Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Mar 6, 5:12 pm, nebulax <nebu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "nebulax" <nebu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >news:fqks0d0v21@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > wrote:
> > >> "nebulax" <nebu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:fqegns01dfi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > >>> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> > >>> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> > >>> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> > >>> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> > >>> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> > >>> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> > >>> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> > >>> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> > >>> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> > >>> the signal.
>
> > >> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> > >> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas
> > >> Neutral Reference arranges different diameter conductors
> > >> in ascending order of strand cross-section from the
> > >> center toward the cable outer circumference. Conductors
> > >> are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden
> > >> Section Stranding, which earned the company an award for
> > >> "The Most Significant Contribution of the Advancement of
> > >> High End Audio in Cable and Accessory Design" from the
> > >> Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> > >> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable
> > >> resonance produced by fluctuating current flow for a
> > >> clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> > >> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > >> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances
> > >> and relevant brand names of an interconnect that does
> > >> "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> > >>> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> > >>> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> > >>> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> > >>> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> > >>> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on
> > >>> the high freqs. I can only assume they did this
> > >>> 'engineering' on purpose for those consumers who really
> > >>> want to hear something different in their system.
> > >>> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage
> > >>> cd players, anybody?), that sort of coloration could be
> > >>> a blessing!
>
> > >> The pur****ted technology of Interlink 400 cables is said
> > >> to include:
>
> > >> "
> > >> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks
> > >> for accurate, natural sound reproduction.
> > >> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper,
> > >> tighter bass.
> > >> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for
> > >> clearer highs. "
>
> > >> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> > > This site explains it better than I could -
> > >http://sound.westhost.com/cablewhitepaper.htm
>
> > > Here's a quote:
>
> > > "The second requirement is that the interconnect have low
> > > impedance.
> > > High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and
> > > low
> > > frequencies depending on the loads presented by the
> > > components
> > > connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency
> > > response is
> > > restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
>
> > The bandwidth of a typical consumer audio interconnect cable is
probably
> > around 1,000 MHz. Seems like it would be hard to justify going
further.
>
> > > And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the
> > > use of AB and  ABX testing!
>
> > I'm familiar with the site and have had favorable conversations with
the
> > proprietor.
>
> BTW, please don't take my arguments to indicate that I'm advocating
> spending $500+ a meter on cables, because I'm truly not, and I
> couldn't afford to spend that much even if I wanted to. One of the
> folks who I quoted, Roger Sanders, is selling interconnects that he
> makes from Belden video coax, and he's only charging $59 for a 5ft
> pair, but even THAT is too expensive for me (right now anyway). I wish
> the whole cable/sound issue wasn't even an issue, but to my ears it
> is, and so I'm trying to find the most economical way to sonic
> neutrality, that's all.
>
> -Neb

If you think Belden coaxial cable will meet your needs, then buy some
and make your own interconnects. You should be able to get it for well
under a dollar/foot in bulk but its overkill for what you need. There
is nothing exotic or necessarily expensive about audio cable and even
the dollar store cable will usually work fine but may be unreliable.
BTW, it is usually pretty obvious when a cable doesn't work correctly.
If you have the money, better speakers are a much better investment.