# MY experience with RCA cables and speaker wires ...



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

In no way,do I want this thread to become a battle ground. My statements here are NOT intended as proof of anything definite, nor do I want to try and change _anyone's_ opinion. *My ONLY goal for this thread, is nothing more than a desire to share with you my experiments and experiences about this subject :* 

Can cables make an audible difference ?

9 yrs ago I owned a VERY high end home audio store. When I bought it , it had been struggling aginst the over abundance of local competition. In trying to get my 5 employees to do a 100% change in the way they operated , I tried a number of things to bring in a new and fresh approach. I first gutted the building , and designed MUCH better sound rooms. Acoustically correct , and built with THE BEST construction techniques. Next , I brought in over 30 different lines to audition , and we spent 6 months deciding what lines would be best for us to carry in the store. After placing a STAGGERING opening order , we next decided what rooms would house what equipment. After placing the equipment where it was going to go in those rooms , we then spent weeks moving the speakers around inch by inch in those rooms , always marking the carpet with tape that precisely marked where the speakers were placed , and how exactly they were aimed towards the listening position. When we finally found the very best place for each speaker in each room , the carpet was permanently marked ( almost invisible ) and that speaker was never moved from that spot. When it did need to be removed to place another speaker there for auditioning , we could always place the original speaker back where it was supposed to go , exactly.
Next we started moving different amps , pre-amps , CD players , ect around,to find out what speakers sounded best with what systems or combos. 
Now .... By the time this was finally finished , the employees were very excited about all of the new changes , and as a side result , they had REALLY learned how to listen closely for minute changes that changing different things out made in the system.
Often , the guys would stay HOURS after we had closed the store , just to experiment and listen to the systems. So by the time we started to audition different companies cables in the systems , here's some things that we had going for us :

#1 - We had trained ourselves to REALLY listen.
#2 - The rooms were perfectly optimized for the best sound.
#3 - The systems were perfectly optimized for the best sound.
And most importantly : We REALLY knew well just how EVERY different system sounded in every different room ; We were in touch , very well with what was going on.

We had one of our home theater installers work with us for a 4 day weekend in which the store was closed. His his job was to switch out cables in EVERY different system , while we sat and closely listened. We only used ONE musical track for the entire 4 days , and we used sleeping mask blindfolds to keep it truly blind !!
We each had a notebook , and we NEVER shared our thoughts with each other ..... *i wanted to KNOW if we were hearing the same basic things or not !*
We wrote notes about cable #1 through cable #7 , we did this with speaker cables , and RCA cables. Towards the end , we ranked the cables from first to last in each system.
When we were finsished , we compared notes ......

*IT WAS SHOCKING !!!!!*

85 % of the time , our individual notes would be in harmony with what each other had heard for a given cable in a given system ... example " Cable #4 sounds strident and harsh , and lost some soundstage compared to cables #1 and #3 " 

We had ALL individually AGREED on what cable sounded best in EVERY different system !! We're talking 6 people , 100% agreed !!!!!

In our final ranking , 5 of the 6 chose a particular cable as the best cable in the shop , with the one person who did not choosing the cable we ALL ranked second best.

We ALL chose the two cables we thought sounded the worst , and EVERY ONE of us ranked them in the two last spots. 

*ALL OF THIS WAS DONE DOUBLE BLIND !!*

In the end , the store developed a reputation for having THE BEST sounding systems in that city , and profits went from $386,000 one year , to 1.7 milion the next.

So just like the people who say there is NO audible difference in cables , I will continue to have my own opinion that will NEVER be changed , becaused i took the test , and proved it to myself. However , i will NEVER try again to change anyone's mind that is of the other mind-set  

Just my experiences .... Sorry if i bored you , have a great holidays !!


----------



## Nass027 (Oct 25, 2006)

Bravo


----------



## toolfan91 (Dec 7, 2005)

Very good read. In my experimentation, the car audio environment is so hostle that I cant tell the difference between Stinger Expert series, and the base Stinger RCAs. Mind you I never listen to my car without me driving in it  I still dont know that I would personally be able to tell the difference regardless though. 

Which RCAs did you find were best?


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

toolfan91 said:


> Very good read. In my experimentation, the car audio environment is so hostle that I cant tell the difference between Stinger Expert series, and the base Stinger RCAs. Mind you I never listen to my car without me driving in it  I still dont know that I would personally be able to tell the difference regardless though.
> 
> Which RCAs did you find were best?


I don't want to mis-lead anyone .... You are NOT going to hear a night and day difference in a car , but with all else being of VERY high quality , I can hear definite differences. 

In our store however , Tara Labs " The One " Cable as well as Tara Labs Air One cables were leaps and bounds above everything else , and on EVERY system in our store too !


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

you mean "The Zero" and "RSC Air"?


----------



## bobduch (Jul 22, 2005)

I'm with AVI. And not the least bit surprised.
15 years ago I was talked into trying $100 a pair 1 meter MIT ICs. I was thinking BS, this is crap. No way it will make a difference. I didn't want them to make a difference. I was stunned. I called a Friend over. As he listened I went behind the stuff and swapped to the MIT. Started the CD over (Roxy Music Avalon-3rd cut-Avalon). His jaw dropped. "What the Hell did you do?" were the first words out of his mouth. The old cables were cheap gold plated rca end Monsters. My set up at the time was B&W DM7MK2 with Audio Pro B2-50 sub. Carver pre and Adcom amp. Denon CD player.

The next year I tried Kimber 4TC. Again, a rather large (at least VERY noticable) improvement over the 16 gauge zip cord.

A few years ago I gave csuflyboy 3 sets of speaker cable to try on his home rig, a pair of Tara Labs, Audioquest (forget the model, I think midnight-clear, and a PA) (I'm now bi-wired and too lazy to go back to jumpers to test all these myself-I'm now using Eichmann Express6 IC and speaker wire.)
He said an improvement with all 3, especially the thick black ones. (They were old Audio Purist Colossus-something like $1,600 the pair-I had them on loan.)

Then earlier this year I had noise problems in the car. Replaced the ground screw with one that was not zinc coated. Noise 100% gone. All the screw does is pull the ground ring terminals to the shiny sanded metal of the car. Screw should not matter. But it did. And there is probably no measurement for that. But something was going on with that electron flow. Like AVI, not trying to convince anyone of anything. But I will never use "cheap" cables again.

Diminishing returns in a car. Yeah, I'm sure. But if I'm spending 3 g's plus in a car I also think it silly not to spend more than $20 for an IC or speaker wire.

As a foot note: I called Wilson (the speaker (Watt Puppy, X1 fame) and asked them what solder they use or if it matters at all. Was surprised when they said yes. "At the least use some with lead and silver. We use lead-free because of European Union requirements but we think the speakers sound better with the leaded solder." Again, no flamers, not an argument. Just what they told me.


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> you mean "The Zero" and "RSC Air"?


Yes ... Thanks for correcting me


----------



## WRX/Z28 (Feb 21, 2008)

Wow, this was a good read. Had to dredge up this thread after asking about what cables people preferred. It Confirms what I found when listening at my last job for a big home/car audio specialty store.


----------



## SPEEDBUILT (Jan 21, 2008)

So what are some cables and wire that have this kind of effect on car audio?
Are there any?


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Maybe it just me, but I think it cheaper to EQ back what inferior cable do to a signal or what highend cable can and do *add*, you are going to have to EQ anyways in a car. If M.I.T. cables puts a EQ circuit in there cables why can't you do it for free in your car and save yourself A TON! of flow.


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

i didnt read anywhere in the origional post that the cables they liked best, were any more expensive than the worst sounding cables.

maybe the cheapest cables sounded the best?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

60ndown said:


> i didnt read anywhere in the origional post that the cables they liked best, were any more expensive than the worst sounding cables.
> 
> maybe the cheapest cables sounded the best?


either way, all 3 of my cables were $30 total and couldn't be happier:blush:


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

60ndown said:


> i didnt read anywhere in the origional post that the cables they liked best, were any more expensive than the worst sounding cables.
> 
> maybe the cheapest cables sounded the best?


Maybe, but theres nothing _cheap_ about them


----------



## WRX/Z28 (Feb 21, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Maybe it just me, but I think it cheaper to EQ back what inferior cable do to a signal or what highend cable can and do *add*, you are going to have to EQ anyways in a car. If M.I.T. cables puts a EQ circuit in there cables why can't you do it for free in your car and save yourself A TON! of flow.


Because an EQ doesn't fix what good cables fix. There's certain things that happen in cables, things like the skin effect, timing differences, (hence monsters time correct windings) that all the equalization and processing in the world wont help.


----------



## WRX/Z28 (Feb 21, 2008)

60ndown said:


> i didnt read anywhere in the origional post that the cables they liked best, were any more expensive than the worst sounding cables.
> 
> maybe the cheapest cables sounded the best?


Nobody said $ figure is what makes sound, just that better designed cables can make a difference.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

WRX/Z28 said:


> Because an EQ doesn't fix what good cables fix. There's certain things that happen in cables, things like the skin effect, timing differences, (hence monsters time correct windings) that all the equalization and processing in the world wont help.


Well.........we all have our opinions based on what we perceive as facts. So we can say we are both right and both wrong here.


----------



## jp88 (Jun 25, 2007)

I will buy into expensive cables as soon as someone can come up with objective measurements to explain why they are better. ALL cables have measurable properties. The differences between cables are capacitance, Inductance, resistance, and shielding. Capacitance and inductance could change frequency response, but with the frequencies involved it would be a Poorly designed cable that would affect it. and resistance would be a factor of conductor material and cable size. 
I tend to agree with the scientific findings of Gordon Gow of Mcintosh.
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#gordongow


----------



## Daishi (Apr 18, 2006)

WRX/Z28 said:


> Because an EQ doesn't fix what good cables fix. There's certain things that happen in cables, things like the skin effect, timing differences, (hence monsters time correct windings) that all the equalization and processing in the world wont help.


you need to do some searching here for posts by "werewolf" and cabling. 3/4's of what you just posted has no bearing in the 20hz to 20khz region.

-edit- his screen name is still screwed up from the changeover so here's the important thread.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7517


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

werewolf said:


> Q. Do all cables ... THAT MEASURE THE SAME ... sound the same?
> A. No known reason to believe otherwise  If you wish to disprove the hypothesis, though, you must of course establish an experiment where all other possible variables are eliminated.


.....


----------



## WRX/Z28 (Feb 21, 2008)

So the general consensus here is that cabling makes no difference other than guage of copper used in them? Does this go for patch cords as well? I can tell you for certain that at the very least, patch cords and such definately affect noise performance, and how much outside RF and EMI are picked up by the cables. Granted, twisted pairs, regardless of manufacturer seem to help, and lower guage rca's are also said to transmit less noise. Even admitted by Monster, their Micro XLN's are a lower noise cable than all of their higher line cabling simply because there is less copper in them. I'm still waiting for all the scientific theory or fact to change my hearing so that I never heard any difference between wires.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

WRX/Z28 said:


> I'm still waiting for all the scientific theory or fact to change my hearing so that I never heard any difference between wires.


No one has said that every cable sounds the same. What has been said is that there is no magic involved and the differences can be attributed to inductance, capacitance, resistance and shielding.


----------



## jp88 (Jun 25, 2007)

WRX/Z28 said:


> So the general consensus here is that cabling makes no difference other than guage of copper used in them? Does this go for patch cords as well? I can tell you for certain that at the very least, patch cords and such definately affect noise performance, and how much outside RF and EMI are picked up by the cables. Granted, twisted pairs, regardless of manufacturer seem to help, and lower guage rca's are also said to transmit less noise. Even admitted by Monster, their Micro XLN's are a lower noise cable than all of their higher line cabling simply because there is less copper in them. I'm still waiting for all the scientific theory or fact to change my hearing so that I never heard any difference between wires.


NO the consensus is that the differences between cabling lie in LCR for speaker wires L=Inductance C=capacitance R= resistance.
and LCR and shielding for interconnects.

One can find the appropriate solution for the problems they have scientifically.

For instance If you are picking up noise on your interconnect cabling You need to figure out if it is being picked up through inductance (most likely it is) or capacitance. If it is inducted noise you can either move your interconnect away from the source of the inducted noise and or used shielded cabling.

I can show OBJECTIVE reasoning as to why I am correct. As soon as one of you can show me some OBJECTIVE reasoning as to why i am wrong I will listen.


----------



## WRX/Z28 (Feb 21, 2008)

ca90ss said:


> No one has said that every cable sounds the same. What has been said is that there is no magic involved and the differences can be attributed to inductance, capacitance, resistance and shielding.




The thread that had just been quoted, along with an earlier thread, suggested that wiring guage was the only thing that had any bearing on the sound of the wire, unless I misread. It seemed to suggest that all wires sound the same given they have the same copper content.


----------



## jp88 (Jun 25, 2007)

well here is a Quote from the first post in the thread

"The answer is remarkably simple. The cable is an electrical network, and it's operating with signals whose electrical wavelength is much, much longer than the cable itself. Therefore, what matters electrically are the parameters in the classic "lumped model" : namely, the cable's Resistance (R), Inductance (L) and Capacitance (C). "

I think that sums it up pretty well.


----------



## WRX/Z28 (Feb 21, 2008)

Ok, so what affect a cables Resistance, Inductance and Capacitance other than guage of copper and perhaps purity of copper? The MC Intosh article suggested that 16 guage zip cord is identical to 16 guage monster cable or some other comparable brand.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

WRX/Z28 said:


> The thread that had just been quoted, along with an earlier thread, suggested that wiring guage was the only thing that had any bearing on the sound of the wire, unless I misread. It seemed to suggest that all wires sound the same given they have the same copper content.


Wire gauge is only important if it affects the LCR properties.


werewolf said:


> Q: OK ... so what causes cables to sound different?
> A: The only parameters that _could_ matter are RLC, contact metallurgy and noise shielding. The significance of each, depends on the exact environment and application.





werewolf said:


> The only thing to know ... or wonder ... about cable _gemoetry_, is how it does, or doesn't, impact resistance, inductance and capcitance. Don't concern yourself with skin effect, for example. Yes, the effect is "real" ... but it's insignificant over audio frequencies.
> 
> If an audio cable manufacturer or salesman is praising some new geometry, without discussing RLC impact/significance ... no need to listen any further.
> 
> Bottom line : if no reference is made to the impact of the geometry on RLC ... there's probably a very good reason


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

WRX/Z28 said:


> Ok, so what affect a cables Resistance, Inductance and Capacitance other than guage of copper and perhaps purity of copper? The MC Intosh article suggested that 16 guage zip cord is identical to 16 guage monster cable or some other comparable brand.





werewolf said:


> For example ... square, round, rectangular cross-section : the Resistance (R) is determined by cross-sectional _area_ only, not _shape_. Again ... pay attention to audio freqs only, feel free to ignore skin effect.
> 
> Inductance (L) and Capacitance (C) can be influenced by conductor shape (and proximity, of course) ... but any manufacturer worth his salt will tell you how significant the effect is.
> )


..........


----------



## Hispls (Mar 12, 2008)

jp88 said:


> I will buy into expensive cables as soon as someone can come up with objective measurements to explain why they are better. ALL cables have measurable properties. The differences between cables are capacitance, Inductance, resistance, and shielding. Capacitance and inductance could change frequency response, but with the frequencies involved it would be a Poorly designed cable that would affect it. and resistance would be a factor of conductor material and cable size.
> I tend to agree with the scientific findings of Gordon Gow of Mcintosh.
> http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#gordongow



Thanks for saving me a few keystrokes. I too await some objective/scientific evidence.


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

If anyone is positive they can hear the difference HERE"S YOUR CHANCE TO BECOME AN INSTANT MILLIONAIRE.


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

RCA cables and noise.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34162

http://www.spira-emi.com/references/...pling_Mohr.pps

I know this may come as a deep surprise to many, but telecommunications has had to deal with audio and cable lengths over many miles. (Internet telephone services etc)
You would think by now they may have figured out how an RCA cable a mere few feet long would effect audio.

Clue
There are no mysteries left to discover in transferring 20 -20 KHz signal through a cable. 

You can buy RCA cables with built in filters. (IE crossovers and noise attenuators)


----------



## jp88 (Jun 25, 2007)

I love how the cable advocates always run and hide when asked for objective proof instead of subjective


----------



## bretti_kivi (Dec 3, 2007)

flip the question: if you listen on a revealing system to different cables using different technologies (whether they be cheap 99c junk or $500 monsters, Neutrik connectors, stage-level cables...etc) can you then prove that they all sound the same? If not, why do broadcasters use "decent" cables? why do they exist at all? Can there be soo many dumb customers? 50% maybe, but the other 50% maybe figure they can hear a difference. Where's the issue? 
I know there's differences in my RCAs on my work system, I can tell you blind which one is running. But whether that has any listenable effect in the car? I doubt it, as everything else is so suboptimal. 
But since the chain is never any stronger than its weakest link, do you use Monster? or bell wire? or something maybe two steps up? After all, 0,5mm2 can still theoretically carry far more than the 200W we ask of it...

EDIT: thought. Take a "nice" system, run an accurate RTA on it. Change the cables to cheap RCAs. Repeat. Will the results be the same? I don't think so.

Bret


----------



## Daishi (Apr 18, 2006)

Then the question becomes did you scrape off oxidation on the connection therefore adjsuting the RLC values? There are NUMEROUS things that you haven't taken into account in your statement. Read the link I posted by werewolf...it may open your eyes substantially.


----------



## jp88 (Jun 25, 2007)

I never said there was no difference between interconnects. I said whatever differences there are CAN BE MEASURED. As far as I am concerned, If 2 cables measure the same LCR then they will indeed perform Identically on a RTA whether they cost $1k or $.02. They will also sound the same. When some cable manufacturers or Pricy cable advocates want to sell me some cables they need to SHOW me some measurements.

ITS A Piece of Freaking wire people.

Ps as for your question about stupid consumers You do see Bose is still very succesfull dont you?


----------



## Daishi (Apr 18, 2006)

Hit the nail on the head there jp


----------



## jp88 (Jun 25, 2007)

All this about cables kinda reminds me of this
http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=KKPK10PAL

There are people that will spend $1k on a power cable completely disregaurding the 50 or more MILES of steel aluminum and copper wire leading to your transformer and then though a meter into your $2.00 outlet. But yes by all means this peice of wire is going to fix what a well designed power supply cant.

the fact that they can sell these removes any doubt of the stupidity of the general population.


----------



## Hispls (Mar 12, 2008)

Mr Marv said:


> If anyone is positive they can hear the difference HERE"S YOUR CHANCE TO BECOME AN INSTANT MILLIONAIRE.


LMFAO. After reading a few of the comments on that page, I've awarded the "More money than brains" award to the genius who came up with this gem:
_Speaker cables do sound different. After some break in time, different cables have different characteristics if you have good hearing to hear the difference._

 

You see in the very expensive wire, the copper atoms are meticulously aligned one by one in a reverse square knot design, and after a "break-in" period, the electrons form a new outer shell where through the "skin effect" the electrons can move faster than the speed of light for better transient response, more open feel. For music you can actually taste.

Seriously, I don't think the human ear can even distinguish a couple percent distortion, much less some magical signal cable.


----------



## Hispls (Mar 12, 2008)

bretti_kivi said:


> EDIT: thought. Take a "nice" system, run an accurate RTA on it. Change the cables to cheap RCAs. Repeat. Will the results be the same? I don't think so.
> 
> Bret



You'd think the guys charging 300$ a foot for cable would post some graphs and measurements to support this wouldn't you?


----------



## inPhase (Apr 6, 2008)

Related news from the AudioJunkies blog - UK Cracking Down on BS Audio Cable Advertising

And do you really get what you pay for?  http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1197#continued


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

inPhase said:


> Related news from the AudioJunkies blog - UK Cracking Down on BS Audio Cable Advertising
> 
> And do you really get what you pay for?  http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1197#continued


You think thats bad.......how much can people pay for a bottle of old sour grapes?


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Hispls said:


> You see in the very expensive wire, the copper atoms are meticulously aligned one by one in a reverse square knot design, and after a "break-in" period, the electrons form a new outer shell where through the "skin effect" the electrons can move faster than the speed of light for better transient response, more open feel. For music you can actually taste.


OH GOD!!!!! That one is bringing tears to my eyes. There's no internet acronym suitable enough to fully encompass the level of hysteria I'm experiencing right now.


----------



## Hispls (Mar 12, 2008)

MiniVanMan said:


> OH GOD!!!!! That one is bringing tears to my eyes. There's no internet acronym suitable enough to fully encompass the level of hysteria I'm experiencing right now.


Do you think I could get a job in the marketing department of one of these companies or was that just too much?


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

jp88 said:


> All this about cables kinda reminds me of this
> http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=KKPK10PAL
> 
> There are people that will spend $1k on a power cable completely disregaurding the 50 or more MILES of steel aluminum and copper wire leading to your transformer and then though a meter into your $2.00 outlet. But yes by all means this peice of wire is going to fix what a well designed power supply cant.
> ...


actually i use those at home AND in my car, my commute to work thankfully is only 20 miles and kimber did me a deal of the 20 mile cable.(1 brazillion dollars):blush:


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

Thats got to be signiture worthy.   




Hispls said:


> LMFAO. After reading a few of the comments on that page, I've awarded the "More money than brains" award to the genius who came up with this gem:
> _Speaker cables do sound different. After some break in time, different cables have different characteristics if you have good hearing to hear the difference._
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sideshow (Mar 6, 2007)

I am having trouble telling if some of these post are serious or sarcastic.

I have flipped through this thread, reading most of the posts, so forgive me if I retread. But I have yet to have anyone prove to me that there is a noticeable difference between cables. If there is anyone that lives near me (Oregon) who thinks they can prove this to me, by all means lets meet up. Even if there was a difference, it must be so incredibly slight that it can't warrant the meticulous effort put into it. I have worked in high end shops and owned high-end systems. I used to spend EVERY free moment setting up different tests in the listening rooms to see if anybody could consistently pick what they were listening to. My favorite system to test with was an Adcom stack running a pair of the original Energy Veritas towers, which are still the best speakers I have ever heard, even after all these years. I think it was worthy enough. If it wasn't, I just can't be bothered with it all if I need more than that to hear the difference.

I still firmly believe that people WANT to believe there is a difference because it gives them one more thing to fiddle with... one more shot at improvement. It keeps the hobby going long after you pick your speakers.


----------



## Hispls (Mar 12, 2008)

The one with the "break in" was actually a comment from one of the links (I think it was someone who was serious!)

The one about the atom alignment was my own attempt at re-creating some of the crap I've read.

Still awaiting someone to post some objective, quantifiable, scientific evidence. Surely there's some data out there......right?


----------



## pahhhoul (Mar 14, 2008)

Hispls said:


> You see in the very expensive wire, the copper atoms are meticulously aligned one by one in a reverse square knot design, and after a "break-in" period...





MiniVanMan said:


> OH GOD!!!!! That one is bringing tears to my eyes. There's no internet acronym suitable enough to fully encompass the level of hysteria I'm experiencing right now.


I'm right there with you on this one! 
    

And to the OP, great post!


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

anyone wanna buy my old short rf punch cables i used to run with my analog active crossover? my cousin from wyoming who's a biggun farted on them and somehow they have more thunderous bass. $500 each is the deal of the century yo! then i have some old walmart speakerwire i pulled out of my silverado that was pissed on by a virgin warrior princess. $1million a foot!


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

http://transparentcable.com/products/audio/opus_mm_spkcable.html

*$43,000 US dollars* for 5 feet. I hope thats for the pair _at least_.  

Damn there are a lot of rich people in the world.


*EDIT: 43 grand for 25 feet, 33 grand for 8 feet. Like it matters *


----------



## Hispls (Mar 12, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> http://transparentcable.com/products/audio/opus_mm_spkcable.html
> 
> *$43,000 US dollars* for 5 feet. I hope thats for the pair _at least_.
> 
> Damn there are a lot of rich people in the world.


That site was almost as funny as my atom alignment. "Our copper has lower resonance" 

How does someone dumb enough to buy this crap come up with 40 grand?

Here's a thought, why don't we make a website selling ungodly expensive cable? Some of the guys here can make some nice looking stuff, and a few of us can grab a thesaurus and whip up some intimidating big words.

At 40 grand input out of a 5$ investment, you really don't need a lot of suckers to make it worthwhile. 

Proceeds could be used to buy tons of equipment for reviews/testing.


----------



## Diru (May 23, 2006)

I don't care what you say, but this is the best part of that web site right there 

http://transparentcable.com/resources/MM-MM2_update_prices.pdf

Now thats huge ballz, send in your cables so we can change the ends , clean them , repack and send them back to you.


----------



## SPEEDBUILT (Jan 21, 2008)

Isn't Silver supposed to be the best conductor of electricity?


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

SPEEDBUILT said:


> Isn't Silver supposed to be the best conductor of electricity?


Yes silver conducts electricity the best, but it is not the best conductor of electricity. Wrap your head around that one.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Silver, for instance, has the highest conductivity of any metal at 6.3 x 10^7 S-m^-1.


----------



## Hispls (Mar 12, 2008)

Downside is that silver is rather prone to oxidizing, hence gold/platinum plated connectors. Not quite as good at conducting, but non-reactive.

Of course, the 40,000$ copper with Atom Alignment technology is far supperior to anything....after the break in period of course.


----------



## machinehead (Nov 6, 2005)

Hispls said:


> Downside is that silver is rather prone to oxidizing, hence gold/platinum plated connectors. Not quite as good at conducting, but non-reactive.
> 
> Of course, the 40,000$ copper with Atom Alignment technology is far supperior to anything....after the break in period of course.


Can't beat a good ol fashioned square knot.


----------



## bobduch (Jul 22, 2005)

Silver oxide is actually a good conductor too. Just doesn't look pretty.


----------



## SQfreak (Feb 13, 2007)

Wire is wire. Don't waste your money, sheesh.  I thought this debate was long dead.


----------



## lacruisin (Apr 29, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Maybe it just me, but I think it cheaper to EQ back what inferior cable do to a signal or what highend cable can and do *add*, you are going to have to EQ anyways in a car. If M.I.T. cables puts a EQ circuit in there cables why can't you do it for free in your car and save yourself A TON! of flow.


I'm sorry, but you can't EQ back what a cheaper cable has done to your signal if it has trashed the signal to smithereens. True, EQing will probably always be needed in a car environment, but if a cheap cable has just mashed my 3-part harmony into a warbling mess, then no amount of EQing in the world is going to restore that.

I would say: start with at least "decent" cables, and then stop upgrading when the difference is not worth the money or you can't hear the difference.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

lacruisin said:


> if a cheap cable has just mashed my 3-part harmony into a warbling mess


How exactly does a piece of wire "mash your 3-part harmony into a warbling mess"???


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

lacruisin said:


> I'm sorry, but you can't EQ back what a cheaper cable has done to your signal if it has trashed the signal to smithereens. True, EQing will probably always be needed in a car environment, but if a cheap cable has just mashed my 3-part harmony into a warbling mess, then no amount of EQing in the world is going to restore that.
> 
> I would say: start with at least "decent" cables, and then stop upgrading when the difference is not worth the money or you can't hear the difference.


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7517


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

t3sn4f2 said:


> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7517


Once you're done with that read this.......

"You can run some numbers to see how the cable performs.

1. What is the total resistance to calculate the losses.
2. What is the low pass filtering effects due to inductance and capacitance.

Damping Factor & SPL Loss
http://www.prosoundweb.com/studyhall/lastudyhall/df.pdf

I will read this later to double check it. But the pro sound folks need
a guide to make sure they have the correct wire gauge for the distance
of cable ran to keep SPL losses low.

Low Pass Filtering Effects

Arrow Practical Line-Driving Current Requirements
http://www.rane.com/note126.html

This document is written for interconnects, but I don't see any
reason why it can't be used for power amplifiers and speakers,
but we might not have enough data to get a perfect calculation,
we can estimate.

*////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*
*Speaker Wire Capacitance*
*////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*
See Figure 2.
Formula: Fc = 1 / (2 pi (RL//RO)*Cw)

Fc = -3dB point, cutoff frequency
RL = load impedance
RO = source output impedance
Cw = total cable capacitance

Arrow Short Formula: Fc = 1 / (2 pi RO*Cw)

Quote:
Long Formula: RL//RO means RL in parallel with RO
Parallel Resistor Formula: 1/RT = 1/(1/RL + 1/RO)

Parallel Resistor Example:
RL = 2 Ohms
RO = 0.1 Ohm

1/RT = 1/(1/2 + 1/.1)

RT = 0.095 Ohms. Use RT in place of RO in the short formula.

Because RO = 0.1 Ohms and RL is significantly larger than 0.1 Ohms,
you can just use the short formula because the long formula only
yielded a calculate of 0.095 Ohms vs. 0.1 Ohm which is close enough.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Example:
Fc = ???
RO = Lets say your amplifier has 0.1 Ohms output impedance
Cw = 15 feet of Comice cable; 15 * 76pF = 1140pF
RL = 2 Ohm speaker load

Note: 1140pF = 0.000000001140 Farads

Because the RO is significantly less than RL, you can use the short formula.

Fc = 1 / (2 pi RO*Cw)

Fc = 1.49 Ghz

This is way outside the audio range.

Lets use high capacitance cable and a crappy amplifier with a high
output impedance.

Lets say your amplifier output impedance is 10 ohms and your
cable capacitance is 1000pF per foot, and you have a run of 100 feet.

Fc = ???
RO = 10 Ohms output impedance from your crap amplifier
Cw = 100 feet of crap cable; 100 * 1000pF = 100,000pF
RL = 2 ohm speaker load

Note: 100,000pF = 0.1uF = 0.0000001 Farads

Because the RO is significantly higher than RL, you can use the long formula.

Quote:
Long Formula: RL//RO means RL in parallel with RO
Parallel Resistor Formula: 1/RT = 1/(1/RL + 1/RO)

Parallel Resistor Example:
RL = 2 Ohms
RO = 10 Ohm

1/RT = 1/(1/2 + 1/10)

RT = 1.66 Ohms. Use RT in place of RO in the short formula.


Fc = 1 / (2 pi RO*Cw)

Fc = 958Khz

This is way outside the audio range.

*Speaker Wire Capacitance Results
Using a crap amplifier with 100 foot of crap cable won't introduce
any low pass filtering problems for the audio band.*

*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*
*Speaker Wire Inductance*
*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*
Speaker wire is like an inductor and when you connect your amplifier
to speaker wire to the speaker, it's as if you are adding an inductor in
series just like a first order woofer crossover.

Fc = RL / (2pi L)

Fc = -3dB point, cutoff frequency.
L = cable inductance
RL = speaker load
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Fc = ???
L = 0.06uH x 15 feet = 0.9 uH
RL = 2 ohm speaker

Note: 0.9 uH = 0.0000009 H

Fc = RL / (2pi L)

Fc = 353khz

This is way outside the audio range of 20khz

Lets say you have cable rated for 0.3 uH per foot. Lets assume you are
going run a 100 foot between amp and speaker.

L = 0.3uH x 15 feet = 4.5 uH
RL = 2 ohm speaker

Note: 4.5 uH = 0.0000045 H

Fc = RL / (2pi L)

Fc = 70.7khz

This is way outside the audio range of 20khz

*Speaker Wire Capacitance Results
I used wire with a 0.3uH rating per foot, much higher than the Zip cord
12 AWG in the chart shown. Even at 15 feet run, the low pass filtering
effects, Fc = 70.7khz, outside the audio band.

Speaker wire inductance plays a much bigger role than speaker
wire capacitance. For best results get the data on the wires and do
some basic math to get an idea on what is going on. If you are planning
to run 100 feet of speaker wire, then get lower inductance wire.*


----------



## lacruisin (Apr 29, 2008)

ca90ss said:


> How exactly does a piece of wire "mash your 3-part harmony into a warbling mess"???



Just take a nice piece of music you know and listen through a decent home system, then do just one change: switch out the RCA cables with something from the 99cent store and see what it does to the music. If there's no change, then save yourself the money and go with the 99centers. But I've switched out RCA's and speaker wire and have noticed a difference, usually with the more expensive stuff sounding nicer, but not always.

So for me there is no debate. I'll buy what I think will make my system sound better, and you can buy whatever you want. I really don't care to change anyone's strongly held opinion on the subject. But to those out there still trying to decide I'll say this: I am one person for trying things out and formulating my opinion over time. Audio, like food and wine making, is both an art and a science. Science is a great servant for developing better audio, but it is the human ear that's the best arbiter over what something sounds like. (To say that science can quantify everything you hear in a good audio system is hogwash and most designers I've heard of will attest to that. There's just too much going on in what you hear. Maybe in 100 years or more we'll have every measurement for what makes perfect reproduction of sound, but we ain't there yet. This knowledge base is really still in it's infancy). And, yes, just like food and wine, there will be disagreement over what tastes "better" or "best", still, no one's ever going to confuse a dog turd for a filet mignon or a glass of battery acid for some good wine (no matter how much is spent on advertising).

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I don't care. But I can say this after working 7 years in the Design Engineering department of a major aircraft engine manufacturer: science cannot always point to why one component works and another fails. And believe me--THOSE THINGS ARE LOOKED AT VERY DILIGENTLY.


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

All I have to say to the Op is "Subject-Expectancy Effect". Nuff said!

And without oversight of said experiment and model, there is no way to verify lack of implemented bias or suggestions.


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

lacruisin said:


> Just take a nice piece of music you know and listen through a decent home system, then do just one change: switch out the RCA cables with something from the 99cent store and see what it does to the music. If there's no change, then save yourself the money and go with the 99centers. But I've switched out RCA's and speaker wire and have noticed a difference, usually with the more expensive stuff sounding nicer, but not always.
> 
> So for me there is no debate. I'll buy what I think will make my system sound better, and you can buy whatever you want. I really don't care to change anyone's strongly help opinion on the subject. But to those out there still trying to decide I'll say this: I am one person for trying things out and formulating my opinion over time. Audio, like food and wine making, is both an art and a science. Science is a great servant for developing better audio, but it is the human ear that's the best arbiter over what something sounds like. (To say that science can quantify everything you hear in a good audio system is hogwash and most designers I've heard of will attest to that. There's just too much going on in what you hear. Maybe in 100 years or more we'll have *every measurement for what makes perfect reproduction of sound*, but we ain't there yet. This knowledge base is really still in it's infancy). And, yes, just like food and wine, there will be disagreement over what tastes "better" or "best", still, no one's ever going to confuse a dog turd for a filet mignon or a glass of battery acid for some good wine (no matter how much is spent on advertising).
> 
> If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I don't care. But I can say this after working 7 years in the Design Engineering department of a major aircraft engine manufacturer: science cannot always point to why one component works and another fails. And believe me--THOSE THINGS ARE LOOKED AT VERY DILIGENTLY.


The reproduction part of this equation is the same for anyone that listens to music coming from the same system. It's the neurological interpretation of that reproduction that determines a listeners preference. Fact is that science can measure all facets of the reproduction. We just can't quantify and don't fully understand the mechanisms by which we form interpretations of those stimuli.


----------



## LauZaIM (Feb 20, 2008)

It's all BS marketing. Sure if you take some corroded garbage and a decent wire you might hear a difference. But taking decent wire and extremely expensive wire I bet there isn't any difference at all. If there is a difference it is only perceived by the person. If there's a group of people all listening I bet you $100 that if one person perceives it to be there a few more will follow suit just because. 

Personally, if there really was a difference worthy of spending hundreds of dollars for, there should not be so much discussion about how there is or isn't a difference. That is exactly what I thought as soon I saw this long drawn out post starting this thread discussing how this and that was done perfectly like it was a precision experiment that only works if you click your heels three times and spin in a circle.


----------



## lacruisin (Apr 29, 2008)

Dillyyo said:


> The reproduction part of this equation is the same for anyone that listens to music coming from the same system. It's the neurological interpretation of that reproduction that determines a listeners preference. *Fact is that science can measure all facets of the reproduction. * We just can't quantify and don't fully understand the mechanisms by which we form interpretations of those stimuli.


I agree with what you say, except for your statement I put in BOLD. That's a broad and definitive statement, one that I think you'd find rather hard backing up adequately. Nelson Pass comes to my mind when I think of a designer who's attested to the inadequacy, at times, of the known measurement techniques and what he was hearing. Maybe you know better; I don't really know.


----------



## dkh (Apr 2, 2008)

I once had a thought that expensive wire was better than cheap wire due to the way it's packaged and presented. 

My brother took this a few steps further and decided to purchase some expensive Linn kable cable... It's roughly 2 mtrs long per side (L&R) with the amp closer to the right side than the left... 

Anyway, to cut it short - I was ironing and the damn thing fell on the expensive cable 

I put some of my prized £1.50 per metre car speaker cable on the left side and hid it best I could.

That night I played on of my audiophile CD's (Jazz at the pawnshop) and was amazed at the depth etc of the soundstage (first time I'd heard this on a proper hifi).

My brother was amazed too and kept saying how balanced and good it sounded - then, I told him about the accident and he did not believe me at first so I showed him the cable... 

I think I've converted him


----------



## snaimpally (Mar 5, 2008)

I subscribe to a Canadian audio magazine, Audio Ideas Guide. The editor, Andrew Marshall, reviews all the products and he reviews everything from budget to high end stuff. He had an interesting article once from an engineer at a high end audio company (Bryston perhaps) explaining from a purely scientific standpoint why some cables sound better than others. I'll see if I can find it. I think it had to do with "back EMF".

I have never used esoteric cables but I have heard the difference that bigger gauge cables make. I thought 12 gauge speaker cables were a marketing gimmick until I heard the difference on my own speakers. More recently, in my car, I heard the differences between a cable designed for home use that picked up a lot of noise in my car and a cable designed for car use that used thinner conductors but had better noise rejection.

I think the other thing to keep in mind is that science is not a be-all and end-all. Science continues to evolve. What was not measureable years ago is now measureable with better equipment. Just because something is not currently measureable but can be discerned by listening doesn't mean you can simply dismiss the subjective tests. All it really means is that science has not yet found a way to measure everything. Look at the electron microscope. Before the electron microscope, I'm sure people were dismissing certain things because they could not be measured. Do you still beleive in Newtonian physics? Science has no measurement for many things; thats why people continue to do research and get PhDs. 

Like many of you, I do wonder about these esoteric cables and have never spent more than $15-20 for any interconnect that I own. However, I do keep an open mind. I have heard differences between some cables and I know science can't measure eveything.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Is everything else in place ?

Does your receiver cost a premium price ? [F1, Denon, etc.., ]

Now , do you have a H.O. alternator, upgraded the big 3 ?

Basically, if your pissing in a hurricane ?[ can you tell what water is splashing on you ]

Turn on a flashlight and determine the content of the light beam ![ with my naked eye, I think there is just the right amount of red light in the beam ]


----------



## trailz516 (Jul 8, 2008)

very interesting read


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

lacruisin said:


> I agree with what you say, except for your statement I put in BOLD. That's a broad and definitive statement, one that I think you'd find rather hard backing up adequately. Nelson Pass comes to my mind when I think of a designer who's attested to the inadequacy, at times, of the known measurement techniques and what he was hearing. Maybe you know better; I don't really know.


The proceeding sentence after that explains. What I am saying is that just because we don't know how to measure all of those things, they are measurable and at some time it will be divulged through science. I wasn't implying that at this time we can. Sorry for the ambiguity!:blush:


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

i've said it once and i'll say it again...when i switched to the 15awg monster speakerwire with the dielectric in the middle of the strands and the sound i got out of my speakers was a lot more pure than with the walmart wire i had been using. it's also far more resistant to corrosion than the walmart wire. before anyone calls me out for comparing a corroded piece of wire to a fresh piece, i restripped the ends of the walmart wire monthly. the monster i havn't had to restrip yet! when i get a good reciever for my home speakers at some point i'll get a spool of the same monster wire. 

when i replaced my knukonceptz karma cables with cheap $8 rf cables my frontstage was a lot less garbled. i'm sure part of that reason was because the rf cables were only half as long and the knu cables had been baking in my truck for 4 years. other than that, i'll stick to my guns.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

None of the claims being made for perceived improvements mean anything without measurable data or at least ABX testing. Nothing like spending too much money and crawling around inside a car for a few hours to convince you that the new stuff sounds better.


----------



## Timmah318 (Nov 14, 2007)

Hispls, I've borrowed your quote for a sig on another forums hehehehehehe Pure gold 

What is interesting is that the guys who claim the differences <i>seem</i> to be using very budget cables against VERY high end cables. If you compared decent (read, not 2 buck cables) to these esoteric ones, I would suspect the difference would not be discernable.

Another analogy before I go...

Everyone would agree that spending the same money as F1 teams do on their clutch, for your daily driver would be stupid. Simply because the benefit wont be there. If someone spends gazillions on their speakers/amps/source, maybe, just MAYBE there is some justification to having higher priced cabling as well.

I for one will keep using 20-30 buck RCA's until (A) there is a proven difference to spend gobs more cash, and (B) someone makes car interiors as quiet and acoustically perfect as a home audiophiles listening room


----------

