Good, Neutral, Reasonably Priced Cables?

While I can appreciate an enthuiastic review of an excellent product, the following statement is pure hokum:

"Unfortunately, the SRIIs are so revealing and transient rich that the metal shielding elevates record noise and blurs timing, etc. relative to the Empress ICs. The new carbon shielding is non-metallic/non-magnetic and serves the same purpose but with extremely superior results."

Effective EM shielding uses effective conductive materials; carbon is not an effective conductor.

I would suggest the excellent performance of these cables is due to some other physical property of the design (excellent conducting material, novel conductor geometry, etc.).

Mprime: Don't start bad-mouthing carbon or a certain manufacturer will start crying "foul" and calling you names.

It is possible that the carbon does act as a shield and at the same time, is less intrusive due to the lack of conductivity & magnetic properties. As i've mentioned for many years now, shielding is beneficial IF properly applied. Most shields are NOT properly applied. Minimizing the amount of shielding while still offering a small amount of "blocking" via the carbon might be a reasonable trade-off between a lower noise floor and a lack of dynamic amplitude related smearing. Sean
>

Fair enough, Sean (though attempting to reconcile claims with physics is not bad-mouthing).

My first order understanding of shielding is akin to a Faraday cage (I have yet to see one made out of carbon). Or more precisely, shielding is a function of a material's skin depth, which - while a decaying exponential inside the material - is driven by the material's conductivity and permeability (for a given frequency). Therefore, how does an inefficent conductor act as an effective shield?

Particularly at low frequencies....

Sincerely,

"attempting to reconcile claims with physics is not bad-mouthing"

Tell that to the guys that cry every time you try to discuss "scientific facts" vs their "bold claims". Manufacturers that sell snake oil don't like facts or bright lights that expose them for what they are. After all, didn't you know that physics has no place in "high end" audio. Physics went out of date years ago : )

As far as shielding goes, the main factors are depth, coverage area and materials used. As you mentioned, one can smother a device in a given material, but that doesn't mean that material doing the smothering is actually effective as a shield. Then again, one can also use much less of another material, and if properly placed, achieve phenomenal results in terms of shielding.

These factors can be put to work for us though IF we know how to manipulate the variables properly. That is, some materials are quite effective at blocking RF but are near useless at base-band frequencies. Since we don't want our AC signals "contaminated" with RFI, and at the same time, we don't want to interfere with the normal rise and fall of the current induced magnetic field that occurs at low frequencies, it IS possible to have the best of both worlds. I'm not saying that one can do this with carbon or any other specfific material, i'm just saying that a "less efficient" shield isn't always "useless" under specific situations. Think about this as it is something that many manufacturers / DIYer's overlook. Sean
>

Well, okay....

To offer closure, in order to achieve the same EM shielding as a typical conductor, carbon must be 500 to 1000 times thicker than such conductors. From this factual statement, one may observe different designs and see how their claims reconcile with physical facts. For example, one may look at PAD products and notice that while they take an 'unconventional' approach to shielding, the design is consistent with their chosen material properties (i.e. it is a *significantly* thicker cable).

Again, this is not to trash or bad-mouth any particular manufacturer, but it is an honest attempt to reconcile product claims with basic physics.

Sincerely,