The truth about interconnects - can you handle it?

Taz,
I've no doubdt as you do that cables might/or might not sound different...

The main fact I realy care about is pricing of cables that realy don't show any of the engineering or scientific mechanizm and might even rich the cost of a good speaker or the source component.

That is the main today's audio-bull that realy psychologically drives by its beautifull design(only out-view realy counts!) making naive and rich believe that they will change the sound a lot. In fact in audio freequencies wires can only change the responce(on randomly selected freequencies) by 0.1...0.3dB(now that's to the real measured and objective differences between $10 RadioShack speaker wire and $300 JPS speaker wire). These differences are only can be audiable with infected brain but not with ears.

As to manufacturers that produce ultra-wide-band amps able to start parasite oscillation at RF(that's where shielded costly wires might work) breaking-up the normal performance I want to emphisize with bold letters that audio amplifier should ONLY work at audio freequencies. The rest of junk must be filtered out not with wires $2k/m/pr but with simple penny-cost passive and active elements; the double-side PC-board must be properly measured for overall reactance and analyzed for self-resonances that might occur during RF interfearance.

I agree with your post and would like to add that I have been told to look for cables that exhibit low capacitance and inductance.

I believe that the capacitance issue is more critical with interconnects because of the low signal levels at this stage. I cannot say how significant it is because I believe this would depend on the equipment used.

I wonder how much of this perceived difference people claim to hear between cables is due to high capacitance issues between their equipment. For example, a possible mismatch between input and output impedances between a CD player, preamp and power amp.

Another issue that could add to this problem is long interconnect runs. I have discussed equipment issues with many people and have discovered that some setups place monoblock amplifiers close to speakers to minimize speaker cable runs. However, the interconnect must then be longer then the speaker cable in order to reach the amplifier. If the interconnect is high capacitance, and there are impedance mismatches, this may create an audible difference.

I would welcome input from those who claim the differences are obvious. What test methodology was used? What speaker cables/interconnects were involved in the test? Details would at least give me something to go by and help me with my tests.

I did get some input from someone in this forum that differences are not easy to distinguish with a simple blind A/B test. It requires a more lengthy time period for differences to become evident. Perhaps a longer A/B test methodology could be used.

I also ran across a post where someone claims that he has done many A/B tests and his friends have attempted to try and fool him with different cables. He claims a 90% accuracy rate in distinguishing between cables. Thats very good.
I would be interested in what differences he picks up on and his test methodology. I would also like to know if he finds that a correlation exists between price and performance.

I researched some different cable manufacturers products and would be interested in doing a comparison between the Nordost line, DH labs interconnects, and a standard pair of radioshack speaker wire.

I read on the Nordost website about there approach to cable design and they seem to be research oriented in their designs. The only conflicting issues that they stated in their literature had to to with wire shapes. Essentially they state that the nordost 2 flat speaker cable is rectangular in shape because this improves capacitance and inductance over round wires. However, their higher line cables are solid round mult-stranded litz designs due to the improved skin effect of this design.

Very unusual to promote one design philosophy as better, but then to use the worse one for higher product lines.

DH labs has an interesting dielectric material with their air matrix interconnects. They claim a closer dielectric constant with that of air due to the unique construction of this teflon based dielectric. At least worth investigating.

It would be interesting to put these products to the test.

The other evening I was visiting a friend and discussion drifted to this new audiophile hobby of mine. After a few more glasses of wine we went onto his office to see what was behind/between all of his gear. The first thing I noticed was a set of monster cable 'Y' connections(male RCA with two female RCA) so he could run music two sources to his receiver. I yanked the 'Y" and connected one of them direct and....he was impressed how much better it sounded. He laughed at how much he had been missing as the connection was done over seven years ago. Next, we disconnected everything swo as to untangle all of his AC cords, interconnects, and speaker cable. It was all twisted together. He had four or five sets of cables that were twisted through everything and yet were hooked to nothing. Now his system sounds quite bearable. Looks like he won't be participating on all of those Audiogon auctions, afterall. i got a nice bottle of wine for my efforts.

That there can be minor acoustic differences between well-made cables consisting of the same copper and the same low-effect fluorocarbon dielectric IS interesting. Puffing the Teflon with air or changing L-C values with geometry further complicates the matrix. But what about using magnets or ferrous fillers next to the conductors, as is done y a now-popular manufacturer? Flies in the face of all electrical theory for a linear response, no?

Tazuser, I was the one who did many tests on equipment blindfolded, and had a good success record. I simply listen to the equipment, and determine if I can hear something different. Sometimes I can, and sometimes I cannot. Sometimes I may hear bloated or weak bass, or too hot or rolled off highs, or midrange anomalies, or detail masking, or soundstaging differences, etc, etc. Or sometimes I just hear more natural sounding music. I can't say what I will hear until I hear it.

Regarding the methodology, we used a reference audio system in a high end showroom, with only one set of speakers in the room at one time. Equipment, or cables, were replaced at random while the subject was out of the room. Then the subject is brought is blindfolded, and asked to identify what piece of equipment was changed, and to name it. We all did rather well at this, but we were very familiar with the sound of the various equipment in question. We did this for fun, to pass the time on slow days at the audio store. It was more of a game, than a "science experiment".

I don't really find alot of difference in price versus performance, as a general rule. It is more just differences in performance, but they don't seem to relate much to the price, until it gets pretty high. Above $600 for an interconnect pair, was a noticeable threshold for performance/price relationships. I had a DIY pair of interconnects that beat anything up to $600 in my system, but then I have heard several over-$600 sets since then that did better than my DIY. I don't say that the most costly is always the best. But it may be so in some cases.

I'm all for science, and have a strong science background. If differences are heard, then it's up to the scientists to determine what the reasons are. I don't really care what makes it so, as long as it sounds best in my system. What I do dislike, is when statements such as "wire is wire" are made, in an attempt to "scientifically" persuade people that they really don't hear any difference, when it is quite likely that they do hear them. If the science people want to discover all the inner secrets of why wires sound like they do, that's fine with me. Especially if it results in lower cost, good sounding wires. However, I part company with those who say that they cannot sound different because they are all measuring alike. Clearly, if they sound different, then other measurements must be in order to discover what is different. If these measurements are not existing, then they must be discovered to satisfy that curiosity. Personally, I find it alot easier to just listen and decide.