the prettiest or the one with the best quality connectors (it'll last longer).

S.

Thanks. They are standard 1m cables.

It's not a case of buying the cheapest, prettiest or the the one with the best quality connectors, both pairs of ICs are already in my possession and I didn't buy either of them - the came 'free' from the dealer a few months apart. One with my AV888 and the other with the Bryston. I didn't really want them and would have preferred a better discount to be honest but I've been experimenting with them over the last 2 or 3 weeks.

Just wanted some clarity to see whether my thoughts, after extended listening, matched the 'techie' views here.

[rabski]

Sumdumgi wrote:

It's not a case of buying the cheapest, prettiest or the the one with the best quality connectors, both pairs of ICs are already in my possession and I didn't buy either of them - the came 'free' from the dealer a few months apart. One with my AV888 and the other with the Bryston. I didn't really want them and would have preferred a better discount to be honest but I've been experimenting with them over the last 2 or 3 weeks.

Just wanted some clarity to see whether my thoughts, after extended listening, matched the 'techie' views here.

OK, I'll take the bait......

So, what are your thoughts after extended listening (assuming you've managed at least a semblance of blind testing)?

[Sumdumgi]

rabski wrote:

OK, I'll take the bait......

So, what are your thoughts after extended listening (assuming you've managed at least a semblance of blind testing)?

Let me assure you I'm not offering 'bait'. I asked a question as an aside, I've already come to my conclusions and I'm not looking for the opportunity to engage in the sort ofpointless arguments that proliferate around this subject. I was just wondering what people who understood the technical aspects of cable performance would have to say.

Blind testing - I've read so much about it and it seems that lots of people can't even settle on what's acceptable & accurate as a test I've made no attempt to come up with a blind test that will pass muster so you can stop reading now if you wish

I'm happy to tell you what I did.

Just to clarify why I didn't use the free gratis cables at the point of purchase. I have been happy with the ICs I'd been using with my AV9 and felt it unnecassary to change, simple as that. The 'testing' really came about becauseof the time I currently have available and the demands from SWMBO that I should move on some of the excess kit and bits of wire around the house. My main speakers are B&W 802D.

My CD36 has two analogue outputs. I connected both of these untried pairs to my AV888. The AV888 assigns inputs to various sources but the manual tells me that the inputs are identical and can be used at will. I've listened to the same album twice in succession obviously from each CD output on a number of occasions where the listening has been active anduninterrupted. I've used music that I am entirely familiar with, favourites, some well recorded and some not. I've also tried to ensure that my routine listening has alternated between the two sets of cables. This was over a period of3 weeks. At the end of thesecond weekIremoved IC2. I felt that IC1 provided more clarity in that the detail and instrument seperation in recordings was more apparent to me. For the last couple of weeks I've been using the 'freebie' and my 'old' interconnect and followed the same programme of active and passive listening. Yesterday I decided to stick with IC1. Again it seemed clear to me that the level of detail was increased and I had discovered things in familiar recordings that I simply hadn't heard before.


Specs for my 'old' IC were -

• Resistance (Ohms/m @ 20°C) 0 : .0266
• Conductor to screen capacitance (pF/m) : 90.02
• Inter-conductor capacitance (pF/m) : 43.71
• Conductor - screen inductance (µH/m @ 1 kHz) : 0.785
• Conductor - conductor inductance (µH/m @ 1 kHz) : 0.040

Given the comments above about the specs they shouldn't make any difference either.

There you have it.

IC1 retails just a tad over £300, IC2 retails at around £140, my 'old' IC retails at around £180 but I bought it in the Classifieds for half that a couple of years back.

[skalpol]

I don't have anything to say about correlating LCR to sound quality, but:

Serge Auckland (thank you for blessing us with your post after your busy schedule) is hardly an authority on technical matters. He says performance should be indistinguishable, yet there are some important unmentioned specs including electrical ones which can make or break a cable's performance, that have not been stated or are unknown.

Also, in this setup one should reallyuse the same inputs, outputs and disconnect other cables. In practice, unfortunately, this does make a difference and can lead to wrong conclusions.

Between pre-and power amp is where the real money can lie, did you/do you plan on comparing for this purpose? I note none of your cables are the Bryston interconnect, the cable itself of whichcan be had for small money of course.

Do we ever get to put names to these cables?

[SergeAuckland]

skalpol wrote:

I don't have anything to say about correlating LCR to sound quality, but:

Serge Auckland (thank you for blessing us with your post after your busy schedule) is hardly an authority on technical matters. He says performance should be indistinguishable, yet there are some important unmentioned specs including electrical ones which can make or break a cable's performance, that have not been stated or are unknown.

Also, in this setup one should reallyuse the same inputs, outputs and disconnect other cables. In practice, unfortunately, this does make a difference and can lead to wrong conclusions.

Between pre-and power amp is where the real money can lie, did you/do you plan on comparing for this purpose? I note none of your cables are the Bryston interconnect, the cable itself of whichcan be had for small money of course.

Do we ever get to put names to these cables?

S.

[oldphrt]

skalpol wrote:

I don't have anything to say about correlating LCR to sound quality, but:

Serge Auckland (thank you for blessing us with your post after your busy schedule) is hardly an authority on technical matters. He says performance should be indistinguishable, yet there are some important unmentioned specs including electrical ones which can make or break a cable's performance, that have not been stated or are unknown.

Also, in this setup one should reallyuse the same inputs, outputs and disconnect other cables. In practice, unfortunately, this does make a difference and can lead to wrong conclusions.

Between pre-and power amp is where the real money can lie, did you/do you plan on comparing for this purpose? I note none of your cables are the Bryston interconnect, the cable itself of whichcan be had for small money of course.

Do we ever get to put names to these cables?

How about Fooey and Hooey?

[MrSammy]

skalpol wrote:

some important unmentioned specs including electrical ones which can make or break a cable's performance, that have not been stated or are unknown.

Which ones were you thinking of? EMF and RFI rejection? Phase issues due to skin effect? (in an interconnect?) Quality and contact area of the connection between the socket and plug? Surely the dielectric properties on the cable sheathing and insulation would show up in the reading of the cables Capacitance.

I agree that even for a sighted test using different input sockets is potentially affecting the test. I would at least swap the sockets over once.

For a proper double blind test you need both the person listening to the cables and the person presenting the test to have no knowledge of which cable is which. I don't believe there is anything contentious about this definition. As the listener you cannot pre-judge the issue and you cannot be influenced by the person conducting the test either.

Are there any peer reviewed papers that show when a difference in measured parameters actually becomes audible? I can remember Hi Fi News coming up with some generalisations but that was a magazine article. Obviously this is going to be affected by the two pieces of equipment that are being connected but a general ball park figure would be useful.

[skalpol]

MrSammy wrote:

skalpol wrote:

some important unmentioned specs including electrical ones which can make or break a cable's performance, that have not been stated or are unknown.

Which ones were you thinking of? EMF and RFI rejection? Phase issues due to skin effect? (in an interconnect?) Quality and contact area of the connection between the socket and plug? Surely the dielectric properties on the cable sheathing and insulation would show up in the reading of the cables Capacitance.

I agree that even for a sighted test using different input sockets is potentially affecting the test. I would at least swap the sockets over once.

For a proper double blind test you need both the person listening to the cables and the person presenting the test to have no knowledge of which cable is which. I don't believe there is anything contentious about this definition. As the listener you cannot pre-judge the issue and you cannot be influenced by the person conducting the test either.

Are there any peer reviewed papers that show when a difference in measured parameters actually becomes audible? I can remember Hi Fi News coming up with some generalisations but that was a magazine article. Obviously this is going to be affected by the two pieces of equipment that are being connected but a general ball park figure would be useful.

Hi,

I meant published manufacturer specs: shield resistance, return conductor resistance, shield material, configuration and coverage.

Obviously, the effects are uncontentious, as is the potential audibility. No "audio engineer"should have ignored or made presumptions aboutthese basics whenstating (flawed)firm conclusions about performance.

Interesting you mention blind testing - I don't know exactly what the OP's purpose was, but blind testing is only appropriate in helping (helping, not proving) to answer certain questions.I think there's a good chance the question was "which cable will sound better to me if I were to use it normallyandlisten normallybetwen cd and amp". Here, the controls I mention are crucial, whereas a double blindtest isactually a verybad idea.

A side note for anyone happening across this thread who may act on duff advice: for cable longevity, thequality of the RCA plugis bottom of the list of things to consider.

[SergeAuckland]

Message to Moderators.

Can we please keep this technical. Comments as we have seen recently add nothing to the Technical debate.

Thank you.

S.

[ultrawomble]

skalpol wrote:

blind testing is only appropriate in helping (helping, not proving) to answer certain questions.

Indeed. Whilst it will not prove that there are no absolute differences between cables, it will show whether there are audible differences. If there are no audible differences, use the cheaper of the two cables and put the money saved to better use.

[skalpol]

ultrawomble wrote:

skalpol wrote:

blind testing is only appropriate in helping (helping, not proving) to answer certain questions.

Indeed. Whilst it will not prove that there are no absolute differences between cables, it will show whether there are audible differences. If there are no audible differences, use the cheaper of the two cables and put the money saved to better use.

Blind testing may be instructive beforehand. Some would say essential, some would say destructive. It's very power comes from controlling and eliminating certain conditions.

But the very final test, when making the practical final decision of which cable to keep, should not be blind. If we can callthis testan experiment, then this is a fundamental of basic goodexperimental design - to keep conditions as close to the real world situation as possible.

[meninblack]

To the OP: you ask for a technical explanation for the different sound of the two cables. There is none. The technical knowledge that we (mankind) have about cables tells us that there will be no audible difference.

To Skalpol: This is obviously not the answer you were looking for, but it is the technical answer.

Arm-wavy explanations of cable differences based on nonsense and marketing bollocks belong in a different area of the forum.

[Sumdumgi]

meninblack wrote:

To the OP: you ask for a technical explanation for the different sound of the two cables. There is none. The technical knowledge that we (mankind) have about cables tells us that there will be no audible difference.

To be pedantic I asked whether the differing technical specifications would impact upon the output or signal to the amplifier

I have another question leading on from what has been said above.

Do the technical details provided by the manufacturer (above) reflect the statistics for the finished product or the cable ?. This might be an obvious nay even foolish question but as I said I've no technical knowledge in this area. Looking at cable manufacturers websites and interconnect specifications in the main you get a reference to the base materials used, method of manufacture and pretty pictures of a 3D representaion of the innards. This is followed by the type of information I detailed in my original post. It is not clear whether those figures are as a result of testing the final product.