cable dielectric cause of artificial sound


Hi folks, I would like to know what your opinion is about the following issue. About 90% of high-end cable manufacturers use PTFE as dielectric. Many of their cables sound much alike and they have a few of these characteristics in common: clean, relaxed and laid back sound but at the same time very dynamic (though a bit artificially), very quiet ("black background"), very good (also artificially) left/right separation. But I think albeit these traits, they tend to sound "technicolored", "sterile" and unengaging (lacking PRaT also). Some cable manufacturers are using bleached cotton as dielectric. These cables sound different: they have more natural dynamics, a mellower sound, more intimate soundstage, more tonal colors and so on. Are these differences mainly due to the dielectric material used? Why is for so many manufacturers PTFE still the ultimate dielectric for the use in audio cables?

Chris
dazzdax
Sean,

Excellent post, but I think you need to be very carefull when addressing the EMI/RFI issue. Some cables that reduce EMI/RFI issues also dull the musical signal. I think it's important to focus on clarity and dynamics when listening for EMI/RFI problems, not just tonality, because there are already too many people who falsely believe (IMO) that because a cable has reduced the treble response in their system, that it has 'only' removed EMI/RFI grunge, and that their sound is now more accurate; when in fact they have indeed given up some musical information.
A useful learning tool is to apply ferrites to analog interconnects to see how much of a change they make in the sound of a system. Once the listener can quantify that level of change in their mind, it makes determining whether other cable designs are actually better at shielding/rejecting RFI, or are just rolled-off.
(I Should state at this point that I AM NOT endorsing the use of ferrites on analog interconnects).
EMI is trickier, in that so many products use materials that reduce EMI to the detriment of their sound. By placing shielding/insulating materials too close to the signal carrying components, they interfere with the EM field, which impacts the resulting sonics of the system. It seems like some manufacturers would like their potential customers to believe that if a little EMI shielding is good, a ton of it must be great, when nothing could be further from the truth in my experience.

You're right, I feel like I could go on ad nauseum, and still not completely describe my ideas on this subject.
But I guess that's why I love this hobby so much, there's always something more to think about.
I've always said that shielded cables will perform & sound better, when properly implimented. I just don't know of any commercially made cables that are properly shielded, mostly for the reasons you site above. Sean
>
Tplavas, so the matter is more complex when you regard RFI and EMI as independent factors. Some cable manufacturers are twisting the conductors very tightly (with almost 90 degrees angle). I can imagine this adds an extra measure for rejecting RFI, but the EMI field is quite dense around the conductors, so it also can negatively interfere with sonics. Or is it beneficial to get the EMI that strong around the conductors? If that is the case, maybe the philosophy behind Rick Schultz' Virtual Dynamics cable is right: making a dense electro-magnetic field around the conductors by using magnets.

Chris

Chris