# Explain this: shielded AND twisted pair cables with RCA connectors



## Justin Zazzi

Lets start with Stinger's 9000 series rca cable for example:










Stinger claims that this particular construction if beneficial. I don't believe a word of it, but lets just go along with it for the moment.

I count twelve separate conductors inside that cable, plus the shield makes thirteen total. There are only two possible places to connect those wires at the end of the cable on the RCA connector. How exactly are those all connected together?

*If you don't know anything about those specific cables I don't blame you, so instead think about a more general cable that has a twisted pair inside, and a braided or foil shield on the outside (this claim is so common!). That is a total of three conductors. How are they connected to the two conductors on the RCA connectors?*


----------



## SkizeR

subd..


----------



## mbradlawrence

Pretty sure the sheid is just for rf rejection, not actually carrying current. As for the 12 wires, your right. Marketing BS.


----------



## emilime75

One could only assume they're all terminated at the pin (+) of the RCA connector. While the vast majority of marketing aimed at "HiFi" audio interconnects and speaker cables is pure snake oil nonsense, there is some merit to the multiple twisted pair archtecture. Personally, I don't buy it, or at least I don't fell the need to spend huge amounts of money for cables that provide so little, if any, functional benefits. If one was simply after a specific cosmetic and was willing and able to pay the price...hey, to each their own. With that said, good wire, good connectors and proper terminations can be purchased in bulk and made to suit one's exact needs, provide excellent performance and most likely cost considerably less.


----------



## jtaudioacc

every rca marketing gimmick into one! of course it's awesome.


----------



## mbradlawrence

Omg, the more I look at this the more BS it is. Two different metals for different frequencies, what, built in cross overs?


----------



## Donanon

"That is a total of three conductors. How are they connected to the two conductors on the RCA connectors?"

The red wire goes to the Centre pin positive, the black (or white) wire goes to the lower spade part of the barrel negative ,the shield is soldered the spade part of the barrel below the black negative wire...the shield is only soldered at one end of the interconnect and this end is always plugged into a upstream component as a drain.


D.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

mbradlawrence said:


> Pretty sure the sheid is just for rf rejection, not actually carrying current. As for the 12 wires, your right. Marketing BS.


If the shield is for RF rejection, it must be connected to ground at some point. So if the shield is connected to the ring of the RCA connector, what are those other twelve conductors doing? Are they all connected to the center pin, essentially making them all one conductor? Then why have so many separate twisted pairs and drain wires connected all together? What are the "drain wires" draining if they are connected to the signal conductor? It makes no sense!





emilime75 said:


> While the vast majority of marketing aimed at "HiFi" audio interconnects and speaker cables is pure snake oil nonsense, there is some merit to the multiple twisted pair archtecture.


Please help me understand the benefit of *multiple* twisted pair architecture for a single analog channel of audio.




Donanon said:


> "That is a total of three conductors. How are they connected to the two conductors on the RCA connectors?"
> 
> The red wire goes to the Centre pin positive, the black (or white) wire goes to the lower spade part of the barrel negative ,the shield is soldered the spade part of the barrel below the black negative wire...the shield is only soldered at one end of the interconnect and this end is always plugged into a downstream component as a drain.
> 
> 
> D.


Are you saying the non-signal wire of the twisted pair is electrically connected to the same point as the shield is? What is the benefit of having the shield both fully enveloping the signal conductor, *and* also twisted around it inside the shield as well?

This is the crux of the problem. I don't understand it. Please explain it me.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Donanon said:


> ...the shield is only soldered at one end of the interconnect and this end is always plugged into a downstream component as a drain.
> D.


Somewhat related to my original post. Grounding a shield on one end only is the same as a "ground lift" option on an interconnect cable. Rane does a great job explaining why this is not a solution to any problem, and may do more harm than good.



> In reality, the presence of a ground lift switch greatly reduces a unit's ability to be "properly" grounded and therefore immune to ground loop hums and buzzes. Ground lifts are simply another Band-Aid to try in case of grounding problems


Source: Sound System Interconnection


----------



## Donanon

"Are you saying the non-signal wire of the twisted pair is electrically connected to the same point as the shield is?

Yes, but when I built interconnects for my install I attached the negative and shield separately but close together.

"What is the benefit of having the shield both fully enveloping the signal conductor, *and* also twisted around it inside the shield as well?"

The shield is used as an RF and noise drain back to the negative on the up steam component so the theory is that having the shield surrounding both wires and draining to the up stream negative helps to clean the signal.

I used Belden #83393 and built per Jon Risch:

Jon_Risch's Web Site


D


----------



## Justin Zazzi

The page you linked doesn't give much information about why he chose that particular arrangement of materials, but the previous page gives a few seemingly contradictory hints. I highlighted some stuff in red.



> -Shields-
> In coaxial type cables, the shield also carries the audio signal.
> This may explain the superiority of the twisted pair construction,
> as when it is shielded, the shield doesn't have to carry signal
> current. It is much more difficult for a conductive cylinder sheath
> to provide shielding action when carrying signal currents. If the
> ground at either end is less than perfect, any hum or interference
> that the shield is intended to intercept gets mixed with the audio
> signal. This may occur at a very low level and be "inaudible" in
> the sense that hum or RF are not heard outright, yet cause a subtle
> blurring or graininess to be added to the signal.
> 
> With twisted pair or triaxial cable, the outer conductive sheath
> known as the shield should only be hard grounded at one end, typically
> the low impedance signal source end. The other end can either be left
> unconnected, or connected to ground via a 0.01 uF ceramic disc
> capacitor to aid in RFI suppression. This can be one of the basis
> for "one way" or "unidirectional" cables. This is known as a
> telescoping or telescopic ground, due to the "nesting" of the inner
> conductors within the shield from one end.
> 
> _________________________________________ Outer braid
> _______________________________________________________ Inner braid
> 
> ============================================================== Center wire
> _______________________________________________________
> _________________________________________
> |
> |
> -------
> ---
> -
> Special Note:
> Coaxial cables MUST have the shield connected at both ends, as it
> supplies the ground return path for the signal. This is why the shield
> braid can and will affect the audio quality.


He says that in coaxial cables, the shield also carries the signal. What? I thought the one and only job of the shield was to act as like faraday cage, protecting the central conductor from interference. If the shield is grounded, then how can it also carry the signal?

Then he says this particular cable should have the shield terminated at one end only. Then he says all coaxial cables must be grounded on both ends. Which one is it? Doesn't this particular cable act like a coaxial cable due to the conductors being shielded by a copper braid or foil?

Lastly, I couldn't find any mention of how to connect the twisted pair conductors to the RCA connector. I didn't see where you should connect one to the ring, and one to the center pin. Can you point that out for me?

I'm going to send him an email and ask a few questions related to above.


----------



## CarAudioChris

I posted this on Reddit recently when someone asked this and I thought it would help.



> Oh man, I love these questions!
> 
> So coming from Hooker Audio where we build cables using physics and not "magic" BS I think I can help with this ;-).
> 
> So here is the deal, there is only really three ways to deal with noise in an RCA.
> 
> Ground issues (called Ground Loops)
> Protection from exterior "noise" or RF
> EMI that occurs when you send current through a wire.
> 
> So the first one is an easy fix. RCAs are built where the prong in the middle and it is the where the audio signal transmits. The metal exterior ring on the RCA is a ground that slides around the plug on your amplifier. This ground connection must stay tight at all times. When you have a cheaper quality RCAs, over time the tension that this ring creates can weaken and then be loose. This weaker ground connection can cause noise also called a ground loop. A good RCA has some type of technology that will keep this retention over time. Our Hooker Audio RCAs, for example, have a patented twist end that actually tightens down after you install the RCA. I have seen dealers actually hang their amplifiers by the RCA ends(not recommended).
> 
> The second thing you have to deal with is RF from the outside. This is a real easy issue to fix with a mylar shield. This is a very common thing in a lot of wire manufacturers but the majority of them do it to make their RCAs look "cool" with a transparent jacket. The one thing you have to ask is if it is a mylar shield or something else just to make the cable pretty. They don't always do the same job, it depends on the materials they make it out of.
> 
> The third thing you want to take care of is Electro Magnetic Interference(EMI) and this is caused by electricity passing through a wire. You see this when you run a non-shielded RCA over the power wire because of the current running through it. After much testing many years ago, it was determined that you can reject EMI by using what they called a "Hum Buzz Shield". This prevented EMI from entering the cable and affecting the signal being transmitted. This was just a matter of taking two signal wires and twisting them 2.5 times every inch. When this is done it rejects noise and prevents the wire from creating its own EMI interference on itself. Any less and you can pass EMI from the outside into the audio cable. Any more than 2.5 times every inch and the audio cable actually creates its own EMI noise. This is why all of our wires are ran through the jacket this way. Be careful though because car audio manufacturers started twisting their wire more and more with the reasoning of that it "looked cool" but as I said before this is counter intuitive. I have actually seen some manufacturers do like 8-10 twists every inch and that just isn't good at all.
> 
> Now with this knowledge, you will be able to look at whatever brand wire you want and determine which is the best for your application just by seeing how it is made. Hopefully, that answers your questions


I am a little oversimplifying it a little in this post but that takes care of the majority of the issues


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Hey Chris,

Thank you for helping out. I have a few questions about what you have posted. I'm not attacking your words. I really want to understand what you are saying here.

A really good read on shielding, noises, ground loops and more can be found at Rane's website below, and this is what I'm basing most of my questions on:
Grounding and Shielding Audio Devices

As I understand it, ground loops are only a problem when multiple paths to ground are created when you connect one piece of equipment to another, and both are connected to an earth ground through the 3rd pin on an AC power cable, or the negative power terminal of a +12vdc product. If the shield (ring) of an RCA connector becomes loose over time and essentially disengages from the jack, then wouldn't that remove the multiple-ground-paths problem, and eliminate the possibility of a ground loop? I don't see how "lifting" one end of the cable's shield can make a ground loop worse (this procedure is used as a band-aid fix for ground loops too). I could see the single-ended shield acting as an antenna and introducing noise into the system as it picks up stray RF signals though.

Did I read that first big paragraph right, or were you saying something else?

I understand RF interference and how a mylar foil or a braided copper shield essentially creates a faraday cage that protects the center conductor. I also understand you can use star-quad geometry to cancel out the effects of stray magnetic field interference when using balanced/differential wiring.

But I'm not following your last paragraph about EMI. What it sounds like to me (using your example) is that running a bare wire next to another bare wire will cause voltages to be induced to one from the other due to EM coupling. This is how transformers work.

The solution you mention about twisting two signal wires together to combat this only works if the two wires are carrying signals in a balanced/differential configuration so that the noise can be rejected at the end because it is a common-mode noise.

I don't see how this twisted nature can help with unbalanced audio signal transmission. Please help?


----------



## lizardking

It's like the idiot at BestBuy trying to sell you the $200 Monster HDMI cable. Marketing...we Americans are the worst and most gullible. We can be made to believe anything! Just assume a business man, salesman is automatically trying to screw you over. Makes it much easier.


----------



## PPI_GUY

Complete nonsense. The ability of manufacturers to separate consumers from their money should never be underestimated. 
I wish some third-party sound lab would a/b test all these boutique RCA cables and put an end to this lunacy once and for all.


----------



## Donanon

Hey CarAudioChris,

Thanks for posting that very enlightening info. I stand corrected and more educated in terms of the audio world, I am going to re and re the cables in my car to match the description in your post to determine what if any improvement can be heard. Even if there is no improvement I'll sleep easier knowing that at least the wiring is not detrimental to the install.


D.


----------



## SPLEclipse

Jazzi said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> Thank you for helping out. I have a few questions about what you have posted. I'm not attacking your words. I really want to understand what you are saying here.
> 
> A really good read on shielding, noises, ground loops and more can be found at Rane's website below, and this is what I'm basing most of my questions on:
> Grounding and Shielding Audio Devices
> 
> As I understand it, ground loops are only a problem when multiple paths to ground are created when you connect one piece of equipment to another, and both are connected to an earth ground through the 3rd pin on an AC power cable, or the negative power terminal of a +12vdc product. If the shield (ring) of an RCA connector becomes loose over time and essentially disengages from the jack, then wouldn't that remove the multiple-ground-paths problem, and eliminate the possibility of a ground loop? I don't see how "lifting" one end of the cable's shield can make a ground loop worse (this procedure is used as a band-aid fix for ground loops too). I could see the single-ended shield acting as an antenna and introducing noise into the system as it picks up stray RF signals though.
> 
> Did I read that first big paragraph right, or were you saying something else?
> 
> I understand RF interference and how a mylar foil or a braided copper shield essentially creates a faraday cage that protects the center conductor. I also understand you can use star-quad geometry to cancel out the effects of stray magnetic field interference when using balanced/differential wiring.
> 
> But I'm not following your last paragraph about EMI. What it sounds like to me (using your example) is that running a bare wire next to another bare wire will cause voltages to be induced to one from the other due to EM coupling. This is how transformers work.
> 
> The solution you mention about twisting two signal wires together to combat this only works if the two wires are carrying signals in a balanced/differential configuration so that the noise can be rejected at the end because it is a common-mode noise.
> 
> I don't see how this twisted nature can help with unbalanced audio signal transmission. Please help?


Twisting does not help with unbalanced signals - you are correct.

A ground loop is created when there is more than one path to ground _with different but similar impedances_. A completely disconnected shield/ground wouldn't cause this, but a loose connection would.


----------



## firebirdude

lizardking said:


> It's like the idiot at BestBuy trying to sell you the $200 Monster HDMI cable.


People buy them every single day. So who's the idiot? $$$$


----------



## jode1967

I think where the science is behind this (not saying it works or not) is that capacitance (magical force that causes the voltage to lead/lag the current) is created by having conductors close together over a length of said conductor. While inductance (another magical force that causes voltage to lead/lag the current, but exactly opposite of capacitance). Inductance is created when a conductor is rolled into a coil. 
Pretty sure that the basis is that the capacitance that might have been created could be cancelled by inductance that the twisting may create.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Interesting, in my industry EMI sensitive wires that are shielded are terminated to ground at one end only. Grounding at both ends usually creates unwanted EMI from the shield itself. If a cable assembly is ran between two equipment racks and you were to ground at both ends to the chassis or equipment rack frame, there may be a potential difference between the two grounding points. This I assume is because in a car, the chassis is the ground and the return for the B+. In my industry B+ & B- are independent of the chassis/earth ground. There is a lot of metal between the different equipment racks and impedance to chassis ground can vary significantly creating the difference in potential.

IMHO, ground loops are the result of damaged or poor quality components and should be addressed accordingly. RF interference should be rare in a car except where keyless transmitters are. I have heard of folks getting Rf interference from keyless xnsmitters and re-routing or local shielding will work. It would be interesting to know how much current would actually cause EMI? When I think about how much current is running through most sub woofer wires that are not shielded and are in fact running side by side to each other then it must take more than what most audio systems are capable of generating.
Sounds like these fancy cables are band aid solutions to the root cause. There are some really interesting articles on the difference between CAT II, CAT III and so forth but they are for networks that have very low voltages and suseptible to interference easily.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I was getting ground noise one time and after answering a series of questions Glenn told me to get a leftover rca cable out of the way that was tucked behind the headunit. I was getting EMI iirc. Being at wits end I tried it and by golly he was right.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I was getting ground noise one time and after answering a series of questions Glenn told me to get a leftover rca cable out of the way that was tucked behind the headunit. I was getting EMI iirc. Being at wits end I tried it and by golly he was right.


That is an odd one! I wonder if one end was touching the chassis? or the housing of an electronic component. I was having an issue with noise once and after swapping amps and RCA's I decided to shield the RCA's and still had the noise. I ended up swapping an old H/U unit I had laying around and the noise went away. I figured maybe that I was crazy and put the original H/U back in and the noise came back. The Original H/U worked fine for about a year and a half and then all of the sudden came the noise.

I did purchase an extended warranty on the H/U so I called Alpine and after a few rounds with fairly average tech support, they agreed to replace the unit. Never had another problem. I had some people advise me to daisy chain all of the outer RCA plugs together and that just seemed like a band aid. The funny thing about band aids is that they work very well on people, but machines and parts don't heal themselves.


----------



## ChrisBrinkley

Sorry everyone, don't know what happened to my CarAudioChris account but I will answer these questions here shortly


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Locomotive Tech said:


> That is an odd one! I wonder if one end was touching the chassis? or the housing of an electronic component. I was having an issue with noise once and after swapping amps and RCA's I decided to shield the RCA's and still had the noise. I ended up swapping an old H/U unit I had laying around and the noise went away. I figured maybe that I was crazy and put the original H/U back in and the noise came back. The Original H/U worked fine for about a year and a half and then all of the sudden came the noise.
> 
> I did purchase an extended warranty on the H/U so I called Alpine and after a few rounds with fairly average tech support, they agreed to replace the unit. Never had another problem. I had some people advise me to daisy chain all of the outer RCA plugs together and that just seemed like a band aid. The funny thing about band aids is that they work very well on people, but machines and parts don't heal themselves.


The extra cable was wrapped around a wiring bundle in the dash. I tried all my trouble shooting tricks and couldn't figure it out. Just a whole lot of strange going on that didn't make sense. Like when you leave a cable wire unplugged you can use a device to detect it from the road. That poor truck went through a lot in nearly 6 years. I caved and traded in the pig for something a lot more practical. The new rig will have ZERO rca cables over 3' long.


----------



## gstokes

Pure Silver for full midrange and detailed high frequency..

Ultra OFC long grain copper for deep bass..

Pure, unadulterated ********..


----------



## firebirdude

gstokes said:


> Pure Silver for full midrange and detailed high frequency..
> 
> Ultra OFC long grain copper for deep bass..
> 
> Pure, unadulterated ********..


Oh. Good thing I'm only using undetailed high frequencies...


----------



## gstokes

firebirdude said:


> Oh. Good thing I'm only using undetailed high frequencies...


Yea me too, but i got those lows covered with Ultra OFC long grain copper strands that are twisted pair and triple shielded to hit those really low notes...


----------



## firebirdude

My grain is longer than yours.


----------



## gstokes

firebirdude said:


> My grain is longer than yours.


Purely genetics


----------



## solacedagony

gstokes said:


> Purely genetics


Nothing that a quick trip to the doc can't fix.


----------



## gstokes

Here's what I'm thinking, make a cable comprised of both silver and copper strands intertwined with each other so you have both ultra low and ultra high detailed frequencies.

We'll call it Ultra OFC SilvaCop, for the discriminating listener..


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I did not start this thread asking for people to help make fun of the silly graphic I posted. While the above is entertaining, I am still very serious about getting some insight into my original question.

I am still hoping someone can comment on the concept of using both twisted pair geometry in addition to shielding on a single RCA cable. Specifically, which conductor is connected to which pin on the RCA connectors? What benefit does this arrangement have? Why is this particular style so commonly used in car audio?

Somebody thought this was a good idea, and I want to understand what their reasoning was.


----------



## Silver Supra

As someone who has silver and copper cables in their home system I can tell you that silver absolutely has different characteristics than copper. It can be hyper-detailed and bright especially if your source is not that great.

I used to be a nay-sayer as well but quality cables are not a joke. The research and geometry/materials that are used in cables absolutely make a difference.

Just my experience...


----------



## solacedagony

Jazzi said:


> I did not start this thread asking for people to help make fun of the silly graphic I posted. While the above is entertaining, I am still very serious about getting some insight into my original question.
> 
> I am still hoping someone can comment on the concept of using both twisted pair geometry in addition to shielding on a single RCA cable. Specifically, which conductor is connected to which pin on the RCA connectors? What benefit does this arrangement have? Why is this particular style so commonly used in car audio?
> 
> Somebody thought this was a good idea, and I want to understand what their reasoning was.


It's good marketing for the average person that doesn't know better.

The cable could also be used for balanced or unbalanced signals.


----------



## gstokes

I wasn't picking on you at all, in fact it's a good thread and can help to dispell some myths but i am total non-believer, if this was indeed the case am quite sure we would have known about it many decades ago, the fact that high-level speaker cables are only comprised of one type of conductor should pretty much spell it out..

IMHO,,, If you don't have noise in the system then switching to those cables offers zero benefit..


----------



## Justin Zazzi

solacedagony said:


> The cable could also be used for balanced or unbalanced signals.


This statement. This one right here. This is at the heart of my original question.

We do not know if the cable in the photo (or tons of other car audio cables that claim twisted pair geometry AND a shield) can be used with a differential signal or a single-ended signal or what. Cables designed for differential signals and cables designed for single-ended signals (with only 2-pin connectors) are mutually exclusive. It cannot be used for both.

There is one optimal design for each kind of signal we might encounter: a coaxial cable for single-ended signals like everyone is used to, and a twisted pair cable for balanced/differential signals (with an optional shield/drain that requires a 3rd pin on the connector such as an XLR or 1/4") which were previously never seen in car audio but are now becoming more common in factory systems.

That's it. Either coaxial (shielded) or twisted pair cable depending on which kind of signal you have. They are the best designs for what they do based on my experience with both, the broadcast and telephone industry best practices established over decades, and also all the readings I've done in the AES E-Journal and other technical sources.

So again, my question is: what is the benefit of using twisted pair geometry AND a shield for connectors that only have two pins? (RCA connectors) What problem does this solve?


----------



## solacedagony

As far as I know, the two cables aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible to have a balanced cable with only two conductors although it isn't typical. To your point, I was originally thinking about a shield that was capable of being disconnected from the outer ring.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Thank you for your ideas.

My thinking is like this:

A twisted pair cable cannot be used with a single-ended signal because it has no outer shield. A coaxial cable cannot be used for a differential signal because the two conductors are not twisted together and exposed to external interference equally. So the two cable types are mutually exclusive.

You might be thinking of having a twisted pair with an outer shield (which is common for professional interconnects) for a total of three conductors, and then connecting them to the RCA connector pins depending on which kind of signal you want to carry?

If that is the case, then you still don't have a single cable, complete with connectors, that can carry both types of signals. So having a cable-and-connector product (like the ones marketed in car audio) that can do both types of signals is just not possible when using RCA connectors.

But someone thought otherwise, and built the twisted/shielded RCA cables, and I want to know what that thought process was. Why was that design considered superior, and how does it work in terms of science?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Thinking back to cables making a difference, I remember comparing the cheap rca cable that came with my Sony 5 disk player with an Acoustic Research cable that I bought to use with it instead. This was back in like 01. The AR cable did have a better sound to it but the one it beat out was one of those cheap cables you get "free" with electronics. In other words, as long as an rca cable is of at least decent quality it should be the least of your sq concerns.


----------



## rton20s

Jazzi said:


> But someone thought otherwise, and built the twisted/shielded RCA cables, and I want to know what that thought process was. Why was that design considered superior, and how does it work in terms of science?


Your mistake is in thinking that product development was done by an engineer(s). It is more likely a marketing led product development. They key in on audiophile buzz words and contract with the overseas factories to build based on the buzzwords. Instant high margin cable with "impressive" ad copy.


----------



## seafish

rton20s said:


> Your mistake is in thinking that product development was done by an engineer(s). It is more likely a marketing led product development. They key in on audiophile buzz words and contract with the overseas factories to build based on the buzzwords. Instant high margin cable with "impressive" ad copy.


Thank you...I kept revisting this thread to try to answer the OP's quesiotn, but couldn;t quite figure out a way to say this as "diplomatically" as you!!! LOL


----------



## gstokes

seafish said:


> Thank you...I kept revisting this post to try to answer, but couldn;t quite figure out a way to say this as "diplomatically" as you!!! LOL


Politically correct..


----------



## Alrojoca

Marketing, marketing. Without getting technical,even going against science or employing an unusual system as long as it works many will take advantage of the situation to sell.

I went from Stinger HPM stranded wires to AQ solid single conductor just for looks and convenience. Although AQ claims stranded wires cause harsh highs and use crimp method over solder, as part of their marketing, it may be very hard for me to tell the difference if any at all and it may not always deliver better sound in comparison. I think the noise was improved if not eliminated but for a car environment the gain may be insignificant if any. 

I admit that many years ago when my hearing was better due to age, I tried a Belden RCA coax digital cable versus a $5.00 optical to watch DD or DTS movies and the optical seemed slightly better and many digital cables are made with a single or a few wires with stranded conductors.

Maybe it is just a mind issue, in the past 6 months I came across this video, and yes although it does not seem bias to any brand, we can question the recording, microphones and methods to do the video, being as skeptical as we can be, for some reason, I can notice some differences, less harshness and definition of her voice, and without bashing a brand, the Blue Jean one sounded the worst to me, even being a fan of those canare RCA no solder connectors and Cables. Again, it may be an invalid test and we can not assume it is accurate or fixed coming from a public video.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRKIxlO88vk


----------



## Alrojoca

Also, in 82,83 when the first CD players hit the market, they sounded a bit dry as compared to LP's, I bought a monster RCA that was supposed to correct that dry digital sound, to me it did improve it just a bit, it was different but again, better, is really hard to say.

The newest generation of CD Players sounded better, still different than LP's but better and they got better and better until they reached a level where all were similar, and many manufacturers in the beginning tried to sell you a $5000-10000 CD player claiming it sounded better than LP's and give you 10 reasons why it was better, and the ones buying it will also justify it and be proud about it.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

rton20s said:


> Your mistake is in thinking that product development was done by an engineer(s). It is more likely a marketing led product development. They key in on audiophile buzz words and contract with the overseas factories to build based on the buzzwords. Instant high margin cable with "impressive" ad copy.


Although I completely agree with this statement, every good deception is built upon a foundation of truth, even a tiny truth, and that truth is always visible (and usually emphasized) in the final deception even though it no longer applies to the particular idea that has been invented. This is what makes the deception so strong and convincing, because someone can point to the truth it was built upon as evidence that the deception must be true too, even though the truth has been bent and warped so much it no longer applies to the deception anymore. I'm sure there is some term in philosophy to describe this concept.

I want to find that tiny truth that this idea was built upon (the idea that twisted pair and shielding makes for a better RCA cable, even though they only have two possible pins on each connector).

It's like the statement that "all Muslims are terrorists, therefore ..... (something about furthering an agenda)". The small truth this statement is built upon is that "most of the high profile terrorists in the news on are Muslim, or are radicalized by Muslims". Because the truth is so strong in people's minds, the deception is an easy thing to believe, even though it is not true or supported by the original truth. This allows the people creating the deception to influence decisions or opinion in the same way that any good marketing campaign can influence consumer purchases. I don't enjoy using this particular example but I'm out of time to think of a less visceral one.

If one can find the truth that a deception is originally built upon but which is not valid in the final deception, then it becomes infinitely easier to show the deception is what it is. This is my goal.


----------



## firebirdude

rton20s said:


> Your mistake is in thinking that product development was done by an engineer(s). It is more likely a marketing led product development. They key in on audiophile buzz words and contract with the overseas factories to build based on the buzzwords. Instant high margin cable with "impressive" ad copy.


Yep. And such is the case with every product in every industry. I've witnessed it while sitting in a factory in China. 



Jazzi said:


> Although I completely agree with this statement, every good deception is built upon a foundation of truth, even a tiny truth, and that truth is always visible (and usually emphasized) in the final deception even though it no longer applies to the particular idea that has been invented. This is what makes the deception so strong and convincing, because someone can point to the truth it was built upon as evidence that the deception must be true too, even though the truth has been bent and warped so much it no longer applies to the deception anymore. I'm sure there is some term in philosophy to describe this concept.
> 
> I want to find that tiny truth that this idea was built upon (the idea that twisted pair and shielding makes for a better RCA cable, even though they only have two possible pins on each connector).
> 
> It's like the statement that "all Muslims are terrorists, therefore ..... (something about furthering an agenda)". The small truth this statement is built upon is that "most of the high profile terrorists in the news on are Muslim, or are radicalized by Muslims". Because the truth is so strong in people's minds, the deception is an easy thing to believe, even though it is not true or supported by the original truth. This allows the people creating the deception to influence decisions or opinion in the same way that any good marketing campaign can influence consumer purchases. I don't enjoy using this particular example but I'm out of time to think of a less visceral one.
> 
> If one can find the truth that a deception is originally built upon but which is not valid in the final deception, then it becomes infinitely easier to show the deception is what it is. This is my goal.


Agreed. 

Isn't the truth that, even outside the car audio industry, a grounded shield does indeed prevent EMI from affecting the signal wires inside the shield, when compared to no shield at all? For use with single ended inputs on car audio amplifiers? And the whole twisted pair excuse is that if EMI were radiating from one side of the signal wire, that twisting the wires would ensure equal exposure to both signal conductors and thereby allow a differential input on an amplifier to maximize rejection? Or maybe I'm not understanding your question/goal?


----------



## Babs

Answers why twisted pair.. Use for differential-balanced device (dsp or amp) inputs. If your amps or DSP doesn't have differential-balanced inputs, you have a bigger deficiency in gear selection than you have a cable problem. 

For the record, I'm using Gepco 61801EZ which is a twisted pair mic cable. It terminates easy, it's tough as nails, its small OD and OMG is it expensive!!!! $0.15 per foot.  It's tiny enough you could run 4, 6 or 8 channels in a single techflex without getting too bulky. And did I mention it's $0.15 per foot? 

It is shielded, so I ground drain from shield at "source side only" as does Stinger with their 6000 and up cables. 

Results... Quiet as a damn church mouse and moves electrons just fine from A to B.

I used Neutrik Rean connectors but certainly open to trying different connectors. The connectors and your time are the two most costly things in this, but once you go DIY you'll never go back unless you simply don't want to take the time to do pull out your soldering gun and do a little work.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

firebirdude said:


> Isn't the truth that, even outside the car audio industry, a grounded shield does indeed prevent EMI from affecting the signal wires inside the shield, when compared to no shield at all? For use with single ended inputs on car audio amplifiers? And the whole twisted pair excuse is that if EMI were radiating from one side of the signal wire, that twisting the wires would ensure equal exposure to both signal conductors and thereby allow a differential input on an amplifier to maximize rejection? Or maybe I'm not understanding your question/goal?


Yes, you are absolutely right in all respects.

---

I don't think I'm explaining my question very well. Let me try again.

1) A coaxial (or shielded) cable needs two separate conductors and is best for non-differential signals.
2) A twisted pair cable needs two separate conductors and is best for differential signals.
3) The coaxial and twisted pair cable geometries are completely different and incompatible with each other.
4) RCA connectors only have two pins where (at most) two separate conductors can be connected.

Therefore, if you are using an RCA connector then you cannot possibly have a cable with *both* twisted pair and a coaxial geometry at the same time, that also works as well as a standard coaxial or twisted pair cable, which is how these cables are advertised.

So my question is: why are so many RCA cables advertised as having both twisted pair and shielded geometry, and why did someone think this was an improvement?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Babs said:


> For the record, I'm using Gepco 61801EZ which is a twisted pair mic cable
> ...
> I used Neutrik Rean connectors....


That's funny. I have a bunch of exactly the same wire and connectors and have built my own interconnects from them many times.

Confirming the cable and connectors you chose have an off-the-charts performance-to-cost ratio, and the performance is as good as anything else I've ever heard.

Now for anyone that notices the Gepco cable above is a twisted pair and shielded cable mated to an RCA connector, which is what I'm ranting about in this thread, just know that I connect both of the twisted pair conductors to the center pin of the RCA connector so they are essentially not separate anymore, and what I'm left with is a proper coaxial cable. I assume Babs does this also.


----------



## TrickyRicky

How is it a proper coaxial cable if the cable has a twisted wire used as a shield jacket? As Tony D'Amore mentioned in the video posted, the shield on a coaxial will cover the whole cable completely (not twisted). Of course unless that cable has a solid jacket that is making contact with that bare wire.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Hmmm, I get what your saying....now. I usually don't get involved in "these" discussions for obvious reasons. I do see a benefit for shielding and twisted cabling but the picture shown seems like overkill and more of thought process of more has to be better. 

I tend towards twisted pair just to eliminate crosstalk. In the past, when I ran into noise issues, I seek out the source and address the source accordingly. Noise I fear is going to be a bigger problem as time goes on with so many RF sources being installed in modern automobiles.

I struggle very hard to resolve in my mind the validity of different materials achieving different sound. I can't hear the difference, but that is me. I do also understand that different materials will have an affect on the voltage and current running through a conductor. For example; I use a device at work called a spark chaser, pretty cool machine for troubleshooting very long circuits. Its just a fancy wire analyzer and needs to be calibrated to the exact type of wire from a give manufacturer. Most quality suppliers will know how fast electrons flow through their wire at a given voltage. This is usually give in a % of the speed of light such as 77.7835%. With this information a signal is sent over the conductor and returns to the device at the other end and a graphical display reads in real time the signal strength when it returns to the device. It will also show very small reflections in the circuit. The unit I have can show every termination, every bend and the amplitude of the reflection and even better, the distance in inches from the device to each anomoly.

So yes, silver should have a different sound but, was it the cable that changed the sound? or was the length different, was any of the bends in cable changed...etc

There are few good articles on the difference between CATIII, 4, 5, 5E and so on, but those are such low voltage systems I can see how the differences could have an effect.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

TrickyRicky said:


> How is it a proper coaxial cable if the cable has a twisted wire used as a shield jacket? As Tony D'Amore mentioned in the video posted, the shield on a coaxial will cover the whole cable completely (not twisted)......


Yes! That's the question!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Locomotive Tech said:


> Hmmm, I get what your saying....now. I usually don't get involved in "these" discussions for obvious reasons. I do see a benefit for shielding and twisted cabling but the picture shown seems like overkill and more of thought process of more has to be better.
> 
> I tend towards twisted pair just to eliminate crosstalk. In the past, when I ran into noise issues, I seek out the source and address the source accordingly. Noise I fear is going to be a bigger problem as time goes on with so many RF sources being installed in modern automobiles.
> 
> .......


Awesome. It seems you have some in depth experience with signals and cables. That spark chaser sounds like a neat tool too. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I'm a little confused, but I don't want this to feel like an interrogation. Please understand I just want to learn more about your thoughts on this.

You say you see "a benefit for shielding and twisted cabling". I'm not sure if you mean one or the other depending on the application, or both at the same time if there are three pins to terminate the cable at the end, or both at the same time even if you only have two pins to terminate the three conductors (such as in my examples). I assume you mean the former or second, and not the later?

You also mention you "tend towards twisted pair just to eliminate crosstalk". Do you mean you prefer using a differential signal and twisted pair cables vs non-balanced signals and coaxial cables? Or do you mean you prefer twisted pair cable in general, with any signals? I think you mean the former again?


----------



## backousis

i didn,t read all the messages but here is how it works.

half conductors go to the + terminal of the rca.
half conductors conductors go to the ground of the rca.
the shield is connected tho the rca cround only from the
side of the source.

the source could be your dsp or head unit but not the amps.

it works and is called pseudobalanced but no need to pay a for
a cable like this.

you guys can use belden or mogami microphone cable and neutrik rian
rca and make your own cables and it is about as good an it gets.

belden an mogami make cables cables for professionals and studios etc
and have the best value for money possible.

actually a lot of hi end companies buy cables from them and just rebadge.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Hi backousis. Thank you for the explanation.

Please excuse my terrible drawing, but is this what you're describing?

Also, where can we learn more about pseudobalanced interconnects? The only decent information I could find was on Rane's website and the concept seems to be for connecting balanced and non-balanced equipment to together.


----------



## backousis

Jazzi said:


> Hi backousis. Thank you for the explanation.
> 
> Please excuse my terrible drawing, but is this what you're describing?
> 
> Also, where can we learn more about pseudobalanced interconnects? The only decent information I could find was on Rane's website and the concept seems to be for connecting balanced and non-balanced equipment to together.


your drawing is correct.

here iis some info

Cable Asylum


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I think you're directing me towards the posts from Jon Risch and other related posts on that page. I have run across Risch a few times before and I want to believe him so bad because he is so detail oriented and practical in many things, but he contradicts himself sometimes and he also believes in seemingly absurd things like placing a sandbag on top of the crystal oscillator in your CD player will reduce jitter errors, as if they are audible to begin with.

Aside from my views of him, there is a pretty good discussion there that seems to come down to two ideas:

A) a shielded cable with a single conductor in the center forces the return current to flow through the shield. This means the shield is in the direct audio signal path, and any noise picked up by the shield is injected into the audio signal ground, which creates noise, and is bad.

B) a shielded cable where the shield is connected on one end only and contains a twisted pair on the inside (just like the drawing I made above) allows the audio signal return path to be shielded along with the "hot" lead of the signal. Since the shield is connected at one end only, then it is not part of the signal path and cannot influence the audio signal ground reference, so it cannot introduce noise.

These ideas sound wonderful. But when you have a long conductor attached to an electric circuit at one end only, it becomes an antenna. Antennas, by definition, inject whatever signals they pick up into the circuit they are connected to. So if you have a shield that is connected on one end only to the audio signal ground reference (or negative lead in the RCA connector) ..... then shouldn't you be injecting whatever the antenna picks up into the ground reference, and causing noise too?

I just don't see how B) is possible with my current knowledge of electronics when considering the shield connected at one end as an antenna.

I'm not trying to be contrarian, truly. I must sound like some jerk just trying to pick a fight about nonsense. I want to understand though, I really do.


----------



## backousis

i agree with you about john rish.

it was just a quick google search, but you can maybe find more if you search for rca to rca 

pseudobalanced

the shield of course pick's up noise but it drives it to ground and not allow it to insert the 

two cables that carry the signal

there is no antenna at the amplifier input but at the transmitter output.

the amplifier amplifies the signal between hot and ground that see at its input.

its, not the same thing,the signal is going the easiest path and it,s easier to go to ground 

chassis than insert to the return signal cable find it.s way to the amp pass through the pcb 

go to the power supply and finally arrive at chassis ground again.


----------



## firebirdude

Jazzi said:


> Hi backousis. Thank you for the explanation.
> 
> Please excuse my terrible drawing, but is this what you're describing?
> 
> Also, where can we learn more about pseudobalanced interconnects? The only decent information I could find was on Rane's website and the concept seems to be for connecting balanced and non-balanced equipment to together.


I have no clue if this works or not, but it would then make the cable directional.


----------



## Babs

Jazzi said:


> Therefore, if you are using an RCA connector then you cannot possibly have a cable with *both* twisted pair and a coaxial geometry at the same time, that also works as well as a standard coaxial or twisted pair cable, which is how these cables are advertised.
> 
> So my question is: why are so many RCA cables advertised as having both twisted pair and shielded geometry, and why did someone think this was an improvement?


Shielding a twisted pair wire does not make it a coaxial. It's a mis-statement. Coaxial will be single conductor with symmetrical and circular shield for EMF cancellation. That's part of the coaxial design. A twisted pair with a shield is simply that, a 2 conductor with a shield. Whether the shield is necessary is debatable in a differential circuit. 

Also in case other folks don't know.. You never ever ever want to connect shield to ground at BOTH ends.. Never do this. No signal runs through the shield. But it is to be grounded at the source end for best performance of noise rejection. The differential input circuit should do the most by noise cancellation.



Jazzi said:


> ...just know that I connect both of the twisted pair conductors to the center pin of the RCA connector so they are essentially not separate anymore, and what I'm left with is a proper coaxial cable. I assume Babs does this also.


.... No no no no no.. See above. 


Conductor A to RCA pin (both ends)
Conductor B to RCA sheild (both ends)
Drain from wire shield to RCA shield along with con B (Source end ONLY. No signal through it)

Note: For a differential-balanced RCA input circuits (better gear such as better DSP's and amps)


----------



## firebirdude

And let's discuss the benefits of having a shield that's NOT connected to anything. Metal does inhibit the transmission of wireless signals (or EMI in our case).


----------



## Babs

Now your homework assignment is find us a really cool RCA connector that's more appropriate and equal/better quality than those Reans. Needs to be short (for close quarters). Might be crimp or solder, I've not used crimp RCA's. I think I checked once for RCA sheild locking connectors at PE, like those fancy pantsy 9000 Stingers. They're out there. Actually the Rean with the very large wire entry might be cool because you could do a multi run, techflexed, split off with individual techflex going into the connector with nice shrink tube work.. Man that'd be sexy uber-audiofile prom queen interconnects.


----------



## Babs

firebirdude said:


> And let's discuss the benefits of having a shield that's NOT connected to anything. Metal does inhibit the transmission of wireless signals (or EMI in our case).


That's why you solder drain from sheild to ground (rca shield) at source end.


----------



## Babs

Here's a very old but still available DIY on that very gepco wire. Remember this fellow?
Low Cost DIY Interconnect Details, a How To Photo Gallery by shinjohn at pbase.com


----------



## firebirdude

Babs said:


> That's why you solder drain from sheild to ground (rca shield) at source end.


I fully understand that. 

I'm just saying we should discuss the benefits of NOT grounding the shield, because that's what many RCA manufacturers are doing and claiming is beneficial. Jazzi is asking us to discuss where this all came from and to see if we can pinpoint where pure marketing bullcrap overtook proven fact.

As I said, it's a well known fact that metal inhibits wireless transmissions in general. So even without grounding the shielding, could it be used to protect the signal wires inside? Or is that just theory and the tiny aluminum foil they call shielding makes zero measureable difference at blocking the transmissions we see in car?


----------



## backousis

Babs said:


> Now your homework assignment is find us a really cool RCA connector that's more appropriate and equal/better quality than those Reans.



with time i have find that these cheap rean are the best rca plugs available especialy when i found out that everything else i used needed cleaning and tightening every now and then.
i haven,t use very expensive ones like wbt etc?
i would only change the reans only with locking rca's


----------



## rton20s

Babs said:


> Now your homework assignment is find us a really cool RCA connector that's more appropriate and equal/better quality than those Reans. Needs to be short (for close quarters). Might be crimp or solder, I've not used crimp RCA's. I think I checked once for RCA sheild locking connectors at PE, like those fancy pantsy 9000 Stingers. They're out there. Actually the Rean with the very large wire entry might be cool because you could do a multi run, techflexed, split off with individual techflex going into the connector with nice shrink tube work.. Man that'd be sexy uber-audiofile prom queen interconnects.


For locking RCA ends, I know that Nakamichi has a few options (816, 816E & 852). I've not used them though and couldn't really find any dimensional data to see if they were any smaller than the Reans. 

The cheapest pre-fab cables I have found with locking ends are the Hooker Audio PS Series. (About half the price of Stinger 8000 series, depending on length.)

Another interesting DIY option I am awaiting feedback on is the DD Z-Wire system. Car audio branded, yes and they are not locking ends. But it is a a very quick DIY system that requires no soldering. The ends also appear to be quite compact.


----------



## Babs

rton20s said:


> For locking RCA ends, I know that Nakamichi has a few options (816, 816E & 852). I've not used them though and couldn't really find any dimensional data to see if they were any smaller than the Reans.


Nak isn't the Nak we grew up with unfortunately.. I'm gun shy of trusting anything under the brand now. Kind of tragic. Would have liked to see the successor of the 700 II or even the 400 or 500 head units. Alas, no.


----------



## backousis

i am afraid i have used the non locking ones from nakamichi and they are crap.

is your space so tight that reans are big?

locking ones are bigger usually.

i have build belden 46349 at the implementation we discused earlier and reans and they 

sound wonderful


----------



## rton20s

Babs said:


> Nak isn't the Nak we grew up with unfortunately.. I'm gun shy of trusting anything under the brand now. Kind of tragic. Would have liked to see the successor of the 700 II or even the 400 or 500 head units. Alas, no.


I can understand the hesitation. For what it is worth, I'm not sure that the Nakamichi Plug brand is associated with the car audio brand. Even though they do both use the same Nakamichi logo. 



backousis said:


> i am afraid i have used the non locking ones from nakamichi and they are crap.


Good to get some feedback from someone who has used at least some of the Nakamichi plugs, even if not the locking ones. Out of curiosity, what was it about the Nakamichis that was crap? Lack of positive connection? Materials? Build quality?


----------



## backousis

rton20s said:


> Good to get some feedback from someone who has used at least some of the Nakamichi plugs, even if not the locking ones. Out of curiosity, what was it about the Nakamichis that was crap? Lack of positive connection? Materials? Build quality?


the lid is solid and makes the plug look good but the main body is very poor build and doesn't give a tight contact to the female plug


----------



## Babs

backousis said:


> is your space so tight that reans are big?


Not really.. Just nice to have variety of choices but behind head units, it can get cramped. Luckily the current one is pigtailed.



backousis said:


> locking ones are bigger usually.
> 
> i have build belden 46349 at the implementation we discused earlier and reans and they
> 
> sound wonderful


yep.. $15 and a solder gun and knowledge and you can compete with $250 cables. If only the connector strain relief crimps weren't one-time use, it'd be brilliant bank robbery.


----------



## backousis

Babs said:


> yep.. $15 and a solder gun and knowledge and you can compete with $250 cables. If only the connector strain relief crimps weren't one-time use, it'd be brilliant bank robbery.


it depends, you need two runs for stereo.

my cost was 57 euro total.

still very cheap for 3 stereo cables 5 meter each.

no problem with the crimping rca's if you fail you go to the next it;s 1$ each


----------



## rton20s

backousis said:


> the lid is solid and makes the plug look good but the main body is very poor build and doesn't give a tight contact to the female plug


That is good feedback. Certainly a worthwhile reason to steer clear of the non-locking RCAs. I do wonder though if the locking RCAs might resolve the issues you experienced. The internal barrel seems much more substantial than on the non-locking RCAs. The locking feature should also eliminate any issues with maintaining tight contact with the female side. Unless it was an issue with the size of the center pin.


----------



## felix509

Babs said:


> Now your homework assignment is find us a really cool RCA connector that's more appropriate and equal/better quality than those Reans. Needs to be short (for close quarters). Might be crimp or solder, I've not used crimp RCA's. I think I checked once for RCA sheild locking connectors at PE, like those fancy pantsy 9000 Stingers. They're out there. Actually the Rean with the very large wire entry might be cool because you could do a multi run, techflexed, split off with individual techflex going into the connector with nice shrink tube work.. Man that'd be sexy uber-audiofile prom queen interconnects.


Switchcraft makes some small connectors. I have some switchcraft connectors, but not these particular ones.. The ones i used are very well built..










And you always have right angle connectors. Again, never used these..

90d connectors


----------



## backousis

rton20s said:


> That is good feedback. Certainly a worthwhile reason to steer clear of the non-locking RCAs. I do wonder though if the locking RCAs might resolve the issues you experienced. The internal barrel seems much more substantial than on the non-locking RCAs. The locking feature should also eliminate any issues with maintaining tight contact with the female side. Unless it was an issue with the size of the center pin.


 yeah the locking ones look better, it wasn't the center pin but the ground ring which is propably solved with the locking ones.just a guess of course.


----------



## Alrojoca

I used these before for home made and home sub, not huge and not super tiny Not cheap either, smooth plug unplugging connectors, gold plated 

Canare F-09


----------



## TrickyRicky

The connectors on the Stinger 9000 are suppose to be solid copper with a rhodium plating, not saying that will make any difference.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Hi Jazzi,
sorry I did not get back to you earlier, hot water heater died.......happy wife, happy life!

To your question "You say you see "a benefit for shielding and twisted cabling". I'm not sure if you mean one or the other depending on the application, or both at the same time if there are three pins to terminate the cable at the end, or both at the same time even if you only have two pins to terminate the three conductors (such as in my examples). I assume you mean the former or second, and not the later?" To be clear, IMHO, for car audio I see no reason for using both. Me personally I always accommodate cross talk before EMI, EMI can be dealt with in numerous ways, in fact I had an issue with noise floor and humming in my recently activated install. The noise floor was apparent and I do know the source and that will be corrected. I noticed another issue, with car off and sitting in the garage I could hear humming when certain functions of the car were activated. When the CD player loaded a CD I could hear the motor running, when I changed the HVAC control, I could hear that motor running. The keyless entry system was down right ignorant. At first I couldn't determine if I was simply hearing the motors or it was actually being amplified through the system. I ended up removing a Tweeter to out side the car and had the wife load CD's and move the HVAC controller, sure enough I could hear that. So for my install which retains the factory H/U that has very low pre-amp voltage I decided to move the wire from the H/U first which there was an improvement but not eliminated. I then applied some adhesive backed foil around the Blower motor, the motor thingy that moves the HVAC air flow to the different positions. Major improvement but not elimated, the CD motor could still be heard. So I decided to move the shield grounds from the factory terminations on the back Of the H/U to the other end of the cabling. Problem solved.....except for the keyless. I tried the foil around the receiver/transmitter and that was a big mistake that I should have understood. Keyless did not work anymore........DUH!

The out put signal wires from the H/U were shielded pairs, 4 full range and 1 for the sub. Initially I used 6 pair twisted shielded cable for 3 of the total 5 and another cable for the remaining 2 channels. There was significant crosstalk within the 2 cables so I ran 1 shielded cable per channel and this corrected the issues I was having including the Rf from the keyless noting that I minimized the length of the exposed un-shielded length where the connection was made to the H/U out put wires.

To your second question, yes the former. But if you think about my situation the diagram you posted would have probably solved all of my issues with one cable. I suppose that the only difference is the cost of such an exotic cable vs. some serious labor and minor material costs.

For me, I have a fairly low end system, and small changes in hardware like cables and materials that wires are made of probably may not equate to "better sound". 

I would be very interested in researching or hearing differences in interconnect cabling in A/B amps vs. class D. I would think there is a there there. 

To close this ridiculously long post, I would say that if you are at the very pinnacle of audio quality and are using low end cabling then you have fallen from your principles. If you are a meager enthusiast like myself, roll with it and make your improvements where you will gain the best for your application. 

I see no wrong or right with someone's belief that a cable is superior for one reason or another. Just make sure your foundation equipment is of the caliber of one requiring such wires.


----------



## JayinMI

jtaudioacc said:


> every rca marketing gimmick into one! of course it's awesome.


Didi they hire the marketing team from Monster Cable? lol

Jay


----------



## Locomotive Tech

So just an update on a slow day at work. was messing around with some tests using an sstdr and found some rather interesting results.

First, the genesis of this testing was one of my employees came to me and explained that he had some noise issues and ended up changing some RCA's which took care of the issue. He went to say that he seemed to "hear" and improvement in the overall sound quality.

So we were talking about loose outer conductors (-) that could have contributed to poor SQ and noise etc. Since we have a SSTDR here we were screwing around with his bad RCA's .

First we put it on an insulation tester and noted that @ around 600 volts, the inner conducted to the outter. Not sure if that is by design but interesting nonetheless. I used a brand new set of RCA's I had to see if there was a difference The new RCA's took 4200 volts before a noticeable conduction. These were no means a high end set but fairly decent. 

We then hooked up the SSTDR to the bad cables we noted numerous reflections along the entire length of the cable's center conductor, in some cases the amplitude of the reflection was equal to the signal!

We then hooked up the new set and saw reflections but at significanlty lower amplitude that the olde cables. just for fun, I bent the new cables severely at several different points and wouldn't you know the refelctions at these points increased tremedously. Keep in mind I literally folded the cable over and squeezed with pliers.

To be transparent, I was not able to get a response back from either cable manufactuer to assertain the percent of speed of light at which their cables conduct so the distances the SSTDR indicates the refelctions will be off but nonetheless present.

Goofing off some more we put the SSTDR in real time (connected to the RCA's) in a powered system at approx 30% power. totally fascinated that the bad cable's refelctions increased while under "load". And so did the good cable! We did this a few more times with increasing power and each time the reflection amplitude increased accordingly. So for me it seems clear that as power increases so do the reflections. Wish I could bring myself to buy a super high end set of cables to see if there is a difference.

Furthering our observations showed that cables that were layed flat and straight showed less reflections. On another set of brand new cables we laid flat and straight on the floor showed to have the least amount of reflections however, we noticed there was this small refelecting running almost the entire length of the cable, varying amplitude and seemed to varying depending on where we stood in proximity to the cable, the only thing we could come up with was the carpet in the room was creating a static charge as we could shuffle our feet and see the refelction change, pretty cool though. I really wouldn't consider this very detrimental as the refelction was so small I doubt that it impact the SQ. I found it intersting that "static factor" was almost undetectable in an unpowered scenario.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

That is strange Frank. Makes me wonder how some of the old Rat Shack cables I've had forever measure. They've been in and out of my installs more times than I can count over the past 10 years or so. Been beat to hell also. And right now I have a pair of 3' Stinger 2000 cables rolled up and taped to tame them since the run between amp and processor is only about 15". Wonder what that's doing to the signal and if it's even detectable by ear?


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Yeah, I know what you mean. I have tons of old cables and wonder how they would react too? I would't suppose that having yours taped up in a loop would present an audible difference. Those stingers are shielded and should not pose any eddy current affects to the internal conductor.

What I have a real hard time wrapping my head around is the multi-conductor center conductor being twisted to reduce "crosstalk"? How can you get crosstalk with a single conductor? I would think that once you use a mult-conductor then you would be at risk for crosstalk?

For Jazzi's question, I seem to agree that you have all of these conductors connected to the same point at the ends with the same potential seems to be self defeating. I would think that a single multi-stranded conductor would do exactly the same thing??

And if the argument is noise cancellation by twisting the conductors, then they should be using solid core conductors for the design, if they are using stranded in the construction then wouldn't the individual strands impart noise on the adjacent strand in the conductor?? I need a beer now!


----------



## Locomotive Tech

BTW the amplitudes we measure were mostly in the mv range, the so called "static effects" we noted were in the micro volt range. I think that having this equipment available to me is very dangerous, but thankfully I have a fair amount of common sense that still guides me to believe that most of the high end designs can actually be proven to be less resrtictive, less susceptable to outside influences etc, these benfits can not be audible or measureable in the real world. 

Funny test was we hooked up the SSTDR through a JL HD amp and the circuit showed to be over 60' long and looked like a hot mess on the chart! Just one giant refelection over 60' long moving all over the place. Would be interesting to see what an A/B amp would look like? 

On second thought, I would rather not go down that road


----------



## seafish

Locomotive Tech said:


> So just an update on a slow day at work. was messing around with some tests using an sstdr and found some rather interesting results...So we were talking about loose outer conductors (-) that could have contributed to poor SQ and noise etc. Since we have a SSTDR here we were screwing around with his bad RCA's .
> 
> 
> Keep in mind I literally folded the cable over and squeezed with pliers.
> 
> Wish I could bring myself to buy a super high end set of cables to see if there is a difference.


Always interesting to get research and results like this...it helps brings diyma back to its roots!!!

Anyway, first question (sorry) just WTH is an SSTDR??

Secondly, I DO have two (reputably) high end, well built RCA cables that I AM willing to send you for testing as long as you do NOT bend them over and pinch them with pliers or drive your car over them for testing purposes. LOL!! And, of course, as long as you send them back after testing. Other then that, have a go at them. 

These cables are both no longer made by Esoteric. Obviously the larger diameter one is NOT really meant for car audio use, though I am going to use it in my truck build just because I can. As you can see form the pics, the larger diameter cable is almost the size of a penny. The other set has a more normal 1/4" diameter flexible jacket and is also single channel conductor RCA. Here are pics--


----------



## Locomotive Tech

seafish said:


> Always interesting to get research and results like this...it helps brings diyma back to its roots!!!
> 
> Anyway, first question (sorry) just WTH is an SSTDR??
> 
> Secondly, I DO have two (reputably) high end, well built RCA cables that I AM willing to send you for testing as long as you do NOT bend them over and pinch them with pliers or drive your car over them for testing purposes. LOL!! And, of course, as long as you send them back after testing. Other then that, have a go at them.
> 
> These cables are both no longer made by Esoteric. Obviously the larger diameter one is NOT really meant for car audio use, though I am going to use it in my truck build just because I can. As you can see form the pics, the larger diameter cable is almost the size of a penny. Here are pics--


Sweet! I am interested to see if there is a difference, for me I have always believed in a larger conductor and a tough jacket/insulator. It's real nice to have a super flexible interconnect but what is the minimum bend radius for the cable we are using? I have not seen a car audio cable manufactuer specify these limits? 

Don't worry, I would not damage your cables as I already knew that folding those cables would degrade the integrity, just wanted to see what it looked like. I also would pay for half of all shipping costs as well. Do you have the model numbers? I would like to reach out to Esoteric to see if they will provide the speed of light dynamics of the wire they use. This will "in theory" allow us to see the terminations at the connector ends and any reflections that are created there and also we may actually see the twist crossover points. 

In a test I did a while ago, I twisted some 16 ga at 6" intervals and ran 120 Vac from the outlet through it and could actually see some "noise" in the conductor almost dead center between the cross over points in the twists. So I guess twisted pairs will cancel out noise so long as the twists adhere to whatever standard has been researched....this is something to be reseached too....higher frequencies = more twists per inch? lower frequencies = less. Just some questions I have


----------



## seafish

Unfortunately Esoteric is no longer in biz, though PERHAPS MTX audio tech support MIGHT be able to answer your questions. The smaller cable is the Esoteric A5 and the larger one is the E7 cable. If you PM me your mailing address, I'll get them off to you after the holiday. I'll cover shipping there if cover the return shipping. I'll box them safely and mail as inexpensively as possible. Possibly a bubble envelope with cardboard or USPS flatmate box for sure. Looking forward to the results...I think that one of these being single conductor and the other being supposedly super insulated against interference, they will be very interesting for. you to test.

That being said, I STILL want to know what an SSTDR is!!! LOL


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Ooops sorry, SSTDR is a spread spectrum toime domain reflectometer. I use it to detect defects in wiring over great distances. opens, shorts etc can be detected but the TDR will also give you the distance from the source where the defect is. The Spread spectrum allows the user to see anomolies such as reflections which are areas in the conductor where increased resistance creates a reverse bounce of the signal being transmitted (reflection).

So on very sensitive data signals large reflections or numerous small reflections can degrade the signal and data can be lost. In my industry Echelon protocol is quite popular and very reliable however when damaged conductors or porr installation practices are present the signal can degrade to point where you can get a high error rate (CRC Checks) or total loss of signal. For this machine, I can check wire in static mode, i.e. connect a suspect wire to one end and loop back to the device. The benefit is that A. Very sensitive, B. it will give the distance from the signal source to the defect in inches/feet upt to 3 miles. Sounds extreme but 3 miles of wire in a multi car train is not that hard to find.

It also has a feature that most older units do not, which is the ability to connect to a live circuit during normal operation to try to identify intermittent defects such as relays, switches, microproccessor controlled devices. Pretty cool stuff and has got me outta some pretty tough spots.

I agree to your terms and will care for equipment as if it were my own. Anxious to see some results. 

I am trying to aqcuire an EMI detector right now. What I would like to know before I start anything is HOW MUCH EMI does it take to affect a typical car audio signal?

I would start with a bare wire RCA set up that I can easily induce some EMI to. To measure I will be using my UMIK and REW, maybe not the most accurate but I think should be acceptable as a valid measurement tool. Now I need to come up with a way to duplicate an EMI source that would represent a real worl car audio set up. I was thinking of maybe of close proximity to 12 volt power wire to an ATV winch pulling some significant weight, that should generate some current. 

I could put a clamp on the winch power wire at zero load and increase until I can measure some noise in powered system running a pink noise track.

Any thoughts or comments on my approach here? gotta be some engineering types that can give me some feedback


----------



## seafish

Locomotive Tech said:


> Ooops sorry, SSTDR is a spread spectrum toime domain reflectometer. I use it to detect defects in wiring over great distances. opens, shorts etc can be detected but the TDR will also give you the distance from the source where the defect is. The Spread spectrum allows the user to see anomolies such as reflections which are areas in the conductor where increased resistance creates a reverse bounce of the signal being transmitted (reflection).
> 
> So on very sensitive data signals large reflections or numerous small reflections can degrade the signal and data can be lost. In my industry Echelon protocol is quite popular and very reliable however when damaged conductors or porr installation practices are present the signal can degrade to point where you can get a high error rate (CRC Checks) or total loss of signal. For this machine, I can check wire in static mode, i.e. connect a suspect wire to one end and loop back to the device. The benefit is that A. Very sensitive, B. it will give the distance from the signal source to the defect in inches/feet upt to 3 miles. Sounds extreme but 3 miles of wire in a multi car train is not that hard to find.
> 
> It also has a feature that most older units do not, which is the ability to connect to a live circuit during normal operation to try to identify intermittent defects such as relays, switches, microproccessor controlled devices. Pretty cool stuff and has got me outta some pretty tough spots.
> 
> I agree to your terms and will care for equipment as if it were my own. Anxious to see some results.
> 
> I am trying to aqcuire an EMI detector right now. What I would like to know before I start anything is HOW MUCH EMI does it take to affect a typical car audio signal?
> 
> I would start with a bare wire RCA set up that I can easily induce some EMI to. To measure I will be using my UMIK and REW, maybe not the most accurate but I think should be acceptable as a valid measurement tool. Now I need to come up with a way to duplicate an EMI source that would represent a real worl car audio set up. I was thinking of maybe of close proximity to 12 volt power wire to an ATV winch pulling some significant weight, that should generate some current.
> 
> I could put a clamp on the winch power wire at zero load and increase until I can measure some noise in powered system running a pink noise track.
> 
> Any thoughts or comments on my approach here? gotta be some engineering types that can give me some feedback


WOW...I like all your ideas, and am thoroughly impressed by the lingo, but then again I am a woodworker NOT an ee.

That being said, I am also going to include a Stinger 9000 series RCA wye that you might want to test..this is the "wye connector" version of the top of the line Stinger series that actually started this whole thread. 

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/3731538-post1.html

I got the wye off eBay (though definitely genuine!!!) for $25 even though they retail at over $100, in order to drop a signal from my HU to both a Helix DSP and an Audiocontrol ESP3. Looking forward to seeing what you can throw at (I mean through) them. 

Also, why not start a new thread with new title, something like "Spread Spectrum Time Domain Reflectometer testing of RCA Interconnects" .....you'll get LOTS more ideas and feedback (probably TOO much...LOL!!!)


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Ok great Idea! geez a $100 wye? Why? for $25 Ok but?

I think your new thread is a great Idea, probably get more input that way. I need to gigure out how to post the live data. The SSTDR can give a play back during the testing so that I can make changes to the circuitry and see the changes in real time, i.e. twists, bends 

I have a strong feeling that while all of the marketeting ploys actually have some electrical benefit, they will not be of use in a car audio environment as they are so minimal as to not be measurable, but lets see!

Still not sold on twisted pairs when the pair is the same signal path, can't get my head around that one. Will let you know when the cables arrive and we can start the new thread together


----------



## seafish

Sent ya a pm to get your address.

That being said, isn't there a way to use a fluorescent tube fixture to induce (or perhaps detect??) EMF in wires. IIRC I read an article or saw a video about that once, but can't find it now. Something to do with an oscilloscope and a fluorescent fixture.


----------



## bbfoto

Cool stuff, gentlemen. I'm definitely interested in the results.

_Locomotive Tech_, is your SSTDR a stand-alone device with a built-in display? Or does it work through a computer hardware/software interface and display its results on a standard LCD computer monitor or Laptop computer? 

...there are software "computer screen video capture/recording" programs available for PC and Mac, some of which are FreeWare.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

bbfoto said:


> Cool stuff, gentlemen. I'm definitely interested in the results.
> 
> _Locomotive Tech_, is your SSTDR a stand-alone device with a built-in display? Or does it work through a computer hardware/software interface and display its results on a standard LCD computer monitor or Laptop computer?
> 
> ...there are software "computer screen video capture/recording" programs available for PC and Mac, some of which are FreeWare.


Stand alone and windows Xp, bummer!


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I have an rca cable related question. Frank, you remember me talking about pinching that Rat Shack cable as I was packing up to head to this past NC meet. It was the subwoofer cable and when I pinched it with that heavy box everything EXCEPT the subwoofer quit playing. Still haven't figured this one out because it makes about as much sense as what I had to do to get my Fix82 to play nice with my factory amp.


----------



## minbari

didnt read all of this, but will make an observation from 20+ years of doing this crap.

most RCA cables are 90% marketing hype and 10% function.

of all the cables I have ever owned, the best ones at rejecting noise in a car are simple coax. center conductor for signal and shield for ground. (floating ground, since almost all audio doesnt use "ground" on the signal cable)


----------



## minbari

Locomotive Tech said:


> Ooops sorry, SSTDR is a spread spectrum toime domain reflectometer. I use it to detect defects in wiring over great distances. opens, shorts etc can be detected but the TDR will also give you the distance from the source where the defect is. The Spread spectrum allows the user to see anomolies such as reflections which are areas in the conductor where increased resistance creates a reverse bounce of the signal being transmitted (reflection).
> 
> So on very sensitive data signals large reflections or numerous small reflections can degrade the signal and data can be lost. In my industry Echelon protocol is quite popular and very reliable however when damaged conductors or porr installation practices are present the signal can degrade to point where you can get a high error rate (CRC Checks) or total loss of signal. For this machine, I can check wire in static mode, i.e. connect a suspect wire to one end and loop back to the device. The benefit is that A. Very sensitive, B. it will give the distance from the signal source to the defect in inches/feet upt to 3 miles. Sounds extreme but 3 miles of wire in a multi car train is not that hard to find.
> 
> It also has a feature that most older units do not, which is the ability to connect to a live circuit during normal operation to try to identify intermittent defects such as relays, switches, microproccessor controlled devices. Pretty cool stuff and has got me outta some pretty tough spots.
> 
> I agree to your terms and will care for equipment as if it were my own. Anxious to see some results.
> 
> I am trying to aqcuire an EMI detector right now. What I would like to know before I start anything is HOW MUCH EMI does it take to affect a typical car audio signal?
> 
> I would start with a bare wire RCA set up that I can easily induce some EMI to. To measure I will be using my UMIK and REW, maybe not the most accurate but I think should be acceptable as a valid measurement tool. Now I need to come up with a way to duplicate an EMI source that would represent a real worl car audio set up. I was thinking of maybe of close proximity to 12 volt power wire to an ATV winch pulling some significant weight, that should generate some current.
> 
> I could put a clamp on the winch power wire at zero load and increase until I can measure some noise in powered system running a pink noise track.
> 
> Any thoughts or comments on my approach here? gotta be some engineering types that can give me some feedback


dont disagree with any of this, those are all great troubleshooting aids for signals in megahertz. for signals under 20k (under 12k for all intended purposes) not sure you can get enough reflections to care.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I have an rca cable related question. Frank, you remember me talking about pinching that Rat Shack cable as I was packing up to head to this past NC meet. It was the subwoofer cable and when I pinched it with that heavy box everything EXCEPT the subwoofer quit playing. Still haven't figured this one out because it makes about as much sense as what I had to do to get my Fix82 to play nice with my factory amp.


That was one of the most puzzling defects I have ever heard! The only thing I can come up with in my little brain is that "possibly" The pinched cable had a coomon "ground" to all of the outputs from the HU, as most do share the ground. I suspect that (+) was shorted to the ground and this cancelled out the full range outputs while the sub output may be internally isolated from the rest of them. Its a stretch but the only thing that makes sense without knowing the internal design of the circuitry in the HU. You still have that cable? would be interesting to add this to the testing plan.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

minbari said:


> didnt read all of this, but will make an observation from 20+ years of doing this crap. QUOTABLE!!!!
> 
> most RCA cables are 90% marketing hype and 10% function.
> 
> of all the cables I have ever owned, the best ones at rejecting noise in a car are simple coax. center conductor for signal and shield for ground. (floating ground, since almost all audio doesnt use "ground" on the signal cable)



I agree, although I do not buy total crap cables, I cannot see my way through to buy uber high end cables that don't do anything more than a decent set will. (Unless they look really, really cool!)

HMMMM, the floating ground, exactly one of my biggest problems with shielding of car audio components. Where does the shield ground go? grounded at the head unit? then to the amp? Always seemed to me that there would be a difference of potential at the amp and the HU and that in itself could cause noise depending on the quality of the amps, HU, DSP etc. Just seems to me that a better quality cable will not overcome inherent quality of the primary components that distribute the signals/grounds. Most notably, the practice of soldering all of the RCA connectors together at the back of a head unit to eliminate noise, all you have done is made them all the same potential.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

minbari said:


> dont disagree with any of this, those are all great troubleshooting aids for signals in megahertz. for signals under 20k (under 12k for all intended purposes) not sure you can get enough reflections to care.


I like the way you think! I too share this position. A refelection is only a refelcetion and does not essetially mean an audible degradation of the primary signal. In my experience, refelctions are quite normal and don't degrade the data. Keep in mind I am working with a LON network (+) & (-) wires at about 2k to 2,400 mili volts. Obviously, we are dealing with much higher voltages and they would exponentially superior at negating any refelctions in the circuit.

Under 12K?.........Very astute my friend!

You also touched on CoAx, for me, I agree that this is the best interconnect cable to use.


----------



## seafish

Still waiting for a mailing address so I can ship the three "high end" cables, including a version of the one that started this thread. Sent ya a pm.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

I would also like to compare the resistance of varying cables, i.e. using a Fluke 87 or 187 in low impedance mode that will account for the inherent resistnace of the test leads. I think this will show that a quality set of cables with excellent terminations at the ends will exhibit similar low impedance characteristics as uber high end cables.

So I think that regardless if your cable has some "superior" type of shielding voodoo, it won't make a difference if your components are crap or have a defect.

Also, I would be very open to anyone who can convince me that twisting the center conductor actually cancels crosstalk? How can this be if the center conductor has the same signal strength across the entire length of the wire. It seems to me that this is infact a gimmick as once you separate the center conductor into two conductors, 3, 4 or 12, makes no sense to me at all. May give the cable some extra flexibility though. But if one of the terminations of any of those conductors has less integrity than the others, well then you have a problem.


----------



## minbari

Locomotive Tech said:


> I like the way you think! I too share this position. A refelection is only a refelcetion and does not essetially mean an audible degradation of the primary signal. In my experience, refelctions are quite normal and don't degrade the data. Keep in mind I am working with a LON network (+) & (-) wires at about 2k to 2,400 mili volts. Obviously, we are dealing with much higher voltages and they would exponentially superior at negating any refelctions in the circuit.


Spent more than 15 years troubleshooting and designing RF systems for wireless data including long distance wifi links (more than 10 miles) so dealing with cable reflections and getting the best signal ratio possible was important.


> Under 12K?.........Very astute my friend!


there just isnt much content above that


> You also touched on CoAx, for me, I agree that this is the best interconnect cable to use.


you have a good low impedance conductor in the center of a shield. what could be better?


----------



## minbari

Locomotive Tech said:


> I would also like to compare the resistance of varying cables, i.e. using a Fluke 87 or 187 in low impedance mode that will account for the inherent resistnace of the test leads. I think this will show that a quality set of cables with excellent terminations at the ends will exhibit similar low impedance characteristics as uber high end cables.
> 
> So I think that regardless if your cable has some "superior" type of shielding voodoo, it won't make a difference if your components are crap or have a defect.


I love the 187! you can get them on ebay for like $150 these days 



> Also, I would be very open to anyone who can convince me that twisting the center conductor actually cancels crosstalk? How can this be if the center conductor has the same signal strength across the entire length of the wire. It seems to me that this is infact a gimmick as once you separate the center conductor into two conductors, 3, 4 or 12, makes no sense to me at all. May give the cable some extra flexibility though. But if one of the terminations of any of those conductors has less integrity than the others, well then you have a problem.


crosstalk with what though? to have cross talk, wouldnt you need to have more than one "data" source in a cable? (reason for twisted pair in ethernet for example, you have simultaneous RX and TX) with audio, you just have a single audio signal and a ground. if anything, multiple conductors would result in multi-pathing and give more distortion  (slightly tongue in cheek)


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Locomotive Tech said:


> That was one of the most puzzling defects I have ever heard! The only thing I can come up with in my little brain is that "possibly" The pinched cable had a coomon "ground" to all of the outputs from the HU, as most do share the ground. I suspect that (+) was shorted to the ground and this cancelled out the full range outputs while the sub output may be internally isolated from the rest of them. Its a stretch but the only thing that makes sense without knowing the internal design of the circuitry in the HU. You still have that cable? would be interesting to add this to the testing plan.


That actually makes a lot of sense on the cancelling thing. This hobby sure is good at making us scratch our noodle from time to time trying to figure out wtf is going on:laugh:If you send me your address I'll send that cable your way. No need to reimburse me on postage and you can put it where it belongs when done with it. May even have a Rat Shack "wye" to send too. Should be in the big car audio tote outside. I don't throw anything car audio related away if it's still "usable".


----------



## Locomotive Tech

crosstalk with what though? to have cross talk, wouldnt you need to have more than one "data" source in a cable? (reason for twisted pair in ethernet for example, you have simultaneous RX and TX) with audio, you just have a single audio signal and a ground. if anything, multiple conductors would result in multi-pathing and give more distortion  (slightly tongue in cheek)[/QUOTE]

Exactly! so what would be the point of having multiple conductors for the same signal???? I fully understand the rationale when it comes to data (Tx Rx), but in the case of the Stinger 9000 series in the OP, It makes no sense.....to me.

But really.....isn't an RCA cable just a variation of coax? 

Funny that my local cable provider can distribute an audio and video signal with excellent quality at far lower voltages and greater distances....


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Ok I have done some really interesting testing. I had a lot of help from my company's communication design engineer. He flew in from Canada for a design review and also happens to be an audiophile. 

Sot the first task was to measure resistance in different RCA cables to see if there is a difference between high end, mid grade and El Cheapo cables and this old length of Co-Ax I had laying around. (75' worth)

I will begin posting the results over the next few days. There were no real surprises but some very interesting comparisons.

When I showed Nicolas (company engineer) the picture the OP posted he read all the features and commented much the same as others posted on this thread. He laughed and asked what is "long grain" copper? How does silver make better high frequecies? He went on to explain that marketing techniques are simple used car salesman tactics and they work.

He supposes that by merely suggesting Long Grain copper and and deep bass together will give the buyer a good feeling that there is truth to the statement. Long Grain and deep bass may seem to be logical as long grain would suggest that lower frequencies would be easier achieved. And similarly, silver and high frequencies allows the buyer to percieve the crisp and bright appearance of silver will reproduce crisp and bright high frequncies. As far as the multiple conductors, a complete waste of time and material.

Stay tuned as the cables were tested against a locomotive alternator and a 2000 watt HF transmitter from an A-10 Thunderbolt. Pretty cool that the HF transmitter can cause a flourescent tube to illuminate when transmitting. Some of the loaner cables that Seafish provided could not be tested just because they were too short to keep the test rig away from the sources

I ended up having to buy a U-MIK and remove alot of my gear from my car to make a suitable test rig.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Update:

The candidates;
Esoteric E7 (41" Long), (2 Ch)
Esoteric A5 (80" Long), (2 Ch)
Stinger 9000 (17' Long), (2 Ch)
Stinger Pro (41" Long), (2 Ch)
Stinger 9000 ( WYE )
Knuconcepts ( WYE )
Tsunami (6' Long), (2 Ch)
MESA (17' Long), (2 Ch)
CoAx Unknown manufactuer, was in my basement when we moved here. (75' Long)
El Cheapo RCA's, purchased at a mini-mart. (5' Long), (2 Ch)
AV Patch cables from my XBOX. (6' Long)

Impedance Testing;
I wanted to ensure that this test also included a connected state using some male to female adapters for the 2 Ch's or male to male for the single end of the WYE's. This was only to check the integrity of the mechanical connection. But first, the cable by itself.

All measurements zeroed for lead resistance,
Esoteric E7 = .03 Ohms
Esoteric A5 = .04 Ohms
Stinger 9000 = .04 Ohms, I suspect the length is the reason for the increase here.
Stinger Pro = .06, I suspect the age of these cables is the reason for the change here, they are 10 years old and were installed for that amount of time.
ALL of the WYE's were .05 ohms, maybe because they have an extra termination to split the signal?
Tsunami = .04 ohms
MESA = .05 ohms Length could be the reason for the increase here.
Coax = .08 ohms, not bad for 75'!
AV's = .07 ohms
Cheapos 1.1 ohms, hey they were only 3 bucks!
The winner here is the E7. The E7 looks like a snake, it's outter diameter of the total cable is larger than 1/0 power cable. 

I had no means to test the coax beyond this point save for refelction testing, but reflection testing on these revealed only that the crimps caused a reflection and that was negligible.

The "connected test" was rather easy, there wer no changes for the Esoteric's, Knuconcepts, Stinger 9000's, Tsunamis and MESA's. My Old stinger pro's increased by .04 ohms, the cheapo's increased by 1.1 ohms and the AV's increased by .06 ohms.

A few thoughts before the next post containing the reflection testing. I have heard so many accounts from folks that say that they noticed a difference when swapping to a "higher end" cable. Most of us here know that periodically it is a good practice to rotate your RCA's to maintain a good electrical contact between the connections, makes sense to me. I am curious if anyone who was upgrading their cables took the time to leave one of the old cables connected to lets say the L/H channel and connect the new cable to the R/H channel and see if they could tell the difference between L & R?

Another thought, have we ever really examined the RCA connections on our source units? Amps? DSP's? Do they have long grain wild rice for deep, luxurious bass? Silver, mined from the depths of the lonely mountain for crisp flawless high frequency transcendance? Probably not.....just soldered to a PCB on the inside. 

The one thing I can say I am sold on high end cables is the overall build quality, Those damned E7's are soo tight when connected that any grease on your fingers makes it extremely difficult to remove. The number of segments on the shields seems to have a direct correlation to the grip.

E7's have 12 "zig zag" segments, A5's have 8 "zig zag",Stinger 9000's have 4 straight cut, Knuconcepts have 6 angle cut, Tsunamis have 4 straight cut, Stinger pro's were very loose (but are old) 4 straight cut, the cheapos, a mild breeze could pull them off.


----------



## DeltaB

When it comes to cables, of any kind, whether interconnects or speaker, there are differences. Some of the sales marketing is misleading, however not all cables are the same.

Outside of just a cables impedance, there are other factors that will affect it's performance. A cable's DC impedance will differ from its AC impedance. Just understand, the purpose of a cable is to be a conduit for electrons to be passed from one end to another. And in AC, electrons do not flow through a wire, but over and around it, DC it will flow throughout the entire conductor. Skin affect, the tendency of an alternating electric current (AC) to become distributed within a conductor such that the current density is largest near the surface of the conductor, and decreases with greater depths in the conductor, plays a role as well as velocity factor. A cable also experiences varied capacitance and will differ on it's construction. A physical length will differ from it's electrical length. Multi-conductor can provide more surface area for the electron path. Understanding the purpose of the cable and construction technics will help you to determine what may be the best choice for your application. Not all cables and construction are the same.


----------



## Holmz

DeltaB said:


> When it comes to cables, of any kind, whether interconnects or speaker, there are differences. Some of the sales marketing is misleading, however not all cables are the same.
> 
> Outside of just a cables impedance, there are other factors that will affect it's performance. A cable's DC impedance will differ from its AC impedance. Just understand, the purpose of a cable is to be a conduit for electrons to be passed from one end to another. And in AC, electrons do not flow through a wire, but over and around it, DC it will flow throughout the entire conductor. Skin affect, the tendency of an alternating electric current (AC) to become distributed within a conductor such that the current density is largest near the surface of the conductor, and decreases with greater depths in the conductor, plays a role as well as velocity factor. A cable also experiences varied capacitance and will differ on it's construction. A physical length will differ from it's electrical length. Multi-conductor can provide more surface area for the electron path. Understanding the purpose of the cable and construction technics will help you to determine what may be the best choice for your application. Not all cables and construction are the same.


I have to admit, that even for you, your descriptions have transcended to a whole new level.


----------



## DeltaB

Holmz said:


> I have to admit, that even for you, your descriptions have transcended to a whole new level.


If you don't understand physics, that doesn't constitute error on my part.


----------



## Holmz

DeltaB said:


> If you don't understand physics, that doesn't constitute error on my part.


My understanding of Physics is fine.

It is more that your prowess with the written word is amazing. There is no way I could come close to that.


----------



## UncleHungry

DeltaB said:


> If you don't understand physics, that doesn't constitute error on my part.




Relax. He was trying to compliment you.


----------



## DeltaB

Holmz said:


> My understanding of Physics is fine.
> 
> It is more that your prowess with the written word is amazing. There is no way I could come close to that.


That's very kind of you to express, and if you feel there was any insult from my part, let me be the first to apologize to you here in the forum. Have a great day!


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

So any idea how the standard Stinger 4000 and 2000 cables do for accurately passing signal? They seem to be doing fine in my install with a 12' 6ch 4000, pair of 18" 4000's and pair of 3' 2000's.


----------



## DC/Hertz

Dude is a marketing departments dream


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> ....... Skin affect.......


Skin effect? At audio frequencies?:laugh:


----------



## seafish

sqnut said:


> Skin effect? At audio frequencies?:laugh:


Excellent article below by a MAJOR manufacturer of wire/cables on why skin effect is negligible at audible frerquencies--

Understanding Skin Effect and Frequency


----------



## DeltaB

seafish said:


> Excellent article below by a MAJOR manufacturer of wire/cables on why skin effect is negligible at audible frerquencies--
> 
> Understanding Skin Effect and Frequency


From the article at Belden which you quoted;

"Table 1 below shows how much conductor is used at 20 kHz, pretty much the highest audible frequency, and compares that to various wire sizes.

Table 1
Basis: Depth at 20 kHz = 18.4 mils (.0184 in.) Radius x 2 = 36.8 mils (.0368 in.) Diameter

Amount of conductor used at 20 kHz, based on conductor size 
Conductors Diameter % of conductor used 
24 AWG 0.024 100% at 20 kHz 
22 AWG 0.031 100% at 20 kHz 
12 AWG 0.093 75% at 20 kHz 
10 AWG 0.115 68% at 20 kHz 

You will notice that even for largest wire size, the difference between the inside and outside of a conductor is a few percentage points."

By the time you get from 20kHz to 100kHz, only skin affect is actually carrying all the signal, however it still has a relationship to cable construction for audio frequencies, just not as prolific as it would be at higher frequencies. This is where multi-conductor cables, in contrast to single conductor (solid, as above) begins to see some difference in not only it's capacitance, but it's performance. Concerning impedance, that is dependent on frequency.


----------



## Alrojoca

Hillbilly SQ said:


> So any idea how the standard Stinger 4000 and 2000 cables do for accurately passing signal? They seem to be doing fine in my install with a 12' 6ch 4000, pair of 18" 4000's and pair of 3' 2000's.








Construccion, and directional ground design. The wires are pretty much the same, the price goes up based on cosmetic looks, extra shielding and more expensive connectors. Higher grade copper etc, all that can add up even when it may not measure or sound any different, and the only benefit may be durability.

Some cables may have extra stranded conductors that may not add a significant benefit even if reducing some resistance.

Companies can make claims, like 2 or 3 multistranded Conductors make the signal flow better etc. Or like AQ claiming that a single solid conductor is better because it reduces harshness of high frequencies. 


I swear I can hear differences, with a good headset on this test. Maybe is staged may be not, but a blind test may be the answer and most likely I may end up being wrong. Although detecting el cheapo cable will be much easier for me and I may be able to be over 70% effective identifying it in a blind test.


----------



## DeltaB

Alrojoca said:


> Construccion, and directional ground design. The wires are pretty much the same, the price goes up based on cosmetic looks, extra shielding and more expensive connectors. Higher grade copper etc, all that can add up even when it may not measure or sound any different, and the only benefit may be durability.
> 
> Some cables may have extra stranded conductors that may not add a significant benefit even if reducing some resistance.
> 
> Companies can make claims, like 2 or 3 multistranded Conductors make the signal flow better etc. Or like AQ claiming that a single solid conductor is better because it reduces harshness of high frequencies.
> 
> I swear I can hear differences, with a good headset on this test. Maybe is staged may be not, but a blind test may be the answer and most likely I may end up being wrong. Although detecting el cheapo cable will be much easier for me and I may be able to be over 70% effective identifying it in a blind test.


You don't have to guess with spectrum analysis.


----------



## sqnut

Its amazing when guys who can't hear the difference between a ref 2 ch in a room and the sound in their car, go on and on about how expensive A/B amps, amps with better internals and esoteric cables sound better. To resolve any difference in a car, it has to sound right first, learn how to tune.:laugh:


----------



## DeltaB

sqnut said:


> Its amazing when guys who can't hear the difference between a ref 2 ch in a room and the sound in their car, go on and on about how expensive A/B amps, amps with better internals and esoteric cables sound better. To resolve any difference in a car, it has to sound right first, learn how to tune.:laugh:


You know, it really doesn't matter if it is in your home, a hall, live outdoors or in your vehicle, no amount of tune will overcome poor performing hardware when it comes to accurately reproducing the input track.


----------



## Holmz

DeltaB said:


> That's very kind of you to express, and if you feel there was any insult from my part, let me be the first to apologize to you here in the forum. Have a great day!



@UncleHarry may have been overly generous with his interpreting of my heartfelt intent.

I have a similar issue when reading the DeltaB words, and trying to piece together the fragments into some cohoherent message.

Those skills in marketing and/or preacher are well honed. There is a lot I could learn here.


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> You know, it really doesn't matter if it is in your home, a hall, live outdoors or in your vehicle, no amount of tune will overcome poor performing hardware when it comes to accurately reproducing the input track.


This is the problem when guys from home / professional audio come to the car side of things. In a home, hall, outdoors, the environment (think room) has already been treated and plays a MUCH smaller part in accurate sound reproduction. In home / professional audio, ~25% of sound is direct, at an outdoor venue its probably 40%, in a car its under 10%. 

In a car unless you treat the effects of 'the room' first, there's no way in hell you can make statements like this amp sounds better, or this amp with these electric devices, or this cable, sounds better. Making these statements just reinforces the fact that you'll are not hearing the difference between a 2ch and the sound in a car.


----------



## bbfoto

DeltaB said:


> You know, it really doesn't matter if it is in your home, a hall, live outdoors or in your vehicle, no amount of tune will overcome poor performing hardware when it comes to accurately reproducing the input track.





sqnut said:


> This is the problem when guys from home / professional audio come to the car side of things. In a home, hall, outdoors, the environment (think room) has already been treated and plays a MUCH smaller part in accurate sound reproduction. In home / professional audio, ~25% of sound is direct, at an outdoor venue its probably 40%, in a car its under 10%.
> 
> In a car unless you treat the effects of 'the room' first, there's no way in hell you can make statements like this amp sounds better, or this amp with these electric devices, or this cable, sounds better. Making these statements just reinforces the fact that you'll are not hearing the difference between a 2ch and the sound in a car.


You might rethink that a bit if you remember the Head Unit Shootout...which was a recording of a room, of a recording of a room, reproduced in yet another room, with each having a multitude of different hardware and cables in each stage. IIRC, you could quite easily discern a difference, and also describe the particulars of that difference.

Still, the hardware (in this case a signal wire/cable assembly) _can be_ a limitation in accurately reproducing the input track. The signal going into one end of a particular cable may not be the same signal received at the opposite end of that cable.


----------



## sqnut

bbfoto said:


> You might rethink that a bit if you remember the Head Unit Shootout...which was a recording of a room, of a recording of a room, reproduced in yet another room, with each having a multitude of different hardware and cables in each stage. IIRC, you could quite easily discern a difference, and also describe the particulars of that difference.


The recordings did not have timing or response differences and the room size is the room it was recorded in, the rooms before don't really matter anymore. Then the recordings were reproduced on my 2ch that is properly setup, of course one will hear differences. 

However the untreated response or an average tune in a car, will have major timing and response issues, and only once you cross this hurdle should you even attempt to quantify differences due to hardware. 

With a crappy or no tune, the sound is just going to be crappy no matter what equipment you use. I'm not questioning that hardware can sound different, but it has to be under the right conditions. Not having a good tune in the car and then claiming that a $4K amp sounds much better than a $500 amp or that changing electronics in the amp makes a magical difference, is just a case of perception bias and highlights the fact that you can't hear the difference between a ref 2ch and the car.


----------



## DeltaB

sqnut said:


> The recordings did not have timing or response differences and the room size is the room it was recorded in, the rooms before don't really matter anymore. Then the recordings were reproduced on my 2ch that is properly setup, of course one will hear differences.
> 
> However the untreated response or an average tune in a car, will have major timing and response issues, and only once you cross this hurdle should you even attempt to quantify differences due to hardware.
> 
> With a crappy or no tune, the sound is just going to be crappy no matter what equipment you use. I'm not questioning that hardware can sound different, but it has to be under the right conditions. Not having a good tune in the car and then claiming that a $4K amp sounds much better than a $500 amp or that changing electronics in the amp makes a magical difference, is just a case of perception bias and highlights the fact that you can't hear the difference between a ref 2ch and the car.


I'm not really sure where you are coming up with the idea that someone has said that TA is not important. For me, I prefer TA and equalization before the DAC of the head unit, rather than D-A, then go back to A-D then DSP then back to D-A, which only introduces more THD and noise. You're arguing from a point of contention no one has asserted. None the less, the assertion of relationship of direct/reflected sound in your prior post is simply erroneous. Please cite the research that states only 10% of audio in the vehicle is direct.


----------



## Holmz

bbfoto said:


> You might rethink that a bit if you remember the Head Unit Shootout...which was a recording of a room, of a recording of a room, reproduced in yet another room, with each having a multitude of different hardware and cables in each stage. IIRC, you could quite easily discern a difference, and also describe the particulars of that difference.
> 
> Still, the hardware (in this case a signal wire/cable assembly) _can be_ a limitation in accurately reproducing the input track. The signal going into one end of a particular cable may not be the same signal received at the opposite end of that cable.


In terms of wires and cables... to a large extent any spearing or dispersion of the signal through the cable should be well behaved.
It should be possible to account for that with DSP (maybe that is what the DIRAC is doing?).


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> For me, I prefer TA and equalization before the DAC of the head unit, rather than D-A, then go back to A-D then DSP then back to D-A, which only introduces more THD and noise.


So now you're hearing the degradation in sound due to D-A-D-A flips? In a car that doesn't have the right tunes? Do you ever stop to think that maybe you're over thinking a bit? 

It also tells me that despite your credentials and years in audio, you're so caught up in the science, that you don't trust your ears while listening. Instead you're using them to confirm your perception biases, you're telling them what you want to hear, of course they will comply.


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> Please cite the research that states only 10% of audio in the vehicle is direct.


If you were to randomly place drivers in your shower, how much of the sound would be direct and how much would be early reflections? All that science has not only clogged up your ears, but it has also taken away your ability to just rationalize things without needing citation to prove, that the sun rises in the east:laugh: The source is Andy Wehmeyer.


----------



## DeltaB

sqnut said:


> If you were to randomly place drivers in your shower, how much of the sound would be direct and how much would be early reflections? All that science has not only clogged up your ears, but it has also taken away your ability to just rationalize things without needing citation to prove, that the sun rises in the east:laugh: The source is Andy Wehmeyer.


Your assertion is simply pure bovine scatology.


----------



## DeltaB

sqnut said:


> So now you're hearing the degradation in sound due to D-A-D-A flips? In a car that doesn't have the right tunes? Do you ever stop to think that maybe you're over thinking a bit?


Comparison of the source vs. the output reveals this. Tune doesn't subtract THD+N. Sorry.



> It also tells me that despite your credentials and years in audio, you're so caught up in the science, that you don't trust your ears while listening. Instead you're using them to confirm your perception biases, you're telling them what you want to hear, of course they will comply.


You can sit there and tell yourself what ever you think you need to, in order to rationalize your assertion that "tune" is the all encompassing end all to all. You cited Andy above, but cited nothing. That's just more mud for the water. What you gleaned from Andy's Youtube video, was a controversy of an owner who stated he spent $15k on a system that sounded poor to another listener. However, I doubt you can find Andy saying what you are saying here.


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> Comparison of the source vs. the output reveals this. Tune doesn't subtract THD+N. Sorry.


What is the difference in terms of THD+N, between taking digital in from the HU to the dsp vs running the dsp downstream and allowing more A-D-A conversions? At what frequency is it measured? If you're reducing the THD+N from say 0.005 to 0.003, you telling me you hear the difference between distortion that is 86db down and 90db down. Yet you don't hear the +/- 10db swings in response and drivers that are out of whack on timing in a car. BS. You're trolling your ears and brain on what you expect to hear and they are just feeding the troll.

THD to dB - convert percent % to decibels dB percentage voltage % vs per cent converter THD+N total harmonic distortions calculation signal distortion factor attenuation in dB to distortion factor k in percent decibel damping - sengpielaudio Sengpiel



DeltaB said:


> You can sit there and tell yourself what ever you think you need to, in order to rationalize your assertion that "tune" is the all encompassing end all to all. You cited Andy above, but cited nothing. That's just more mud for the water. What you gleaned from Andy's Youtube video, was a controversy of an owner who stated he spent $15k on a system that sounded poor to another listener. However, I doubt you can find Andy saying what you are saying here.


In a car you can easily run a $50,000 install but without the right tune, its still going to sound meh to someone who knows how to listen.


----------



## DeltaB

sqnut said:


> What is the difference in terms of THD+N, between taking digital in from the HU to the dsp vs running the dsp downstream and allowing more A-D-A conversions? At what frequency is it measured? If you're reducing the THD+N from say 0.005 to 0.003, you telling me you hear the difference between distortion that is 86db down and 90db down. Yet you don't hear the +/- 10db swings in response and drivers that are out of whack on timing in a car. BS. You're trolling your ears and brain on what you expect to hear and they are just feeding the troll.
> 
> THD to dB - convert percent % to decibels dB percentage voltage % vs per cent converter THD+N total harmonic distortions calculation signal distortion factor attenuation in dB to distortion factor k in percent decibel damping - sengpielaudio Sengpiel
> 
> In a car you can easily run a $50,000 install but without the right tune, its still going to sound meh to someone who knows how to listen.


I'm not interested in getting into arguments based on idiocy. Have a great day.


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> I'm not interested in getting into arguments based on idiocy. Have a great day.


So now simple facts that you can refute are idiocy. Cool, ciao....till the next time you say something outlandish. Have a good one too.


----------



## Holmz

DeltaB said:


> I'm not interested in getting into arguments based on idiocy...


Why change now? Are you turning over a new leaf?


----------



## DeltaB

sqnut said:


> So now simple facts that you can refute are idiocy. Cool, ciao....till the next time you say something outlandish. Have a good one too.


I guess when you cannot support your statements like, "~25% of sound is direct, at an outdoor venue its probably 40%, in a car its under 10%." And then falsely assert authority from someone, who never asserted what you claim, or, make assertions like, "If you were to randomly place drivers in your shower, how much of the sound would be direct and how much would be early reflections?" based from absurdity, or "The recordings did not have timing or response differences and the room size is the room it was recorded in, the rooms before don't really matter anymore." then I guess all your left with is to insult someone. Go be a rectal sphincter someplace else.


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> I guess when you cannot support your statements like, "~25% of sound is direct, at an outdoor venue its probably 40%, in a car its under 10%." And then falsely assert authority from someone, who never asserted what you claim, or, make assertions like, "If you were to randomly place drivers in your shower, how much of the sound would be direct and how much would be early reflections?" based from absurdity, or "The recordings did not have timing or response differences and the room size is the room it was recorded in, the rooms before don't really matter anymore." then I guess all your left with is to insult someone. Go be a rectal sphincter someplace else.


https://www.music.mcgill.ca/~gary/307/week3/rooms.html

https://www.harman.com/sites/default/files/AudioScience_0.pdf

https://www.docdroid.net/lhkn/acoustics-and-psychoacoustics-of-loudspeakers-in-small-rooms.pdf

Enough?


----------



## DeltaB

sqnut said:


> https://www.music.mcgill.ca/~gary/307/week3/rooms.html
> 
> https://www.harman.com/sites/default/files/AudioScience_0.pdf
> 
> https://www.docdroid.net/lhkn/acoustics-and-psychoacoustics-of-loudspeakers-in-small-rooms.pdf
> 
> Enough?


Maybe you should re-read the material. I still didn't find your assertions in any of the three. 

Concerning subjective testing, I've been involved in testing, and the one thing you can assure yourself of is subjective results. Empirical data is obtained by quantitative testing, which does not change by the viewpoint of the participant. One volt on a DVOM is 1v no matter who looks at it. Qualitative testing is subjective and not applicable to empirical data. That's why it's called subjective, and is dependent on the view of the participant. Just imagine selling a device where 4 out of 10 feel this device produces 200w of power, however you're in luck with bonus power, because 3 out of 10 feel it is more than 1000w.


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> Maybe you should re-read the material. I still didn't find your assertions in any of the three.
> 
> Concerning subjective testing, I've been involved in testing, and the one thing you can assure yourself of is subjective results. Empirical data is obtained by quantitative testing, which does not change by the viewpoint of the participant. One volt on a DVOM is 1v no matter who looks at it. Qualitative testing is subjective and not applicable to empirical data. That's why it's called subjective, and is dependent on the view of the participant. Just imagine selling a device where 4 out of 10 feel this device produces 200w of power, however you're in luck with bonus power, because 3 out of 10 feel it is more than 1000w.


You seriously need to have a strong laxative, so that the BS you are spouting comes out the appropriate orifice. Oh, and you need to learn how to hear a difference between your 2ch and your car, maybe that will motivate you to learn how to tune.


----------



## DeltaB

sqnut said:


> You seriously need to have a strong laxative, so that the BS you are spouting comes out the appropriate orifice. Oh, and you need to learn how to hear a difference between your 2ch and your car, maybe that will motivate you to learn how to tune.


And you've yet to provide any source of information to support your suppositions from yesterday, where you in fact, just flat out lied to me and the forum. Go be dishonest with someone else.

Another real issue comes from self-styled and so-called audio experts who are nothing more than end users, who want to come along and think audio, in respect to the automotive field is somehow "special" and only you know its intricacies. The fact of the matter is, we are dealing with 2 channel content in the automotive field, not quad, or 5.1 or even 7.1. L+R summing to create a presence channel has been used in audio since the 50's, and is nothing new, however even in it, you're still dealing with 2 channel content.

Concerning hardware, no DSP after the head unit can sample the original digital content, nor can you DSP out noise produced by or after the DSP without losing more low level content that was part of the original signal. Every time you convert D/A or A/D you lose content and introduce more loss, noise and THD. That doesn't even begin to account for the quality of the components used in that device, which I assure you can leave a lot to be desired.

Less than 1% distortion of a complex signal creates a broadband noise floor at a level of -40dB. Practical tests have proven that we can hear a 1Khz sine wave tone with 0dB level with white noise at levels of -70 to -80dB. What this demonstrates is that a high distortion system will completely mask low level signals, i.e. color of sound.

You can sit there and assert that "tune" is the end all to all in relationship to accurately reproducing the original content, however, it is only a very small portion of the overall signal chain, and that chain is no better than it's weakest link. And there is a lot of variables that contribute to that chain. In context of the topic of this forum, cable construction to the end of retaining as much of the accuracy of the signal content carried over it, I've been waiting for you to figure out that room acoustics, (in this case the near-field response and proximity affect) has nothing to do with retention of the sound quality (accuracy) of the original signal, regardless of it being played in a pair of headphones, your home, in a hall, outdoors or in a vehicle. Inaccurate reproduction from the original signal will still be inaccurate no matter how you correct for room acoustics.

So take your ego and your insults to mask your own bovine scatology and sell it to someone else.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

DeltaB said:


> I guess when you cannot support your statements like, "~25% of sound is direct, at an outdoor venue its probably 40%, in a car its under 10%." And then falsely assert authority from someone, who never asserted what you claim, or, make assertions like, "If you were to randomly place drivers in your shower, how much of the sound would be direct and how much would be early reflections?" based from absurdity, or "The recordings did not have timing or response differences and the room size is the room it was recorded in, the rooms before don't really matter anymore." then I guess all your left with is to insult someone. Go be a rectal sphincter someplace else.


I've shown you this picture before... Care to share your thoughts?


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> I've shown you this picture before... Care to share your thoughts?


When making near field measurements, you place the microphone as close as you can to the center of the speaker, and take a measurement. Being so close to the speaker, *it negates all reflections, diffraction etc*. The second shot isn't taken from near field.

Your understanding of the shots, as far as I have seen you touting it, is based out of ignorance (not knowing) of the difference of the two.


----------



## Alrojoca

A a car system with a powerful DSP can use up to 8 channels, yes all channeled to create a and process a 2 channel stereo signal, if tuned well it can sound very close to a 5.1 DD or DTS system using good recordings.

DeltaB maybe you should get a demo from a world championship podium car system. 

Your location is in the USA, but if close to CA, you could demo Gary Summers Mercedes to get an idea what a stereo recording can sound like,


----------



## I800C0LLECT

DeltaB said:


> When making near field measurements, you place the microphone as close as you can to the center of the speaker, and take a measurement. Being so close to the speaker, *it negates all reflections, diffraction etc*. The second shot isn't taken from near field.
> 
> Your understanding of the shots, as far as I have seen you touting it, is based out of ignorance (not knowing) of the difference of the two.


So the vehicle doesn't influence the sound? Then what changed the response?


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> When making near field measurements, you place the microphone as close as you can to the center of the speaker, and take a measurement. Being so close to the speaker, *it negates all reflections, diffraction etc*. The second shot isn't taken from near field.
> 
> Your understanding of the shots, as far as I have seen you touting it, is based out of ignorance (not knowing) of the difference of the two.


You're so full of your own crap that you can't even listen to other people. The first graph is near field, 1" from the cone, hence no reflections. The second graph is ear level response in the car of the same woofer, with tons of reflections. *Now do you understand why you need to tune the f'ing car before you can start making BS claims about hearing differences between amps and electronics and distortion that is 80 db down from that mess? *But wait you don't even hear a difference between the two responses cause you don't hear between you your 2ch and the car. 

Do us all a favour and go back to your audiophile forums and spout your BS there.


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> So the vehicle doesn't influence the sound? Then what changed the response?


All environments, including the baffle itself (or enclosure) influence the response. That's why you use near field response testing, to remove the reflections of the baffle itself. Your arguing from a point of ignorance. I have never stated equalization doesn't have a place in any setup. Go back and reread what I have said, and you'll find I have already stated, any DSP or equalization for me, I prefer to be done at the head unit before D/A. At that point the original signal has never left and is still in the digital domain, and the DSP has access to the original content. You lose that after the D/A of the head unit. The shortest path is the best path.


----------



## DeltaB

sqnut said:


> You're so full of your own crap that you can't even listen to other people. The first graph is near field, 1" from the cone, hence no reflections. The second graph is ear level response in the car of the same woofer, with tons of reflections. *Now do you understand why you need to tune the f'ing car before you can start making BS claims about hearing differences between amps and electronics and distortion that is 80 db down from that mess? *But wait you don't even hear a difference between the two responses cause you don't hear between you your 2ch and the car.
> 
> Do us all a favour and go back to your audiophile forums and spout your BS there.


You still don't understand what you are saying. Move on, and go be an idiot with someone else.


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> All environments, including the baffle itself (or enclosure) influence the response. Your arguing from a point of ignorance. I have never stated equalization doesn't have a place in any setup. Go back and reread what I have said, and you'll find I have already stated, any DSP or equalization for me, I prefer to be done at the head unit before D/A. At that point the original signal has never left and is still in the digital domain, and the DSP has access to the original content. You lose that after the D/A of the head unit. The shortest path is the best path.


You can take a horse to the water but can't force it to drink. You have absolute 0 knowledge on getting good sound in a car, and you're not going to learn a thing until you start hearing how ****ty the sound is in a car that is not tuned.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

But you claimed that sound directivity comments earlier were lies. So, ignoring your opinion on processing... You don't believe those graphs identify any correlation with what you deemed as lies?


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> You still don't understand what you are saying. Move on, and go be an idiot with someone else.


Ever read that story about the emperors new clothes? You're the emperor who thought he was dressed in all the best finery, while we the peasants can see that you're butt naked and it's not a pretty sight. So piss off.:laugh:


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> But you claimed that sound directivity comments earlier were lies. So, ignoring your opinion on processing... You don't believe those graphs identify any correlation with what you deemed as lies?


No I said, "I guess when you cannot support your statements like, "~25% of sound is direct, at an outdoor venue its probably 40%, in a car its under 10%." And then falsely assert authority from someone, who never asserted what you claim, or, make assertions like, "If you were to randomly place drivers in your shower, how much of the sound would be direct and how much would be early reflections?" based from absurdity, or "The recordings did not have timing or response differences and the room size is the room it was recorded in, the rooms before don't really matter anymore." then I guess all your left with is to insult someone. Go be a rectal sphincter someplace else."

Obviously, you seem to have issues with the ability to read, (on more than one occasion) or follow what has been said.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

DeltaB said:


> No I said, "I guess when you cannot support your statements like, "~25% of sound is direct, at an outdoor venue its probably 40%, in a car its under 10%." And then falsely assert authority from someone, who never asserted what you claim, or, make assertions like, "If you were to randomly place drivers in your shower, how much of the sound would be direct and how much would be early reflections?" based from absurdity, or "The recordings did not have timing or response differences and the room size is the room it was recorded in, the rooms before don't really matter anymore." then I guess all your left with is to insult someone. Go be a rectal sphincter someplace else."
> 
> Obviously, you seem to have issues with the ability to read, (on more than one occasion) or follow what has been said.


So I did presume that your statement of lies was based on identifying his misquote. But I don't think I misunderstood your attitude. At this point nobody is allowed to make valid points but you. Good luck with all that


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> So I did presume that your statement of lies was based on identifying his misquote. But I don't think I misunderstood your attitude. At this point nobody is allowed to make valid points but you. Good luck with all that


US Enclsoure Engineering Solves Diffraction Problems

Understanding Cabinet Diffraction – Audioblog

If you want to make a point, make a valid one.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

There you go again...I didn't bring up diffraction. You did


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> There you go again...I didn't bring up diffraction. You did


Don't call foul when you don't understand the difference. When you post pics, assert some given point, as if it is exclusive to automotive installations, and not realize it is not exclusive to a vehicle, and properly understand the differences, then you'll be on your way to understanding why near field response never looks like a response 1m away. You asked for the comment. Move on and go educate yourself.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

DeltaB said:


> Don't call foul when you don't understand the difference. When you post pics, assert some given point, as if it is exclusive to automotive installations, and not realize it is not exclusive to a vehicle, and properly understand the differences, then you'll be on your way to understanding why near field response never looks like a response 1m away. Move on.


Point proven. I asked your opinion and then you conclude I'm an idiot for all the points I never made. Weird.

There's many threads around here that talk about diffraction. I always thought the differential ring that looked like a comic book explosion was a neat approach.

The only reason to go into deep conversation with yourself and claim your debunking others is to solidify a position of authority. It's ridiculous.

Later


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> Point proven. I asked your opinion and then you conclude I'm an idiot for all the points I never made. Weird.
> 
> There's many threads around here that talk about diffraction. I always thought the differential ring that looked like a comic book explosion was a neat approach.
> 
> The only reason to go into deep conversation with yourself and claim your debunking others is to solidify a position of authority. It's ridiculous.
> 
> Later





I800C0LLECT said:


> At the end of the day nobody cares if you can hear a difference. Why? Because of those images I posted showing what the environment does to response. If you're telling us you can make those differences tangible with evidence... That's awesome. Can you share that data?


Most differential rings are used on tweeters, and their dispersion is quite different than woofer cones. The driver you posted from Harmon was a 6" woofer. When you said you didn't make assertions, then I can only conclude you don't remember what you have said concerning this very issue of the images you posted.

I left you some information to further your understanding, and it's not exclusive to the environment of vehicles, but every single enclosure.

Ignorance (not knowing) doesn't always equate stupid, however stupid always equates ignorance.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Now you're confusing my remarks.



> ... nobody cares if you can hear a difference


Based on your debate over hearing differences in amplifiers when .05 % THD+N was brought up. I was indirectly commenting that the environment influenced the end response to such a degree that the difference in amplifiers do not matter until you can begin to correct the environment.

Anyways... That's why I introduced those measurements by Harman


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> Now you're confusing my remarks.
> 
> Based on your debate over hearing differences in amplifiers when .05 % THD+N was brought up. I was indirectly commenting that the environment influenced the end response to such a degree that the difference in amplifiers do not matter until you can begin to correct the environment.
> 
> Anyways... That's why I introduced those measurements by Harman


If you want to see why I said what I said about replacing the TL072 with OPA 1642, you can look up the datasheet on the OPA1642, and in it, the comparison graphs are a direct comparison of these two op amps. A more extensive research paper is also available on TI's website on the page of the device. No DSP, especially after the initial D/A can recreate or replace missing content. It can only detract. DSP's, while great for TA and EQ cannot replace or deal with vibrato or reverb (or all the other low level details) originally in the signal source, especially if it has no reference to the original digital content. And when you have devices in the signal chain guaranteed to overshoot by 20%, in contrast to only a percent or two, and recovery times in the milliseconds verses nanoseconds, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that in the time domain, you will lose tons of detail. In fact, TI does not recommend the TL072 any longer and strongly recommends it's replacement with the Burr Brown OPA1642. Why would anyone in their right mind, want to use something that has phase inversion at high levels, noisy to the point of hiss, (audible) slow to the point of detail loss is beyond me. And to say it doesn't matter, you'll just EQ it out, is beyond rational thought, and certainly beyond the reach of any DSP.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

DeltaB said:


> *And to say it doesn't matter, you'll just EQ it out,* is beyond rational thought, and certainly beyond the reach of any DSP.


Good thing I never said that.


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> Good thing I never said that.





I800C0LLECT said:


> The results are repeatable. Out of the box they sound different. But you can set gains and other variables to where you can't tell the difference between amps. So which road do you take? If you can prove class D sounds different then do it and post results. Nobody has been able to make that tangible...If you're telling us you can "hear" the difference then that's you prerogative.
> 
> Most in this forum don't care about topology. If it's a quality build they believe they have enough tools to manipulate the sound to be whatever they want. With that said, they choose equipment based on priority, convenience, and install requirements.
> 
> You just said you can identify differences in signal output between two devices through measurements.
> 
> At this point, what are you questioning or trying to resolve? Are you telling us that you've identified differences in output between two amps when superimposed as stated above?
> 
> At the end of the day nobody cares if you can hear a difference. Why? Because of those images I posted showing what the environment does to response. If you're telling us you can make those differences tangible with evidence... That's awesome. Can you share that data?


Oh really? hmmmmm....


----------



## DC/Hertz

DeltaB said:


> Oh really? hmmmmm....


You must have a amazing sounding car.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

DeltaB said:


> Oh really? hmmmmm....


Good grief. You just told me I can't add content to a signal through EQ. I agree and never said otherwise. Nothing quoted disagrees with that.

You're mad that somebody else doesn't agree with your opinion about amplifiers. When most people can't distinguish between 1% distortion and 10% distortion in their subs... What happens when vehicle panels add to that response? What happens to mid-range frequencies and tweeters? How does psychoacoustics play into that?

Deal with the environment first.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

DC/Hertz said:


> You must have a amazing sounding car.


He switched amps... Now he's on tour with the magic bus


----------



## Holmz

DeltaB said:


> Most differential rings are used on tweeters...


One may say that they are integral?


----------



## sqnut

DC/Hertz said:


> You must have a amazing sounding car.


He can't hear the difference between a 2ch and his car without tuning so....


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> Good grief. You just told me I can't add content to a signal through EQ. I agree and never said otherwise. Nothing quoted disagrees with that.
> 
> You're mad that somebody else doesn't agree with your opinion about amplifiers. When most people can't distinguish between 1% distortion and 10% distortion in their subs... What happens when vehicle panels add to that response? What happens to mid-range frequencies and tweeters? How does psychoacoustics play into that?
> 
> Deal with the environment first.


No, you deal with the environment last.

When you make a statement, "Most in this forum don't care about topology. If it's a quality build they believe they have enough tools to manipulate the sound to be whatever they want." what is someone to take away from this kind of remark, other than why I said, "And to say it doesn't matter, you'll just EQ it out, is beyond rational thought, and certainly beyond the reach of any DSP." Try being honest for a change.


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> He switched amps... Now he's on tour with the magic bus


That's rather incredulous. You, and others here are making assertions once again from a position of ignorance, even to the point of dishonesty.

When you make statements like, "When most people can't distinguish between 1% distortion and 10% distortion in their subs." obviously you don't really have a clue.


----------



## sqnut

DeltaB said:


> No, you deal with the environment last.


Thank you, that tells us everything we need to know about you.


----------



## Holmz

What happened to the topic, "shielded and twisted pairs using RCAs"?

How did we get this $hit storm of an Irma/Harvey sized proportion that deviated so far from the topic?


----------



## I800C0LLECT

DeltaB said:


> *No, you deal with the environment last.*
> 
> When you make a statement, "Most in this forum don't care about topology. If it's a quality build they believe they have enough tools to manipulate the sound to be whatever they want." what is someone to take away from this kind of remark, other than why I said, "And to say it doesn't matter, you'll just EQ it out, is beyond rational thought, and certainly beyond the reach of any DSP." Try being honest for a change.


Glad to know where you stand. If you're trying to compare two items then you have to remove all variables OTHER than what you're testing. You already know that

The process to establish your system is a whole different ball game and yes, eq correction is basically last. We agree. But in a/b test, you can't listen to an amp or of the box and get meaningful results. You know that too and I presume we agree.

Therefore, you can't switch an amplifier out in your car, immediately listen, and conclude they sound different. I'll assume most individuals don't have a head phone station of sorts to a/b test. I'm also assuming you would set gain structure before taking a listen, so why wouldn't you measure and correct for the environment as well? There's been many members who have satisfied the urge to "upgrade" by learning to measure their system response.

Can you hear a difference in class a/b and d amplifiers?... That's been argued ad nauseum. People have their opinions. That's why I said, if you can provide tangible evidence to support your opinion... Great... We'll end that debate forever.

I don't think your an idiot despite what you think of me. But I do believe this discussion is drawn out based on your preconceived notions about myself and other forum members. Now we're done. Take care and good luck


----------



## I800C0LLECT

DeltaB said:


> That's rather incredulous. You, and others here are making assertions once again from a position of ignorance, even to the point of dishonesty.
> 
> When you make statements like, "When most people can't distinguish between 1% distortion and 10% distortion in their subs." obviously you don't really have a clue.


That was a joke...

As far as distortion, that's been identified and talked about around here. I don't feel like digging but I don't retract that statement. I'm ok with the idiot label


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Holmz said:


> What happened to the topic, "shielded and twisted pairs using RCAs"?
> 
> How did we get this $hit storm of an Irma/Harvey sized proportion that deviated so far from the topic?


My bad... Spill over...


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Locomotive Tech said:


> BTW the amplitudes we measure were mostly in the mv range, the so called "static effects" we noted were in the micro volt range. I think that having this equipment available to me is very dangerous, but thankfully I have a fair amount of common sense that still guides me to believe that most of the high end designs can actually be proven to be less resrtictive, less susceptable to outside influences etc, these benfits can not be audible or measureable in the real world.
> 
> Funny test was we hooked up the SSTDR through a JL HD amp and the circuit showed to be over 60' long and looked like a hot mess on the chart! Just one giant refelection over 60' long moving all over the place. Would be interesting to see what an A/B amp would look like?
> 
> On second thought, I would rather not go down that road





Locomotive Tech said:


> So just an update on a slow day at work. was messing around with some tests using an sstdr and found some rather interesting results.
> 
> First, the genesis of this testing was one of my employees came to me and explained that he had some noise issues and ended up changing some RCA's which took care of the issue. He went to say that he seemed to "hear" and improvement in the overall sound quality.
> 
> So we were talking about loose outer conductors (-) that could have contributed to poor SQ and noise etc. Since we have a SSTDR here we were screwing around with his bad RCA's .
> 
> First we put it on an insulation tester and noted that @ around 600 volts, the inner conducted to the outter. Not sure if that is by design but interesting nonetheless. I used a brand new set of RCA's I had to see if there was a difference The new RCA's took 4200 volts before a noticeable conduction. These were no means a high end set but fairly decent.
> 
> We then hooked up the SSTDR to the bad cables we noted numerous reflections along the entire length of the cable's center conductor, in some cases the amplitude of the reflection was equal to the signal!
> 
> We then hooked up the new set and saw reflections but at significanlty lower amplitude that the olde cables. just for fun, I bent the new cables severely at several different points and wouldn't you know the refelctions at these points increased tremedously. Keep in mind I literally folded the cable over and squeezed with pliers.
> 
> To be transparent, I was not able to get a response back from either cable manufactuer to assertain the percent of speed of light at which their cables conduct so the distances the SSTDR indicates the refelctions will be off but nonetheless present.
> 
> Goofing off some more we put the SSTDR in real time (connected to the RCA's) in a powered system at approx 30% power. totally fascinated that the bad cable's refelctions increased while under "load". And so did the good cable! We did this a few more times with increasing power and each time the reflection amplitude increased accordingly. So for me it seems clear that as power increases so do the reflections. Wish I could bring myself to buy a super high end set of cables to see if there is a difference.
> 
> Furthering our observations showed that cables that were layed flat and straight showed less reflections. On another set of brand new cables we laid flat and straight on the floor showed to have the least amount of reflections however, we noticed there was this small refelecting running almost the entire length of the cable, varying amplitude and seemed to varying depending on where we stood in proximity to the cable, the only thing we could come up with was the carpet in the room was creating a static charge as we could shuffle our feet and see the refelction change, pretty cool though. I really wouldn't consider this very detrimental as the refelction was so small I doubt that it impact the SQ. I found it intersting that "static factor" was almost undetectable in an unpowered scenario.


THIS is very interesting to me. I wish I could measure the differences of "installed" RCAs in my vehicles. I also have a JL HAD and wonder if this had any bearing on your personal audition


----------



## DeltaB

I800C0LLECT said:


> Glad to know where you stand. If you're trying to compare two items then you have to remove all variables OTHER than what you're testing. You already know that
> 
> The process to establish your system is a whole different ball game and yes, eq correction is basically last. We agree. But in a/b test, you can't listen to an amp or of the box and get meaningful results. You know that too and I presume we agree.
> 
> *Therefore, you can't switch an amplifier out in your car, immediately listen, and conclude they sound different. I'll assume most individuals don't have a head phone station of sorts to a/b test. I'm also assuming you would set gain structure before taking a listen, so why wouldn't you measure and correct for the environment as well? There's been many members who have satisfied the urge to "upgrade" by learning to measure their system response.*
> 
> Can you hear a difference in class a/b and d amplifiers?... That's been argued ad nauseum. People have their opinions. That's why I said, if you can provide tangible evidence to support your opinion... Great... We'll end that debate forever.
> 
> I don't think your an idiot despite what you think of me. But I do believe this discussion is drawn out based on your preconceived notions about myself and other forum members. Now we're done. Take care and good luck


If I take the assumption that your assertion that "most people can't tell the difference in 1% or 10% distortion" (and you didn't define what type of distortion) then it's self-defeating to argue tune is the most important thing, if in fact, they can't tell the difference. That's the greatest point of frustration for me since I've been here. Logic leaps that make no sense. In one breath sound quality is important, and in the next breath it isn't. It's like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

Its like your argument above. You can't make all encompassing statements about a Class of amplification as you have above, and compare them from an audibility sense, when there are so many good and poor amps in any given Class. it's why the argument is all over the map, and been argued ad nauseum. It's like Holmz arguing from a position of some hypothetical amp that doesn't exist in reality. The discussion goes from addressing issues in the real world to non-sense of hypothetical BS that doesn't exist, and making assertions as if it does.

If you are more interested in RCA connectors than the quality of the device your connecting it to, by all means, go for it. But if your device can't accurately repeat the content you feed to it, then it's rather pointless. For me, I prefer to start with a solid base first, and as I said before, the signal chain is only as solid as it's weakest link. I both test and listen to the items I choose for my usage, and if it doesn't satisfy some very simple, repeatable criteria, then I either upgrade the device's internal components, or find another selection.


----------



## Holmz

DeltaB said:


> ... It's like Holmz arguing from a position of some hypothetical amp that doesn't exist in reality. The discussion goes from addressing issues in the real world to non-sense of hypothetical BS that doesn't exist, and making assertions as if it does.
> ...


Actually sport... I was asking a theoretical question of, "If one had a 0% THD+N and a 0.005 THD+N amp, then how does one hear the difference if one's speakers have distortions that are only ~30dB down?"

That was a question.
It still is a question.
And a hypothetical one that you still have not answered, while seeming to like hypothetical and conceptual diatribes.

Telling me for the nth time that I am too stupid to understand does not make your assertion true... If you are so knowing, then please share your insights.

Thanks in advance Sport.


----------



## impulse

I didn't read the whole thread but is there any agreement as to what RCA cables are best for car audio with amps using balanced inputs?


----------



## DeltaB

Holmz said:


> Actually sport... I was asking a theoretical question of, "If one had a 0% THD+N and a 0.005 THD+N amp, then how does one hear the difference if one's speakers have distortions that are only ~30dB down?"
> 
> That was a question.
> It still is a question.
> And a hypothetical one that you still have not answered, while seeming to like hypothetical and conceptual diatribes.
> 
> Telling me for the nth time that I am too stupid to understand does not make your assertion true... If you are so knowing, then please share your insights.
> 
> Thanks in advance Sport.


With the information you have provided, it is the square root of the speed of a triangle. Sport.


----------



## DeltaB

impulse said:


> I didn't read the whole thread but is there any agreement as to what RCA cables are best for car audio with amps using balanced inputs?


Since RCA is an unbalanced connector, what is on the other side that you are trying to connect to?


----------



## Holmz

DeltaB said:


> With the information you have provided, it is the square root of the speed of a triangle. Sport.


Since the conceptual question has again devolved into a discussion of semantics and linguistics, then...
Like computing the hypotenuse of a right triangle, the Australians have a term for this too.


----------



## DeltaB

Holmz said:


> Since the conceptual question has again devolved into a discussion of semantics and linguistics, then...
> Like computing the hypotenuse of a right triangle, the Australians have a term for this too.


Why don't you try to start by defining for us, your understanding of the primary and secondary reasons a speaker may have distortion.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to use a tomato in a fruit salad.


----------



## Holmz

DeltaB said:


> Why don't you try to start by defining for us, your understanding of the primary and secondary reasons a speaker may have distortion.
> 
> Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to use a tomato in a fruit salad.


I am really not interest in playing games.
I did not come on here as an expert in the field.
I only asked a simple question of, "how can one hear a near perfect amplifiers influence, when the speaker's distiportion is an order of magnitude greater?"

It does not conceptually seem to be a difficult question.


----------



## DeltaB

Holmz said:


> I am really not interest in playing games.
> I did not come on here as an expert in the field.
> I only asked a simple question of, "how can one hear a near perfect amplifiers influence, when the speaker's distiportion is an order of magnitude greater?"
> 
> It does not conceptually seem to be a difficult question.


Then don't play games. You can't hear distortion that doesn't exist.


----------



## Holmz

DeltaB said:


> Then don't play games. You can't hear distortion that doesn't exist.


If that is the then why do you delve into the nuance of op-amp, and capacitors, and skin effect... While simultaneously posting articles about how these things are beyond quantifiable?


----------



## DeltaB

Holmz said:


> If that is the then why do you delve into the nuance of op-amp, and capacitors, and skin effect... While simultaneously posting articles about how these things are beyond quantifiable?


I never asserted what you have stated above, about anything I stated concerning mods done to my personal equipment, or those devices aren't quantifiable, in fact, they are. What you have asked is not a question of being quantifiable. If you want to debate tonal qualities of caps, then do as I said before, go buy a spectrum analyzer.

You're like the guy who comes along with a stupid stick question, "If God is all powerful, then can God make a rock so big that even He can't move it? If not He's not all powerful, and if so, He's not all powerful."

You must first understand if you have distortion in a speaker, you must first define the distortion, which you don't appear able to do. I suggest you go fix your hypothetical speaker system. Go play your games with someone else. Better yet, just move on.


----------



## impulse

DeltaB said:


> Since RCA is an unbalanced connector, what is on the other side that you are trying to connect to?


a car amp 
Sooo is there a consensus here about some high quality RCA brands or what? Cause I could use some as I'm about to swap out some gear.

D'Amore engineering basically says for balanced inputs I'll need twisted pair..just curious what brands are really good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOagVDZLQnA

Also, according to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwoLtJhgj7c
Twisted RCA's are called balanced because of the method of connecting each wire to identical impedances.


----------



## DeltaB

impulse said:


> a car amp
> Sooo is there a consensus here about some high quality RCA brands or what? Cause I could use some as I'm about to swap out some gear.
> 
> D'Amore engineering basically says for balanced inputs I'll need twisted pair..just curious what brands are really good.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOagVDZLQnA
> 
> Also, according to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwoLtJhgj7c
> Twisted RCA's are called balanced because of the method of connecting each wire to identical impedances.


RCA's are unbalanced. XLR or a ring/tip/sleeve are balanced. The wire in the interconnect doesn't determine balanced/unbalanced, the input circuit defines the cable to be used. Balanced cable have a shield and drain. Unbalanced do not. They are confusing impedance (50 or 75ohm coax/110ohm twisted pair) with topology. (balanced/unbalanced) Just as with all things on the internet, not everyone understands what are saying. Try reading this;

What’s the Difference Between Balanced and Unbalanced? : Aviom Blog


----------



## impulse

DeltaB said:


> RCA's are unbalanced. XLR or a ring/tip/sleeve are balanced. The wire in the interconnect doesn't determine balanced/unbalanced, the input circuit does. Balanced cable have a shield and drain. Unbalanced do not. They are confusing impedance (75ohm coax/110ohm twisted pair) with topology. (balanced/unbalanced) Just as with all things on the internet, not everyone understands what are saying. Try reading this;
> 
> What’s the Difference Between Balanced and Unbalanced? : Aviom Blog


So what's considered proof then because how am I supposed to believe you are right when your link doesn't even say who wrote it up or what their credentials are? Then I have others whom also believe they are right? 

By default I would believe D'Amore Engineering before some guy on the internet....I mean I'm sure you understand as I don't know who I'm supposed to believe or for what reason. The second link I posted certainly seemed to make a lot of sense to me but I at least need to know why they are wrong.

Beyond that, this doesn't answer my question...I need some high quality RCA's...who's got some good ones and apparently I should also ask why are they considered good? I didn't really plan on getting a master's degree in audio engineering just to find out.


----------



## DeltaB

impulse said:


> So what's considered proof then because how am I supposed to believe you are right when your link doesn't even say who wrote it up or what their credentials are? Then I have others whom also believe they are right?
> 
> By default I would believe D'Amore Engineering before some guy on the internet....I mean I'm sure you understand as I don't know who I'm supposed to believe or for what reason. The second link I posted certainly seemed to make a lot of sense to me but I at least need to know why they are wrong.
> 
> Beyond that, this doesn't answer my question...I need some high quality RCA's...who's got some good ones and apparently I should also ask why are they considered good? I didn't really plan on getting a master's degree in audio engineering just to find out.


Good Lord man, if you don't like that one, how about Belden, the most respected cable manufacturer on the planet. You can deep dive into everything you ever wanted to know about the subject. Then go get your owners manual for your specific amp or whatever, and in the specs it will tell you balanced or unbalanced circuitry. (If it has RCA it will always say unbalanced or single ended)

Balanced Lines


----------



## impulse

DeltaB said:


> Good Lord man, if you don't like that one, how about Belden, the most respected cable manufacturer on the planet. You can deep dive into everything you ever wanted to know about the subject. Then go get your owners manual for your specific amp or whatever, and in the specs it will tell you balanced or unbalanced circuitry. (If it has RCA it will always say unbalanced or single ended)
> 
> Balanced Lines


My amp has balanced inputs..I mentioned that earlier. Not trying to be difficult, just realize all I did was ask a question about who makes some good RCA's because if you recall the start of this thread, there was some mention of marketing BS...I wanted to avoid marketing BS which is why I'm asking....who makes some damned quality RCA's? . I didn't really care about the differences of balanced or unbalanced, just pointing out the fact that there are apparently 2 differing opinions all over the internet regarding twisted pair vs coaxial and how they should be used depending on what input your amp has.

You mention "(If it has RCA it will always say unbalanced or single ended)"
Then I see this https://www.crutchfield.com/p_703EG...a&awnw=g&awcr=47637896065&awdv=c&awug=9016511

Now notice below it says "double-balanced asymmetrical cable geometry separates the ground and shield for quieter performance"...wtf is double balanced? Marketing BS?....So now your telling me it will always say unbalanced or single ended and instead I either see Balanced or Double Balanced along with other RCA's that don't mention either at all...anywhere on the packaging. Maybe I missed it but I don't see unbalanced on those RCA's I linked, don't care but is this a high quality RCA or not?

Sorry if I'm sounding difficult..but I'm sure you can understand why someone might get frustrated. Maybe everyone is using the same terminology to mean different things?... Otherwise I'll just say *** it and buy whatever has the best marketing pitch.


----------



## DeltaB

impulse said:


> My amp has balanced inputs..I mentioned that earlier. Not trying to be difficult, just realize all I did was ask a question about who makes some good RCA's because if you recall the start of this thread, there was some mention of marketing BS...I wanted to avoid marketing BS which is why I'm asking....who makes some damned quality RCA's? . I didn't really care about the differences of balanced or unbalanced, just pointing out the fact that there are apparently 2 differing opinions all over the internet regarding twisted pair vs coaxial and how they should be used depending on what input your amp has.
> 
> You mention "(If it has RCA it will always say unbalanced or single ended)"
> Then I see this https://www.crutchfield.com/p_703EG...a&awnw=g&awcr=47637896065&awdv=c&awug=9016511
> 
> Now notice below it says "double-balanced asymmetrical cable geometry separates the ground and shield for quieter performance"...wtf is double balanced? Marketing BS?....So now your telling me it will always say unbalanced or single ended and instead I either see Balanced or Double Balanced along with other RCA's that don't mention either at all...anywhere on the packaging. Maybe I missed it but I don't see unbalanced on those RCA's I linked, don't care but is this a high quality RCA or not?
> 
> Sorry if I'm sounding difficult..but I'm sure you can understand why someone might get frustrated. Maybe everyone is using the same terminology to mean different things?... Otherwise I'll just say *** it and buy whatever has the best marketing pitch.


Do you mind me asking what amplifier you have selected or using? And what specific device are you connecting it to?


----------



## impulse

Oh heres an RCA set on Amazon that says "Cable: Palic balanced signal line"...dunno what Palic balanced is but it's not saying unbalanced.

Another pair from Acoustic Research that says "directional-balanced line construction"...looks like a plain old RCA to me but doesn't say it's unbalanced.

Yeah I don't know who or what to believe anymore, seems all of them either mention nothing or will mention it's "balanced" in some form....just recommend me some cables please and thanks.


----------



## Holmz

impulse said:


> ... which is why I'm asking....who makes some damned quality RCA's? . I didn't really care about the differences of balanced or unbalanced,
> ...


There are some 99cent (or maybe $1.99 Nuetrik, and there are some that are ~$10-$12 for a pair.

I have not compared them for sound quality, but the build quality seems good enough for me.


----------



## sqnut

impulse said:


> ....just recommend me some cables please and thanks.


Stinger has always been my go to brand for interconnects.


----------



## Holmz

Oh he ment RCA as interconnects...
I was refering to only the RCA connectors for the ends, and then the cost of solder and wire/cable and time.


----------



## avhound

Copper wire doesn't care what it is hooked up to, as along as it completes its signal.
to me length of any wire or cable would be my first concern then the jewelry aspect of the 
brand item you would like to see at its termination.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

Although we seemed to have veered off topic here I would just like to say that from the functional testing that I did with the help of Seafish I can confidently say that for the automobile environment, there will very little difference in the conductivity of "most" cables.

With regards to spectrum analysis of "wires", I asked my company's audio and communication expert about this and in his French Canadian broken english, he replied "you don't care". He explained it quite simply, you will test a wire from a manufacturer and can plot all the capacitance, inductance, skin effects etc. and conclude this wire is superior to this wire based on the analysis. Now consider that you are are manufacturer of "High End" RCA cables......well, sure you don't make your own proprietary copper wire, you buy in bulk from a company like Beldin.

Beldin will manufacture to the spec you sent and provide the spectrum analysis to prove that this is the best wire ever. So Beldin has now extruded 20,000 feet of wire and shipped it to your facility, then the production of the cable begins. Whatever your awesome design is, twisted, shielded, balanced, suateed etc. It comes down to repeatability and this is where the only way you can be sure your cable is of the quality you expected is to complete another spectrum analysis on each cable. 

Now that the finished product has been through production and handled, manipulated, pinched, gripped and pressed, those characteristics have changed. So for those who say that the superiority of the wire will affect the sound, think about how RCA's are handled in production and installed in a car....its a rough environment.

I wouldn't get too caught up in the spectrum analysis of a given conductor, its the whole package.


----------



## Weightless

Locomotive Tech said:


> ...Whatever your awesome design is, twisted, shielded, balanced, suateed etc...


I love me some sautéed interconnects!  

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


----------



## DeltaB

Locomotive Tech said:


> Although we seemed to have veered off topic here I would just like to say that from the functional testing that I did with the help of Seafish I can confidently say that for the automobile environment, there will very little difference in the conductivity of "most" cables.
> 
> With regards to spectrum analysis of "wires", I asked my company's audio and communication expert about this and in his French Canadian broken english, he replied "you don't care". He explained it quite simply, you will test a wire from a manufacturer and can plot all the capacitance, inductance, skin effects etc. and conclude this wire is superior to this wire based on the analysis. Now consider that you are are manufacturer of "High End" RCA cables......well, sure you don't make your own proprietary copper wire, you buy in bulk from a company like Beldin.
> 
> Beldin will manufacture to the spec you sent and provide the spectrum analysis to prove that this is the best wire ever. So Beldin has now extruded 20,000 feet of wire and shipped it to your facility, then the production of the cable begins. Whatever your awesome design is, twisted, shielded, balanced, suateed etc. It comes down to repeatability and this is where the only way you can be sure your cable is of the quality you expected is to complete another spectrum analysis on each cable.
> 
> Now that the finished product has been through production and handled, manipulated, pinched, gripped and pressed, those characteristics have changed. So for those who say that the superiority of the wire will affect the sound, think about how RCA's are handled in production and installed in a car....its a rough environment.
> 
> I wouldn't get too caught up in the spectrum analysis of a given conductor, its the whole package.


As a point of clarity, Beldin makes consumer electronics, Belden is the wire folks.


----------



## stevemk07

FWIW, I have installed twisted pair rca wires in my car that have only 1 conductor wire and 1 shield wire. These are 17 ft long going from the front passenger kick panel to the trunk of my car (08 Acura TL). I left the length intact and cut off one end of the connectors in order to twist those to the preamp wires going from my stock HU to the stock amplifier in the kick panel (I just cut the wire near the amp but leave enough on the other side in case I ever decide to part w the car. The head unit outputs a differential balanced signal. My JL HD900/5 accepts this type of signal. My output is crystal clear with no noise that I can hear even with the volume cranked. I play some lossless and high quality files using my phone, a LG V20 w quad DAC on headphone jack connected via the aux 3.5mm input. 

Not sure what this proves but perhaps it will help someone wondering about what may work in their vehicle in a similar situation. 

I should mention that I have done this twice now in two separate TLs with similar results ad I believe different brand wires. The latest ones were purchased for 25 cdn each. https://m.canadiantire.ca/products/productDetail/0350074P/false/false/false?selectedSku=0350074

Before I purchased my JL amp I had one that did not have differential balanced topology in its design (Sony amp w high level input) and which I previously used to connect to the stock speaker wires. This setup produced a lot of noise when I decided to try connecting to the low level preamp signal instead of the high level amplified signal from the stock amplifier. So, I ordered a JL line driver for 70 bucks or so and this cured the problem with the noise.


----------



## AyOne

I use 3 sets of 5m audioquest golden gates, paid $30 each for them. They're shielded, I don't think they're twisted, but I could be wrong. They have held up well through 3 different installs. The braided material on the outside is very durable but some times a little bit of a pain to pull through certain spots. I have never heard any noise at all on either of the 3 on installs. I will probably never switch unless I wanted a different color but it would still be AQ.


----------

