Balanced Cables Kimber vs BJC - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 43 Old 06-15-2014, 01:53 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Mike Perkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Balanced Cables Kimber vs BJC

Has anyone heard Kimber timber XLR VS BJC 1800f XLR, thoughts on sound?

using an Audiolab MDAC and Paradigm Ref Active 20's and oppo 971 and Apple tv3 as sources.

Cheers
Mike
Mike Perkins is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 43 Old 06-15-2014, 02:10 PM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,135
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Perkins View Post
Has anyone heard Kimber timber XLR VS BJC 1800f XLR, thoughts on sound?

using an Audiolab MDAC and Paradigm Ref Active 20's and oppo 971 and Apple tv3 as sources.

Cheers
Mike
It is just a matter of what you believe. There is no actual sonic difference.
FMW is online now  
post #3 of 43 Old 06-15-2014, 03:15 PM
Newbie
 
zonz540's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
If you're curious, contact a dealer. Most are more than willing to lend cables for short periods of time.
There are many who believe both sides on cabling. It is generally best to form your own opinion on your own system.
zonz540 is offline  
post #4 of 43 Old 06-16-2014, 04:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,292
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Perkins View Post
Has anyone heard Kimber timber XLR VS BJC 1800f XLR, thoughts on sound?

using an Audiolab MDAC and Paradigm Ref Active 20's and oppo 971 and Apple tv3 as sources.

Cheers
Mike
Balanced cables always have perfect sound quality; there is no performance difference between a $1000 cable and a $20 microphone cable you can get at any pro audio outlet.

The cables used in a $100,000 system for professional recording sessions are those cheap $20-50 cables. They work perfectly, as any audio engineer knows; even if they are 100 feet long.

UNBALANCED cables are a whole different can of worms. I have heard dramatic sonic differences between unbalanced (RCA/coax) cables, depending on the equipment they are connected to and other factors. Because they are a fundamentally flawed design, the type of insulation used and other factors make some differences which may in some cases be quite audible.

I have a $25K audio system; sound to die for; and all my balanced cables are ones I made myself from standard $1/foot AES standard cable and standard $5 XLR connectors with gold-plated pins. Making your own is easy, cheap, and gives perfect results (if you can solder well) every time.

Last edited by commsysman; 06-16-2014 at 04:20 PM.
commsysman is offline  
post #5 of 43 Old 06-16-2014, 09:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post
Balanced cables always have perfect sound quality; there is no performance difference between a $1000 cable and a $20 microphone cable you can get at any pro audio outlet.

The cables used in a $100,000 system for professional recording sessions are those cheap $20-50 cables. They work perfectly, as any audio engineer knows; even if they are 100 feet long.

UNBALANCED cables are a whole different can of worms. I have heard dramatic sonic differences between unbalanced (RCA/coax) cables, depending on the equipment they are connected to and other factors. Because they are a fundamentally flawed design, the type of insulation used and other factors make some differences which may in some cases be quite audible.
Perhaps with old tube equipment. But it's highly unlikely a six foot RCA cables makes any audible difference on anything made in the past 20 years! A source impedance of 100 ohms or less is not influenced by cable dielectric at audio frequencies. And most gear less than 20 years old has low impedance line outputs.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #6 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 05:35 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Mike Perkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for the replys, i did borrow a pair of balanced PBJ from the local reseller and the difference between balanced and unbalanced was very obvious, balanced sounded more open and seemed to bring more life in the music, and the speakers got bigger!. i think i will order the BJC balanced 1800F its not a lot of money and i could borrow the PBJ again for comparison, if I were to order the Kimber i was thinking the Timber.

cheers
Mike Perkins is offline  
post #7 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 05:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,292
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
Perhaps with old tube equipment. But it's highly unlikely a six foot RCA cables makes any audible difference on anything made in the past 20 years! A source impedance of 100 ohms or less is not influenced by cable dielectric at audio frequencies. And most gear less than 20 years old has low impedance line outputs.
No, that's just not true at all. That does not jibe with what I have experienced.

One of the pieces of gear where I observed HUGE differences in sound quality was the Sony SCD-777-ES SACD player, which came out around 1999, and was one of the best-sounding you could get then; with the right cables!

BUT...it would sound like absolute crap with some interconnect cables and much better with others.

I actually thought the thing was defective because it sounded so bad out of the box with the first cables. Five different sets of cables and five distinctly different sound qualities. The ones that were the best by far were Audioquest Diamondback cables.

I have never seen any component before or since that was so sensitive to differences in interconnect cables. It was my primary player for 6 years or so.

Some combinations of source/destination components are very insensitive to differences in interconnect cables; others much more so. This is my personal observation from years of listening tests.

There is no technical explanation I have found to explain this, though being a former engineer and electronics professor I would certainly like to make some sense out of it. Every theory I have posited does not agree with actual results. I have run dozens of scientific tests with high-quality lab gear and the results were inconclusive.

There was certainly nothing in the specs of the Sony player to suggest it would be so finicky. It was 100% solid-state and had a supposedly low output impedance.

One thing I have noticed, however, is that certain cables that use a 3-wire configuration and only terminate the shield at one end (like the Diamondback) are significantly better most of the time.

This is no substitute for a fully balanced cable and balanced inputs and outputs, but it DOES eliminate signal return current in the shield, which seems to be helpful.

Last edited by commsysman; 06-17-2014 at 06:15 AM.
commsysman is offline  
post #8 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 06:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,292
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Perkins View Post
Thanks for the replys, i did borrow a pair of balanced PBJ from the local reseller and the difference between balanced and unbalanced was very obvious, balanced sounded more open and seemed to bring more life in the music, and the speakers got bigger!. i think i will order the BJC balanced 1800F its not a lot of money and i could borrow the PBJ again for comparison, if I were to order the Kimber i was thinking the Timber.

cheers
You seem intent on wasting money on expensive balanced cables.

I recommend the HOSA cables with silver XLR connectors. They are very good and inexpensive. ZZOUNDS sells them.

It's your money.

Last edited by commsysman; 06-17-2014 at 06:23 AM.
commsysman is offline  
post #9 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 07:25 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,135
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Perkins View Post
Thanks for the replys, i did borrow a pair of balanced PBJ from the local reseller and the difference between balanced and unbalanced was very obvious, balanced sounded more open and seemed to bring more life in the music, and the speakers got bigger!. i think i will order the BJC balanced 1800F its not a lot of money and i could borrow the PBJ again for comparison, if I were to order the Kimber i was thinking the Timber.

cheers

Like I said, it is just a matter of what you believe. I do enjoy the concept that the cables made the speakers bigger. I hadn't heard that one before. Cheers to you too.
FMW is online now  
post #10 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 10:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post
No, that's just not true at all. That does not jibe with what I have experienced.

One of the pieces of gear where I observed HUGE differences in sound quality was the Sony SCD-777-ES SACD player, which came out around 1999, and was one of the best-sounding you could get then; with the right cables!

BUT...it would sound like absolute crap with some interconnect cables and much better with others.

I actually thought the thing was defective because it sounded so bad out of the box with the first cables. Five different sets of cables and five distinctly different sound qualities. The ones that were the best by far were Audioquest Diamondback cables.

I have never seen any component before or since that was so sensitive to differences in interconnect cables. It was my primary player for 6 years or so.

Some combinations of source/destination components are very insensitive to differences in interconnect cables; others much more so. This is my personal observation from years of listening tests.

There is no technical explanation I have found to explain this, though being a former engineer and electronics professor I would certainly like to make some sense out of it. Every theory I have posited does not agree with actual results. I have run dozens of scientific tests with high-quality lab gear and the results were inconclusive.

There was certainly nothing in the specs of the Sony player to suggest it would be so finicky. It was 100% solid-state and had a supposedly low output impedance.

One thing I have noticed, however, is that certain cables that use a 3-wire configuration and only terminate the shield at one end (like the Diamondback) are significantly better most of the time.

This is no substitute for a fully balanced cable and balanced inputs and outputs, but it DOES eliminate signal return current in the shield, which seems to be helpful.
Did you consider that your player may have had a defect? Did you test loading on the players output stage?

If you are indeed an EE and professor, tell me how high the output impedance would need to be to have any audible effect at say 15khz due to 6 feet of audio cable capacitance? That is assuming that was the issue, rolled off highs? But since you used a highly scientific term of "sounded like absolute crap" I really don't know if frequency response was the issue at all.

This is the same old rag we hear all the time.

"The differences heard were huge!", "Difference was night and day!"

But yet when pressed the cable proponents always say it cannot be measured. Then when further challenged they often state you need a "high resolution" system to hear these differences as they are subtle.

Well "huge" differences are not subtle and should be easily measured and quantified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post
I have run dozens of scientific tests with high-quality lab gear and the results were inconclusive.
What where the results? What exactly did you test?

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!


Last edited by Glimmie; 06-17-2014 at 10:45 AM.
Glimmie is offline  
post #11 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 03:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
commsysman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,292
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
Did you consider that your player may have had a defect? Did you test loading on the players output stage?

If you are indeed an EE and professor, tell me how high the output impedance would need to be to have any audible effect at say 15khz due to 6 feet of audio cable capacitance? That is assuming that was the issue, rolled off highs? But since you used a highly scientific term of "sounded like absolute crap" I really don't know if frequency response was the issue at all.

This is the same old rag we hear all the time.

"The differences heard were huge!", "Difference was night and day!"

But yet when pressed the cable proponents always say it cannot be measured. Then when further challenged they often state you need a "high resolution" system to hear these differences as they are subtle.

Well "huge" differences are not subtle and should be easily measured and quantified.

What where the results? What exactly did you test?


You are asking me to detail many years of experience and cable testing in the lab, and I could write thousands of words without answering you completely. I am sure that would go on endlessly, with you criticizing every detail: ad infinitum. I am not going to start that process.

1) The Sony player sounded very good with the right cables, and I had no reason to think it was actually defective. I used it for years with good results.

2) When it sounded bad, with other cables, it was not a question of frequency response; the sound was quite harsh and unpleasant. There clearly was some sort of distortion which was immediately obvious to all listeners. I am quite certain that the degradation of the music would have been quite obvious to anyone in almost any home audio system. My tentative conclusion is that this player's output circuitry and the input circuit of the preamp I was using at the time were interacting with the various cables that sounded bad to produce a bad impedance combination that was causing signal energy to be reflected back from the preamp to the cable and causing significant intermodulation in the cable signal. It is the only explanation that seems plausible to me to explain what was being heard. Computer modeling of the known or assumed circuit characteristics gave inconclusive results. There are so many unknown dynamic circuit variables (inductive and capacitive) at both ends (in combination with the cable itself) that trying to model a complex network like this accurately becomes quite impossible, because you simply don't have the precise data you need.

3) It would seem from your doctrinaire attitude that NO results that disagree with your preconceived dogma will change your mind, no matter how scientific or well-documented. It is nice that you think these things are so simple. It is easy to be definite about everything until one's knowledge becomes more sophisticated and complete. If you eventually gain more knowledge and experience about the dynamics of circuit behavior, that will change.

I have told you what my experience and my opinion are, and you make it clear that you have decided to reject them. That is your privilege.

I offer my experience for the information of those who may find it of interest, and am uninterested in an endless debate with you or anyone else.

I have no need to "prove" anything to anyone.

Last edited by commsysman; 06-17-2014 at 04:31 PM.
commsysman is offline  
post #12 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 04:14 PM
Senior Member
 
urapnes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
Did you consider that your player may have had a defect? Did you test loading on the players output stage?

If you are indeed an EE and professor, tell me how high the output impedance would need to be to have any audible effect at say 15khz due to 6 feet of audio cable capacitance? That is assuming that was the issue, rolled off highs? But since you used a highly scientific term of "sounded like absolute crap" I really don't know if frequency response was the issue at all.

This is the same old rag we hear all the time.

"The differences heard were huge!", "Difference was night and day!"

But yet when pressed the cable proponents always say it cannot be measured. Then when further challenged they often state you need a "high resolution" system to hear these differences as they are subtle.

Well "huge" differences are not subtle and should be easily measured and quantified.

What where the results? What exactly did you test?
Many years ago I had a Nokia cell phone...6160 I think. Anyways, anytime that thing would ring, or was in use, it would cause noise a very loud sort-of digitized/,modulated noise in my computer speakers, my home stereo, and just about anything else with a speaker in it. At the time I was using the el-cheap-o cables that you would have gotten with a DVD player...the typical Red-White-Yellow RCA's. I got tired of the RF noise coming from the phone so I bought a few pairs of Mogami brand RCA's to replace the crappy ones that I had.

After making the change to the Mogami cables, the RF noise was gone in the stereo...It was still present in the computer speakers and TV however. Seeing as how nothing else had changed, other than the cabling between the sources and the integrated-amplifier, the only logical conclusion one would make is that cables can and do make a significant difference in non-laboratory settings which is where most of us spend our time.
urapnes1 is offline  
post #13 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 08:10 PM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post
no matter how scientific or well-documented.
Except that there hasn't been scientific or well documented evidence presented by you. All I see is just anecdotal experience which isn't helpful to others.
spkr is offline  
post #14 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 08:18 PM
Senior Member
 
urapnes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr View Post
Except that there hasn't been scientific or well documented evidence presented by you. All I see is just anecdotal experience which isn't helpful to others.
And all I see is you unnecessarily stirring the pot. Add something fresh or new to the discussion. Try to further the idea chain rather than try to stomp the life out of what many find to be an enjoyable hobby.
urapnes1 is offline  
post #15 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 11:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post
You are asking me to detail many years of experience and cable testing in the lab, and I could write thousands of words without answering you completely. I am sure that would go on endlessly, with you criticizing every detail: ad infinitum. I am not going to start that process.

1) The Sony player sounded very good with the right cables, and I had no reason to think it was actually defective. I used it for years with good results.

2) When it sounded bad, with other cables, it was not a question of frequency response; the sound was quite harsh and unpleasant. There clearly was some sort of distortion which was immediately obvious to all listeners. I am quite certain that the degradation of the music would have been quite obvious to anyone in almost any home audio system. My tentative conclusion is that this player's output circuitry and the input circuit of the preamp I was using at the time were interacting with the various cables that sounded bad to produce a bad impedance combination that was causing signal energy to be reflected back from the preamp to the cable and causing significant intermodulation in the cable signal. It is the only explanation that seems plausible to me to explain what was being heard. Computer modeling of the known or assumed circuit characteristics gave inconclusive results. There are so many unknown dynamic circuit variables (inductive and capacitive) at both ends (in combination with the cable itself) that trying to model a complex network like this accurately becomes quite impossible, because you simply don't have the precise data you need.
Please explain how an impedance mismatch at 20khz is causing reflections on a 6 foot cable cable, or even a 100 foot cable for that matter? Do you know how long the electrical wavelength is at even 100khz?

Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post
3) It would seem from your doctrinaire attitude that NO results that disagree with your preconceived dogma will change your mind, no matter how scientific or well-documented. It is nice that you think these things are so simple. It is easy to be definite about everything until one's knowledge becomes more sophisticated and complete. If you eventually gain more knowledge and experience about the dynamics of circuit behavior, that will change.
I hold a senior IEEE membership. I think I know quite a bit about circuit behavior, especially in the areas of RF and high speed digital. Your post history in these areas as well as general electronics has been called into question many times by many other engineers and technicians here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post
I have told you what my experience and my opinion are, and you make it clear that you have decided to reject them. That is your privilege.

I offer my experience for the information of those who may find it of interest, and am uninterested in an endless debate with you or anyone else.

I have no need to "prove" anything to anyone.
That's quite true. But lets stop spreading the audio cable voodoo. To be clear, I am not calling into question what you heard or experienced. I am calling out the voodoo that audio electronics is too complex to fully analyze. That's ridiculous and has been for at least the past 20 years. What ever you heard, there is a technical explanation which can easily be found by an experienced engineer or technician.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!


Last edited by Glimmie; 06-17-2014 at 11:33 PM.
Glimmie is offline  
post #16 of 43 Old 06-17-2014, 11:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
Many years ago I had a Nokia cell phone...6160 I think. Anyways, anytime that thing would ring, or was in use, it would cause noise a very loud sort-of digitized/,modulated noise in my computer speakers, my home stereo, and just about anything else with a speaker in it. At the time I was using the el-cheap-o cables that you would have gotten with a DVD player...the typical Red-White-Yellow RCA's. I got tired of the RF noise coming from the phone so I bought a few pairs of Mogami brand RCA's to replace the crappy ones that I had.

After making the change to the Mogami cables, the RF noise was gone in the stereo...It was still present in the computer speakers and TV however. Seeing as how nothing else had changed, other than the cabling between the sources and the integrated-amplifier, the only logical conclusion one would make is that cables can and do make a significant difference in non-laboratory settings which is where most of us spend our time.
This is no mystery at all. The Mogami cables had better shielding against the RFI from the cell phone. And this could be easily measured. It's not that cables can't make a difference. It's all the audiophile crap like "hearing deeper into the music" and "open spacing between the instruments", "all due to this $2,000 RCA cable" that the engineering community has a problem with.
lovinthehd likes this.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #17 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 07:11 AM
Senior Member
 
urapnes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
This is no mystery at all. The Mogami cables had better shielding against the RFI from the cell phone. And this could be easily measured. It's not that cables can't make a difference. It's all the audiophile crap like "hearing deeper into the music" and "open spacing between the instruments", "all due to this $2,000 RCA cable" that the engineering community has a problem with.
I think we are on similar pages...although, if people are able to hear the music better because they eliminated the noise/interference or reduced it, then why cant we say that they can "hear deeper into the music"? I switched out my cables and was able to hear the instruments/performers much better than when I had the el-cheap-o's in there, granted it was only under certain conditions. But the point that I am trying to make is that homes are not lab-grade...they have all sorts of electronic devices that affect the quality of other electronics in the home. In a simple lab-test, a person may not be looking for RF Rejection as an example, or the fact that their neighbor is using a high-powered HAM radio.
urapnes1 is offline  
post #18 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 09:11 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,135
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
I think we are on similar pages...although, if people are able to hear the music better because they eliminated the noise/interference or reduced it, then why cant we say that they can "hear deeper into the music"? I switched out my cables and was able to hear the instruments/performers much better than when I had the el-cheap-o's in there, granted it was only under certain conditions. But the point that I am trying to make is that homes are not lab-grade...they have all sorts of electronic devices that affect the quality of other electronics in the home. In a simple lab-test, a person may not be looking for RF Rejection as an example, or the fact that their neighbor is using a high-powered HAM radio.
We objectivists have no problem with what you folks buy or what you enjoy. Our only problem is with making audibility claims that have been scientifically disproven time and again. Buy what you like. Just understand that when you recommend these products, people like us are going to call you on it. The entire high end cable industry is a sham and we folks can prove it and have proved it over and over. It isn't a matter of what you do. It is a matter of what you sell to others.
FMW is online now  
post #19 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 11:37 AM
Senior Member
 
urapnes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
We objectivists have no problem with what you folks buy or what you enjoy. Our only problem is with making audibility claims that have been scientifically disproven time and again. Buy what you like. Just understand that when you recommend these products, people like us are going to call you on it. The entire high end cable industry is a sham and we folks can prove it and have proved it over and over. It isn't a matter of what you do. It is a matter of what you sell to others.


Let me correct you .
I don't sell cables. I don't recommend cables either. My example was just that...an example.

The audible observations that I made were very apparent to any and all that heard them. When the phone would ring, the music was nearly completely obscured by some sort of modulated sound meaning that you almost could not hear the music for as long as the phone was transmitting...Fact: It happened. Fact: Changing cables resulted in a big improvement. Fact: It happened multiple times every day for about a year.

Each pair of $50 RCA cables that I bought were nearly 5,000% more expensive than the ones that I got for free with each of my sources. Even if I paid $5 for each crappy RCA, the price increase to a $50 cable is still nearly 1,000%. In my opinion, much of this debate stems from poor definitions of what is expensive and what is not (both sides are guilty), and what is audible or not. In the above example my experience shows that MASSIVE changes can take place by using more expensive cables.

This need not be limited to RF noise either. I have had cheap cables build up enough corrosion on the terminals as to lose conductivity and drop the sound on that channel. You didn't need a DBT to tell that one channel was out and it certainly affected the sound quality because it went from good to zero. I have not had this happen with better and more expensive cables that I used to replace the bad ones with.

To a kid in highschool, $50 might be a months worth of mowing the lawn, yet to someone else $50 might be what they make in 10 minutes.
urapnes1 is offline  
post #20 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 11:37 AM
Member
 
SubObjective99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Hello Mike, while Kimber is great, over the years I've found monoprice to be a great source for good quality, reasonably price cables.

Derogatory terms like "analog bigot", "digiphobe", "internet eggspurts" have nothing to do with electrical engineering.
SubObjective99 is offline  
post #21 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 01:16 PM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
Let me correct you . I don't sell cables. I don't recommend cables either. My example was just that...an example. The audible observations that I made were very apparent to any and all that heard them. When the phone would ring, the music was nearly completely obscured by some sort of modulated sound meaning that you almost could not hear the music for as long as the phone was transmitting...Fact: It happened. Fact: Changing cables resulted in a big improvement. Fact: It happened multiple times every day for about a year. Each pair of $50 RCA cables that I bought were nearly 5,000% more expensive than the ones that I got for free with each of my sources. Even if I paid $5 for each crappy RCA, the price increase to a $50 cable is still nearly 1,000%. In my opinion, much of this debate stems from poor definitions of what is expensive and what is not (both sides are guilty), and what is audible or not. In the above example my experience shows that MASSIVE changes can take place by using more expensive cables.
The usual personal opinion based on subjective observation, the same old kind that's been posted on this forum thousands of times over and debunked just as many times over... And all this after telling me to add something fresh or new to the discussion? Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
This need not be limited to RF noise either. I have had cheap cables build up enough corrosion on the terminals as to lose conductivity and drop the sound on that channel. You didn't need a DBT to tell that one channel was out and it certainly affected the sound quality because it went from good to zero. I have not had this happen with better and more expensive cables that I used to replace the bad ones with.
I never had durability issues with the cables that came with the electronics. The problem may be just you or the environment you are in and not a general problem as my case contradicts yours.

Last edited by spkr; 06-18-2014 at 01:22 PM.
spkr is offline  
post #22 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 01:41 PM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,135
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
Let me correct you .
I don't sell cables. I don't recommend cables either. My example was just that...an example.

The audible observations that I made were very apparent to any and all that heard them. When the phone would ring, the music was nearly completely obscured by some sort of modulated sound meaning that you almost could not hear the music for as long as the phone was transmitting...Fact: It happened. Fact: Changing cables resulted in a big improvement. Fact: It happened multiple times every day for about a year.

Each pair of $50 RCA cables that I bought were nearly 5,000% more expensive than the ones that I got for free with each of my sources. Even if I paid $5 for each crappy RCA, the price increase to a $50 cable is still nearly 1,000%. In my opinion, much of this debate stems from poor definitions of what is expensive and what is not (both sides are guilty), and what is audible or not. In the above example my experience shows that MASSIVE changes can take place by using more expensive cables.

This need not be limited to RF noise either. I have had cheap cables build up enough corrosion on the terminals as to lose conductivity and drop the sound on that channel. You didn't need a DBT to tell that one channel was out and it certainly affected the sound quality because it went from good to zero. I have not had this happen with better and more expensive cables that I used to replace the bad ones with.

To a kid in highschool, $50 might be a months worth of mowing the lawn, yet to someone else $50 might be what they make in 10 minutes.


You make the common error cable listeners make. It is not about money. I has zero to do with price. It has everything to do with audible differences. I don't care how much you or anybody else spends on cables. I care that you describe MASSIVE differences to people who read an internet forum. I'd be happy to prove to you that those MASSIVE differences will disappear in a bias controlled test. Just let me know if you would like to get involved in a serious listening test.
FMW is online now  
post #23 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 01:53 PM
Senior Member
 
urapnes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr View Post
The usual personal opinion based on subjective observation, the same old kind that's been posted on this forum thousands of times over and debunked just as many times over... And all this after telling me to add something fresh or new to the discussion? Please. I never had durability issues with the cables that came with the electronics. The problem may be just you or the environment you are in and not a general problem as my case contradicts yours.
So you are saying that cable shielding has no merit and is just a marketing ploy?
urapnes1 is offline  
post #24 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 01:56 PM
Senior Member
 
urapnes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
You make the common error cable listeners make. It is not about money. I has zero to do with price. It has everything to do with audible differences. I don't care how much you or anybody else spends on cables. I care that you describe MASSIVE differences to people who read an internet forum. I'd be happy to prove to you that those MASSIVE differences will disappear in a bias controlled test. Just let me know if you would like to get involved in a serious listening test.
Re-read what I said...I said that the MASSIVE difference was due to the fact that there was no more RF interference coming from the phone. With the interference you could not make out the song...with the interference removed you could...plain and simple.
urapnes1 is offline  
post #25 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 03:42 PM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
Re-read what I said...I said that the MASSIVE difference was due to the fact that there was no more RF interference coming from the phone. With the interference you could not make out the song...with the interference removed you could...plain and simple.
You could have made a better connection when you reconnected the cable. You could have moved the cable away from the interference. Your cable could have a bad internal connection.

You could have even solved the problem with another plain RCA cable.

There are many variables that can explain what you experienced. None of them are attributable to your investment in "better shielding".
koturban is online now  
post #26 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 05:51 PM
Senior Member
 
urapnes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
You could have made a better connection when you reconnected the cable. You could have moved the cable away from the interference. Your cable could have a bad internal connection.

You could have even solved the problem with another plain RCA cable.

There are many variables that can explain what you experienced. None of them are attributable to your investment in "better shielding".
Valid points however I swapped rca's between sources trying to isolate the problem. I found that the problems moved with the cable. That eliminated the bad connection possibility. I even tried putting the bad cable into a different system altogether. Again the problem followed the cable anytime the phone or other Nokia phones of the same era were in 10 feet or so of the cable. Basically I was trying to see how to eliminate the issue without spending any cash. I tried other "free" cables from camcorders and such. When the phones were close by you could hear ticks/pops and the modulation would come back when transmitting or receiving a call. It was always worst whenthe phone was ringing. I had access to higher quality rcas for a short bit, so I put them in place. Problem solved. The old Nokias were 3watt phones.
urapnes1 is offline  
post #27 of 43 Old 06-18-2014, 05:55 PM
Senior Member
 
urapnes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Taken from an older Nokia user guide.

FCC/Industry Canada Notice
Your phone may cause TV or radio interference (e.g. when using a telephone in close proximity to receiving equipment).
The FCC/Industry Canada can require you to stop using your telephone if such interference can not be eliminated. If you require assistance, contact your local service facility.
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the condition that this device does not cause harmful interference.
urapnes1 is offline  
post #28 of 43 Old 06-19-2014, 04:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 758 Post(s)
Liked: 1170
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post
You are asking me to detail many years of experience and cable testing in the lab, and I could write thousands of words without answering you completely. I am sure that would go on endlessly, with you criticizing every detail: ad infinitum. I am not going to start that process.
Every lab test I've ever done of 100s both with test equipment and level-matched DBTs shows that just about any reasonable cable has near-perfect frequency response (usually set by the gear at each end of the cable), immeasurably low distortion, and the noise level is more dependent on system grounding than the cable itself.

Unshielded line level cables work equally well as shielded cables in most applications because any noise problems are usually due to grounding, not EMI.

That's what decades of experience with 100s of cables has shown me. What do you have to bring to the discussion but years of inherently flawed sighted listening evaluations?

Balanced is good because it addresses a lot of potential grounding problems with unbalanced cables, but if there are no grounding problems the biggest differences is a doubling of signal levels at the driven component (usually an amp). Most people perceive louder as better and so we have zillions of reports of "clearer sound" when in fact the sound would be the same if levels were matched.
arnyk is online now  
post #29 of 43 Old 06-19-2014, 08:22 AM
 
SAM64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
So you are saying that cable shielding has no merit and is just a marketing ploy?
In a thread about balanced cables, yes, shielding has no merit. The shield is not necessary as common mode noise is rejected by the differential receiver.
There are thousands of miles of unshielded audio cables strung up in telephone poles.
SAM64 is offline  
post #30 of 43 Old 06-19-2014, 08:44 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,135
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
Re-read what I said...I said that the MASSIVE difference was due to the fact that there was no more RF interference coming from the phone. With the interference you could not make out the song...with the interference removed you could...plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
Valid points however I swapped rca's between sources trying to isolate the problem. I found that the problems moved with the cable. That eliminated the bad connection possibility. I even tried putting the bad cable into a different system altogether. Again the problem followed the cable anytime the phone or other Nokia phones of the same era were in 10 feet or so of the cable. Basically I was trying to see how to eliminate the issue without spending any cash. I tried other "free" cables from camcorders and such. When the phones were close by you could hear ticks/pops and the modulation would come back when transmitting or receiving a call. It was always worst whenthe phone was ringing. I had access to higher quality rcas for a short bit, so I put them in place. Problem solved. The old Nokias were 3watt phones.

Except that audio frequencies aren't bothered by radio frequencies. Defective cable? Sure. Bad connection? Sure. RF interference? I don't think so.
FMW is online now  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off