Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Interconnects (Read 44977 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Interconnects

Just interested in peoples views on interconnects (between components, speaker cable, etc); is it worth spending money on them ?

Often reviewers refer to 'recreating the live experience' as the holy grail of a hifi; but if you go to a live gig, won't they use cheap cabling to connect their equipment to the PA system ?

Interconnects

Reply #1 –
Quote from: danhackley on
Just interested in peoples views on interconnects (between components, speaker cable, etc); is it worth spending money on them ?

It depends on what you believe and what you value. Some audiophiles spend a lot of money on cables and are content knowing that such exotic luxury goods are only valued and appreciated by the discerning sophisticated audiophile. Those with more common sense and/or some technical knowledge are going to have a rather different set of beliefs and values which may well be reflected in embarrassment should any of their peers see them owning those same exotic luxury goods.

Interconnects

Reply #2 –
Quote from: danhackley on
Just interested in peoples views on interconnects (between components, speaker cable, etc); is it worth spending money on them ?

Often reviewers refer to 'recreating the live experience' as the holy grail of a hifi; but if you go to a live gig, won't they use cheap cabling to connect their equipment to the PA system ?


Good read about cables and what matters, if you are interested.

PA systems are not designed for best possible sound quality, but rather for efficiency.  The 'live experience' means you don't hear there is a sound system playing recording -- it rather sounds that the performance is happening on the listening room.
Teemu

Interconnects

Reply #3 –
Quote from: danhackley on
Just interested in peoples views on interconnects (between components, speaker cable, etc); is it worth spending money on them ?

They're worth spending money on, but primarily because they aren't typically free

I'm content with the slightly-better-than-garbage Belkin PureAV-series interconnects. Am I missing out by not instead using Nordost interconnects? Perhaps, but unless someone (anyone) is willing to step up to the plate and actually quantify what I'm missing with the PureAV stuff, I'll stick with my lovely $15 Radioshack cabling and find comfort in the thought that I have money in the bank.

Quote from: danhackley on
Often reviewers refer to 'recreating the live experience' as the holy grail of a hifi

I've always thought that was a nonsensical notion. The "holy grail" of hi-fi is whatever you want it to be.

Interconnects

Reply #4 –
Anything which isn't el-cheapo "99cent crap" will already be optimal from a practical POV. Just make sure that there is proper shielding against interferences, that they are durably built (not because of soundquality, but so that they dont internally break, especailly near the plugs), etc. So in short, just "good durable standard cables". Those are more expensive than the el-cheapo ones, but not much - we're talking about price-differences of 5 EUR/12 EUR, ..... NOT 100 EUR or even 1000 EUR.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #5 –
I agree with everybody else.  Unless they are defective, cables will have little or no effect on sound.  If there is any benefit to audiophile interconects, it is subtle.    For example if you have $500 to spend on speakers and cables, it would be better to spend $490 on speakers and $10 on speaker wire, than to spend $400 on speakers and $100 on wire....

On the other hand, if you are going to spend $5000 on speakers and money is not a big concern, there is no "harm" in spending a few hundred on speaker cables.

For speakers, I use "standard" speaker wire and I try to use at-least 16-gauge*.

For line-level connections, I look for "100% shielded" cables.  The package won't always be marked, but only very-cheap audio cables are not 100% shielded.

Quote
but if you go to a live gig, won't they use cheap cabling to connect their equipment to the PA system ?
  They won't be using "cheap" cabling, but they don't use audiophile cabling either.  They typically use "heavy gauge" cables because they are more rugged.  They are running lots of power, and for that, they need bigger speaker cables.  And, depending on the set-up some of the speaker-wire runs might be rather long too.  Again, this calls for heavier gauge wire.  For low-level connections they mostly use "XLR" connectors and "balanced lines".  That type of cable is also more rugged and costs more than a regular "RCA" cable.



* In case you don't know, the lower the gauge, the bigger the wire.  i.e. 22 gauge wire is smaller than 16 gauge and it has higher resistance.  (Although resistance is fairly insignificant for short-runs... resistance is measured in ohms-per-foot, and when it comes to speaker wire, lower resistance is better.)

Interconnects

Reply #6 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
They won't be using "cheap" cabling, but they don't use audiophile cabling either.


Last time I bought any 8 core 4mmsq per core multi-strand cable was about £4 ($8) a meter which is pretty damn cheap in the grand scheme of things.

Interconnects

Reply #7 –
In my 25 years of amateur interconnect cable purchases, I've always noticed a very sharp 'knee' in the value-for-money ratio towards the bottom of the price range. The el-cheapo cables are probably adequate for a fixed installation where you're not going to be placing any repeated mechanical stresses of any kind on the connectors or strain-reliefs. Even after just a couple of dozen plug-in/unplug cycles, it's possible for the cable to fail terminally. I had it happen a few times before I learned my lesson.

If I can pay even just two or three times as much and get perfectly adequate cables that seem to take decades to show any serious signs of deterioration through normal wear-and-tear, then I'll go for those as they satisfy my 'comfort zone' requirements in terms of what I personally look for in a product. I could go out and spend 100 times as much as I spent on my last installation for cabling, but I personally believe that you're very rapidly climbing the slope of diminishing returns. Quite possibly exponentially.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

Interconnects

Reply #8 –
Not that I disagree, but has anybody done any serious blind testing of this?

(Last I heard on the powercables test a few weeks back was that somebody on Stereophile was able to ABX the cables as being different!)

Interconnects

Reply #9 –
Quote from: retro83 on
Not that I disagree, but has anybody done any serious blind testing of this?

AFAIK, there have been dozens.

Quote
(Last I heard on the powercables test a few weeks back was that somebody on Stereophile was able to ABX the cables as being different!)

Yeah, well i also read in the boulevard press that a black hole which is 400 LY away threatens to IMMEDIATELLY swallow Sol, and that governments should immediatelly act.

Sorry, after someone lied often enough, it isn't even worth it anymore to analyze their claims on a logical level, let alone check test setups..... since its already 99,9% certain to be bullshit. I'd trust any unknown stranger more than stereophile on audiotopics.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #11 –
Quote from: CiTay on
Here's one, done 25 years ago (yes, they already wondered about this back then):


Thanks for that! So to conclude once you reach 16 gauge, any old wire will do.

Quote from: Lyx on
Sorry, after someone lied often enough, it isn't even worth it anymore to analyze their claims on a logical level, let alone check test setups..... since its already 99,9% certain to be bullshit. I'd trust any unknown stranger more than stereophile on audiotopics.


Not the magazine, merely a user of their forum and of course he could have simply guessed correctly.

Interconnects

Reply #12 –
My suggestion has always been to spend some of the money that one would spend on "audiophile" cable on a soldering iron, good solder and quality components and make some cables instead.  At least you'll know the quality you're getting...
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

Interconnects

Reply #13 –
What about digital interconnects ? Or cables carrying digital data such as those transferring FLAC data from a hard disc ?

Interconnects

Reply #14 –
Quote from: danhackley on
What about digital interconnects ? Or cables carrying digital data such as those transferring FLAC data from a hard disc ?


S/PDIF cables might matter, since the noise level may affect the recovered clock.  But I would invest to a better (reclocking) DAC rather than cables to make cables unimportant.

Other digital cables don't matter.  You just pass data around and if that doesn't work reliably, you have bigger problems and you can't play the audio in the first place...
Teemu

Interconnects

Reply #15 –
Quote from: dreamliner77 on
My suggestion has always been to spend some of the money that one would spend on "audiophile" cable on a soldering iron, good solder and quality components and make some cables instead.  At least you'll know the quality you're getting...
I haven't been a DIYer for long, but this is one of the overwhelming factors that convinced me. Why pay big money and not know what you're getting when you can spend relatively little money and know EXACTLY what you're getting?

Interconnects

Reply #16 –
I think there is no audible superiority to be had with expensive cables so they are not worth it.  I have always made all my own interconnects and speaker cables using high quality materials for their mechanical and aesthetic qualities.

James Randi, the magician, is offering a one million dollar prize:

"James Randi Offers $1 Million If Audiophiles Can Prove $7250 Speaker Cables Are Better"
http://tinyurl.com/2ncuhd

John Dunleavy was a very well respected electrical engineer who had several companies (Duntech, Dunleavy) which made some of the best sounding speakers you could buy. Before he got into audio, he was an expert in satellite communications:

He had this to say about cables:

"Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest!

Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.

Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist - if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc."

Interconnects

Reply #17 –
Quote from: tot on
Quote from: danhackley on

What about digital interconnects ? Or cables carrying digital data such as those transferring FLAC data from a hard disc ?


S/PDIF cables might matter, since the noise level may affect the recovered clock.  But I would invest to a better (reclocking) DAC rather than cables to make cables unimportant.

Other digital cables don't matter.  You just pass data around and if that doesn't work reliably, you have bigger problems and you can't play the audio in the first place...


There are length limits on both S/PDIF and TOSLINK connections. This has been dicussed to death elsewhere on the forum if you search a bit.

Interconnects

Reply #18 –
Quote from: chelgrian on
There are length limits on both S/PDIF and TOSLINK connections. This has been dicussed to death elsewhere on the forum if you search a bit.


Sure.  I meant an "expensive" cable versus "normal" cable, where "normal" is something that should work just fine.
Teemu

Interconnects

Reply #19 –
Hey, I work at RadioShack, and was wondering- would the RS "Gold Series" be fine, good quality? Indeed, what about the RS plain vanilla RCA cables?

Obviously Monster cables are a bit of nonsense- I just spent my week doing online courses on Monster stuff, and aside from learning about analog/digital audio, and which video is best, the rest was BS- talking in-depth about why Monster gives better audio or video than other cables, not to mention the bizarre "Monster Power" claims.

But don't tell my boss that


Back to my question- I've always used 3-5 dollar really crappy quality cable and wondered if RS or RS Gold would be any better, or even, sufficient.

And do any of the RCA audio cable terminologies- dielectrics, 24K carat tips for optimal signal transfer, and more (e.g. this Monster cable we sell at RS- http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=133 )- add up to improved performance, or even good ideas thereotically?

Compared to say:
(RadioShack Gold Series)
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.js...rentPage=search

(RadioShack "plain vanilla")
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.js...rentPage=search

I mean, I don't get horrible sound quality, but I do have a bunch of noise- I was almost swayed by those bogus "Monster Power" claims but thankfully came to my senses. Eliminating 99% of AC noise sounds like such a good thing though!
(I wonder if this would work:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.js...entPage=search)

Regards,
- Spike

Interconnects

Reply #20 –
I always go for budget cables because i am sure the difference is most likely zero.

Interconnects

Reply #21 –
Quote from: danhackley on
Just interested in peoples views on interconnects (between components, speaker cable, etc); is it worth spending money on them ?


The total cross sectional area of the copper wire on your speaker interconnects should never exceed the cross sectional area of the copper in the live and neutral wires of your mains cable; after all, how can an amplifier deliver power that it can't draw in the first place? [Author's note: This has been subsequently demonstrated as incorrect, please disregard]

Silver, Copper and Aluminium are all excellent conductors, in decreasing order. Gold isn't quite as good as those three, but has the advantage of never oxidising, which is the only reason it is used.

As far as digital interconnects go, it's all ones and zeroes at the end of the day, and if the signal that reaches the other end is recognizably a one or a zero then you'll be fine. Take a look at the single thread of copper wire that is used for 10 gigabit copper networks, now that shifts ten thousand million ones and zeroes per second at distances of up to 100 metres. Digital audio at 96kHz and 24 bits ber sample will move 2.3 million bits per second per channel. Conclusion: even the most tiddly bit of low oxygen copper (if well shielded) is capable of moving 4347 channels of high quality digital audio.

Conclusion: copper is suprisingly, but demonstrably, capable. Spend your money elsewhere.

Interconnects

Reply #22 –
Quote from: audioadam on
Quote from: dreamliner77 on

My suggestion has always been to spend some of the money that one would spend on "audiophile" cable on a soldering iron, good solder and quality components and make some cables instead.  At least you'll know the quality you're getting...
I haven't been a DIYer for long, but this is one of the overwhelming factors that convinced me. Why pay big money and not know what you're getting when you can spend relatively little money and know EXACTLY what you're getting?
Most people don't know how to solder well enough to get a real long-term reliable connection. Sure, it's easy to get two things to stick - but more care (and the right type of solder, and the right temperature) is required for a real reliable connection. If you can solder well, this is probably a really good approach.

Quote from: brigman on
The total cross sectional area of the copper wire on your speaker interconnects should never exceed the cross sectional area of the copper in the live and neutral wires of your mains cable; after all, how can an amplifier deliver power that it can't draw in the first place?
A 15A mains cable in a 220V country can deliver 3.3kW. Driving an 8ohm speaker at 80W requires only about 3A. Sure, there are damping factors to worry about, but basing the sizing on your mains cable (different voltage, different performance requirements, different current) is a bit pointless.

Quote from: brigman on
Silver, Copper and Aluminium are all excellent conductors, in decreasing order. Gold isn't quite as good as those three, but has the advantage of never oxidising, which is the only reason it is used.

In order of area, sure. In order of conductivity per mass (or per unit currency) Aluminium dominates (ask the transmissions department at your local utility if you don't believe me - transmissions cable in most countries is aluminium, with a steel core for strength and to prevent sagging). Aluminium has other disadvantages though, so copper really is the most sensible.

Quote from: brigman on
As far as digital interconnects go, it's all ones and zeroes at the end of the day, and if the signal that reaches the other end is recognizably a one or a zero then you'll be fine. Take a look at the single thread of copper wire that is used for 10 gigabit copper networks, now that shifts ten thousand million ones and zeroes per second at distances of up to 100 metres. Digital audio at 96kHz and 24 bits ber sample will move 2.3 million bits per second per channel. Conclusion: even the most tiddly bit of low oxygen copper (if well shielded) is capable of moving 4347 channels of high quality digital audio.

Conclusion: copper is suprisingly, but demonstrably, capable. Spend your money elsewhere.
I agree with your conclusion - but remember that cable like Cat 6 (network cable) is extremely tightly specified and carefully engineered. Once again, pick a decent quality copper interconnect (made yourself, or by somebody else) and stop worrying.

Interconnects

Reply #23 –
Quote from: cabbagerat on
Quote from: brigman on

The total cross sectional area of the copper wire on your speaker interconnects should never exceed the cross sectional area of the copper in the live and neutral wires of your mains cable; after all, how can an amplifier deliver power that it can't draw in the first place?
A 15A mains cable in a 220V country can deliver 3.3kW. Driving an 8ohm speaker at 80W requires only about 3A.
3 Amps, and how is that relevant? It is the power rating (unit energy per unit time) that ultimately decides wether or not (all other things being equal) a particular piece of (pure) copper will be able to deliver against requirements or not.

Quote from: cabbagerat on
basing the sizing on your mains cable (different voltage, different performance requirements, different current) is a bit pointless.
If that's what you think, then you didn't understand the point.

Quote from: cabbagerat on
Quote from: brigman on

Silver, Copper and Aluminium are all excellent conductors, in decreasing order. Gold isn't quite as good as those three, but has the advantage of never oxidising, which is the only reason it is used.
In order of area, sure. In order of conductivity per mass (or per unit currency) Aluminium dominates (ask the transmissions department at your local utility if you don't believe me - transmissions cable in most countries is aluminium, with a steel core for strength and to prevent sagging). Aluminium has other disadvantages though, so copper really is the most sensible.
Nice one cabbagerat. You were quick to mention intended usage somewhere else in this post: we're all building high fidelity audio systems, not power grids. Silver has the highest conductivity using the accepted definition of the word; followed by copper.

Quote from: cabbagerat on
Quote from: brigman on

As far as digital interconnects go, it's all ones and zeroes at the end of the day, and if the signal that reaches the other end is recognizably a one or a zero then you'll be fine. Take a look at the single thread of copper wire that is used for 10 gigabit copper networks, now that shifts ten thousand million ones and zeroes per second at distances of up to 100 metres. Digital audio at 96kHz and 24 bits ber sample will move 2.3 million bits per second per channel. Conclusion: even the most tiddly bit of low oxygen copper (if well shielded) is capable of moving 4347 channels of high quality digital audio.

Conclusion: copper is suprisingly, but demonstrably, capable. Spend your money elsewhere.
I agree with your conclusion - but remember that cable like Cat 6 (network cable) is extremely tightly specified and carefully engineered.
I'm not sure I'll bother remembering that actually, because I think it's fairly obvious. After all, it's just a very pure copper pair, insulated, twisted at a regular rate, enclosed with 3 other such pairs, all seperated by a nylon spacer and surrounded by aluminium foil shielding; not extremely tightly specified at all when compared to what is available on the interconnect market as manufacturing coaxial cable is also quite complex.

For the sake of people actually interested in the original topic, let's not be distracted: shielding is key, and all co-axial cables are very effectively shielded.

Interconnects

Reply #24 –
Quote from: brigman on
The total cross sectional area of the copper wire on your speaker interconnects should never exceed the cross sectional area of the copper in the live and neutral wires of your mains cable; after all, how can an amplifier deliver power that it can't draw in the first place?



This is not correct.  An amplifier delivers much lower voltages to the speakers than the household current that powers it.  With a lower voltage, in order to deliver high power, you need to increase the number of amps being delivered.  Cable thickness requirement is determined more by the current (amps) that it needs to carry than the voltage.  Power, as measured in watts, is equal to voltage multiplied by amps.  So if you have a device that uses 600w and the voltage is 110 you need 5.45 amps going through the cable.  But if the voltage is say 50v, then you need 12 amps and a much higher cross section cable to carry it.

Some high power amps are capable of putting out 30 amps and more.

Have you ever seen the cables on an arc welder?  They are very thick  because the voltage they deliver is low to reduce electrocution risk but they can deliver hundreds of amps, but the mains cable supplying the arc welder is nothing like as thick because the voltage is higher.