[Greg Grainger]

I well remember the debates about speaker wire. I think the question has
been settled to everyone's satisfaction - zip cord, lamp cord, or other
mass-produced 'common' wire is perfectly acceptable for use as speaker
wire, provided it is of sufficient cross-section.

Now, what about interconnects? I remember debates about this at various
times, but I don't remember any conclusions being arrived at.

Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the signal?

I am talking about tuner-preamp, CD player-preamp, or preamp-power amp,
for example.

For the record, I have a Revox Cd player and tuner, Apt-Holman preamp, and
Bryston 4B power amp.

MAny thanks in advance,
Greg.
--
Greg Grainger grainger(at)vex.net

'What a world of gammon and spinach it is, though, ain't it?'
- Miss Mowcher

[UC]

Greg Grainger wrote:
I well remember the debates about speaker wire. I think the question has
been settled to everyone's satisfaction - zip cord, lamp cord, or other
mass-produced 'common' wire is perfectly acceptable for use as speaker
wire, provided it is of sufficient cross-section.

Now, what about interconnects? I remember debates about this at various
times, but I don't remember any conclusions being arrived at.

Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the signal?

I am talking about tuner-preamp, CD player-preamp, or preamp-power amp,
for example.

For the record, I have a Revox Cd player and tuner, Apt-Holman preamp, and
Bryston 4B power amp.

MAny thanks in advance,
Greg.
--
Greg Grainger

We have discussed this to death and resurrecting it is not a good use
of our time. Suffice it to say that some people are persuaded that
there are audible differences, whereas others are not. I am in the
former camp, but do not wish to engage in a long controversy.

[jwvm]

Actually, nearly everyone would agree that zip cord is not suitable for
line-level signals. Shielded cable is really important for this type of
signal. The real debate is whether or not there is any advantage to
expensive ($20) cables. From an engineering standpoint, there is no
reason why inexpensive cables should not work as well as expensive
cables. Using moderately priced cables that are more rugged than the
freebies that come with audio gear may improve reliability a bit and
reduce noise in some situations if they are really tight. The downside
is that they can grip so tightly (Monster RCA connectors for example)
that jacks may be damaged when unplugging.

On Nov 19, 1:37 pm, "UC" wrote:
Greg Grainger wrote:
I well remember the debates about speaker wire. I think the question has
been settled to everyone's satisfaction - zip cord, lamp cord, or other
mass-produced 'common' wire is perfectly acceptable for use as speaker
wire, provided it is of sufficient cross-section.

Now, what about interconnects? I remember debates about this at various
times, but I don't remember any conclusions being arrived at.

Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the signal?

I am talking about tuner-preamp, CD player-preamp, or preamp-power amp,
for example.

For the record, I have a Revox Cd player and tuner, Apt-Holman preamp, and
Bryston 4B power amp.

MAny thanks in advance,
Greg.
--
Greg GraingerWe have discussed this to death and resurrecting it is not a good use
of our time. Suffice it to say that some people are persuaded that
there are audible differences, whereas others are not. I am in the
former camp, but do not wish to engage in a long controversy.

[ScottW]

"Greg Grainger" wrote in message
...
I well remember the debates about speaker wire. I think the question has
been settled to everyone's satisfaction - zip cord, lamp cord, or other
mass-produced 'common' wire is perfectly acceptable for use as speaker
wire, provided it is of sufficient cross-section.

Now, what about interconnects? I remember debates about this at various
times, but I don't remember any conclusions being arrived at.

That would be because source components and pre-amps offer a much
varying ability to drive loads.
People may argue that amps also have varying ability to drive speaker
loads and that is true...but all things are relative and the impact of
speaker cable on the output characteristics of an amp as measured
at the speaker terminals is almost always insignificant. (Never say never)

This may not be quite the case with interconnects depending on
source and load characteristics. That being said...
zip cord in very short lengths will probably work depending on your
environment. Interconnects also should not pick up noise
and your average zip cord won't do much for shielding.

Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the signal?

Measurably or audibly?

Measurably...probably not, audibly...maybe..
Though I'm a bit perplexed as to why one would bother.
If you're going to make your own interconnect....it won't cost
much to do it so there is no doubt AFAIAC.

ScottW

[MC]

"Greg Grainger" wrote in message
...
I well remember the debates about speaker wire. I think the question has
been settled to everyone's satisfaction - zip cord, lamp cord, or other
mass-produced 'common' wire is perfectly acceptable for use as speaker
wire, provided it is of sufficient cross-section.

Now, what about interconnects? I remember debates about this at various
times, but I don't remember any conclusions being arrived at.

Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the signal?

I am talking about tuner-preamp, CD player-preamp, or preamp-power amp,
for example.

No. You need shielded (coaxial) cable for that, although at audio
frequencies, the cable impedance doesn't matter the way it does for an
antenna cable.

I would suggest avoiding anything excessively thin or flimsy.

[Walt]

jwvm wrote:

Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the
signal?

Actually, nearly everyone would agree that zip cord is not suitable for
line-level signals. Shielded cable is really important for this type of
signal.

There are circumstances where you can get away with running line level
signals through zipcord, but a shielded configuration is preferred for
it's additional immunity from interference. I don't think you'll find
anyone who advocates zipcord as a standard practice for line level
interconnects (it would be a disaster for phono level). And since
shielded interconnects are readily available, there is no reason to go
out of your way to build an interconnect out of zipcord.

The real debate is whether or not there is any advantage to
expensive ($20) cables. From an engineering standpoint, there is no
reason why inexpensive cables should not work as well as expensive
cables. Using moderately priced cables that are more rugged than the
freebies that come with audio gear may improve reliability a bit and
reduce noise in some situations if they are really tight.

Agreed.

//Walt

[---MIKE---]

Not all line level cords are shielded. Kimber cables for example are
twisted rather than shielded.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Stephan Gipp]

All,

Now, what about interconnects? I remember debates about this at various
times, but I don't remember any conclusions being arrived at.

Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the signal?
nks in advance,
Greg.
I am talking about tuner-preamp, CD player-preamp, or preamp-power amp,
for example.

What is the opinion of the group about RCA vs. XLR? And I don't mean
over hundreds of feet, just the 'normal' 3-6 between components.

Stephan

[Harry Lavo]

"Stephan Gipp" wrote in message
...
All,

Now, what about interconnects? I remember debates about this at various
times, but I don't remember any conclusions being arrived at.

Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the signal?
nks in advance,
Greg. I am talking about tuner-preamp, CD player-preamp, or preamp-power
amp, for example.

What is the opinion of the group about RCA vs. XLR? And I don't mean over
hundreds of feet, just the 'normal' 3-6 between components.

It rarely makes a difference in home audio gear. Certainly bucks hum
better; has the potential to lower noise but from very low to very, very low
so it rarely matters much. Can change and affect impedance matching, but
usually XLR is optimized for XLR, and singe-ended for single-ended, so again
this rarely matters. About the most difference I have seen is in
Stereophiles current review of the ARC Reference 3 preamp, which has clearly
been optimized for use with its Reference Amp inputs using XLR.

I have found a short piece of inexpensive balanced mic cable to be a
slightly better run between my DTI Pro and Proceed PDP dac, than either coax
or optical. But that is a digital transfer, not analog.

[Walt]

Stephan Gipp wrote:

What is the opinion of the group about RCA vs. XLR?

XLR is far more reliable, and allows the option of balanced operation
and all the benefits that entails. For any kind of portable system or
where you do a lot of plugging and replugging, the reliability diference
is huge. For a home stereo where you typically don't repatch more than
once a month (if that often) it's not such a crucial criteria.

I don't bother to change out the connectors on my home system. For pro
use, I *strongly* prefer balanced XLR wherever possible, and am willing
to pay extra for the additional reliability.

The downside of XLR with unbalanced gear is that there are many ways to
wire it and no standard that everybody follows. Pin 2 hot? Pin 3 hot?
Tie the unused pin to ground at one end or leave it to float? etc etc.

Plus, changing out the connectors usually voids your warranty.

As for audible differences, as long as the connection is solid and you
don't have any grounding or interference issues, I have not observed
any, and would be skeptical of anyone who claims they have.

//Walt

[Here in Ohio]

On 21 Nov 2006 15:41:18 GMT, Stephan Gipp
wrote:

All,

Now, what about interconnects? I remember debates about this at various
times, but I don't remember any conclusions being arrived at.

Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the signal?
nks in advance,
Greg.
I am talking about tuner-preamp, CD player-preamp, or preamp-power amp,
for example.

What is the opinion of the group about RCA vs. XLR? And I don't mean
over hundreds of feet, just the 'normal' 3-6 between components.


I don't see that the extra expense involved with balanced (XLR) is
worthwhile for a normal stereo system with short runs between
components.

[Here in Ohio]

On 21 Nov 2006 15:40:59 GMT, (---MIKE---)
wrote:

Not all line level cords are shielded. Kimber cables for example are
twisted rather than shielded.

I prefer shielded cable. I don't see that any claimed advantage to
unshielded RCA cables is worth the large disadvantage of not having
any shielding.

It's almost guaranteed that there will be plenty of stray radiation in
most people's homes and you want to keep that out of your stereo as
much as possible. $2 shielded RCA cables do that just fine.

[MC]

"Stephan Gipp" wrote in message
...

What is the opinion of the group about RCA vs. XLR? And I don't mean over
hundreds of feet, just the 'normal' 3-6 between components.

If I wanted a better alternative to the RCA connector, I'd use BNC
connectors. But I've never seen them on audio gear.

A lot of these problems about cables, connectors, etc., have been solved by
the video and RF folks (who require bandwidths of MHz instead of kHz) but
the solutions have never come into wide use with audio.

[MC]

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
Not all line level cords are shielded. Kimber cables for example are
twisted rather than shielded.

That's the older (pre-WWII) technology. Do they claim any advantage for it?
I can't see how it could possibly do anything other than pick up *more*
interference than a shielded cable.

Now twisted inside a shield might be worth doing...

[Andrew Haley]

Walt writes:
Stephan Gipp wrote:

What is the opinion of the group about RCA vs. XLR?

XLR is far more reliable, and allows the option of balanced operation
and all the benefits that entails. For any kind of portable system or
where you do a lot of plugging and replugging, the reliability diference
is huge. For a home stereo where you typically don't repatch more than
once a month (if that often) it's not such a crucial criteria.

As John Watkinson put it, "[In the context of AES/EBU interconnects],
whilst the XLR connector was never designed to have constant impedance
in the megahertz range, it is capable of towing an outside broadcast
vehicle without unlatching." [1]

There, that's the *real* advantage. :-)

Andrew.

[1] Watkinson, John, 1994: The Art of Digital Audio (Oxford: Focal Press). p357.

[Here in Ohio]

On 22 Nov 2006 16:12:26 GMT, "MC" wrote:

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
Not all line level cords are shielded. Kimber cables for example are
twisted rather than shielded.

That's the older (pre-WWII) technology. Do they claim any advantage for it?
I can't see how it could possibly do anything other than pick up *more*
interference than a shielded cable.

Now twisted inside a shield might be worth doing...

You can get any number of cables from places like Belden with that
kind of construction.

[MC]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

I have found a short piece of inexpensive balanced mic cable to be a
slightly better run between my DTI Pro and Proceed PDP dac, than either
coax
or optical. But that is a digital transfer, not analog.

The quality of the cable affects a digital signal? How? What kind of data
link is this?

[Harry Lavo]

"MC" wrote in message ...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

I have found a short piece of inexpensive balanced mic cable to be a
slightly better run between my DTI Pro and Proceed PDP dac, than either
coax
or optical. But that is a digital transfer, not analog.

The quality of the cable affects a digital signal? How? What kind of
data
link is this?

You want to find out? Put an ordinary interconnect between the digital out
on your CD player or transport and most any DAC, except perhaps for a few of
the best. You'll here it.

My particular DAC, and early Proceed PDP was not very good at handling
incoming jitter, so it was very cable sensitive. I could hear a slight
diffrence between RCA coax input even with a decent, moderate cost Monster
digital cable, and the balanced cable, mostly a more "natural" sound with
lower noise floor (subjectively). So I used it, and still do.

[MC]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"MC" wrote in message ...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

I have found a short piece of inexpensive balanced mic cable to be a
slightly better run between my DTI Pro and Proceed PDP dac, than either
coax
or optical. But that is a digital transfer, not analog.

The quality of the cable affects a digital signal? How? What kind of
data
link is this?

You want to find out? Put an ordinary interconnect between the digital
out
on your CD player or transport and most any DAC, except perhaps for a few
of
the best. You'll here it.

What is the nature of the change in the digital signal?

[Harry Lavo]

"MC" wrote in message ...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"MC" wrote in message ...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

I have found a short piece of inexpensive balanced mic cable to be a
slightly better run between my DTI Pro and Proceed PDP dac, than either
coax
or optical. But that is a digital transfer, not analog.

The quality of the cable affects a digital signal? How? What kind of
data
link is this?

You want to find out? Put an ordinary interconnect between the digital
out
on your CD player or transport and most any DAC, except perhaps for a few
of
the best. You'll here it.

What is the nature of the change in the digital signal?

When I substituted ordinary cable for digital cable, creating an impedance
mismatch, the bass became overemphasized and the treble rolled off. You can
say...can't happen...I say try it. I experimented enough that I know beyond
doubt that that was the effect. I could hear much more subtle effects with
that processor between a digital cable and balanced. Since I have been told
that that processor was notoriously bad in dealing with incoming jitter, I
expect that is what made the difference. In the case of the connection
between my DAT and my DTI Pro, it doesn't seem to matter at all. I'm sure
in a better, more up-to-date DAC the differences are minimum, if they exist
at all. Still, it is worthwhile experimenting if you are curious.

[Andy]

Now, I'm not an audio expert, but I am a computer expert.

Your cables for Ethernet are not shielded at all, just twisted, and
there's 8 seperate wires in Ethernet. Two straight wires are an
antenna; a twisted pair is not.

There's really no reason to shield a twisted pair.. it works for
computers, and they are much more sensitive to noise on the line than
your stereo.

MC wrote:
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
Not all line level cords are shielded. Kimber cables for example are
twisted rather than shielded.

That's the older (pre-WWII) technology. Do they claim any advantage for it?
I can't see how it could possibly do anything other than pick up *more*
interference than a shielded cable.

Now twisted inside a shield might be worth doing...

[Chung]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"MC" wrote in message ...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"MC" wrote in message ...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

I have found a short piece of inexpensive balanced mic cable to be a
slightly better run between my DTI Pro and Proceed PDP dac, than either
coax
or optical. But that is a digital transfer, not analog.
The quality of the cable affects a digital signal? How? What kind of
data
link is this?
You want to find out? Put an ordinary interconnect between the digital
out
on your CD player or transport and most any DAC, except perhaps for a few
of
the best. You'll here it.
What is the nature of the change in the digital signal?

When I substituted ordinary cable for digital cable, creating an impedance
mismatch, the bass became overemphasized and the treble rolled off.

Well, assuming you are talking about the single-ended digital coax
connection here, an ordinary *audio* coax cable, which is not
recommended for this purpose, is actually fairly close to the 75 ohms
specified. Or one can simply use those ordinary video cables (those with
the yellow-colored connector) that are often freebies. Those are the
correct cables to use. In any case, using balanced cables for the
single-ended coax connection IS creating a mismatch. Is that what you
are doing?

I never heard that jitter causes bass to be overly emphasized and treble
rolled off. Care to provide a source for that theory?

If the DAC is designed so poorly that the cable used makes a difference
in jitter, don't you think that the rest of the DAC may also be badly
designed?

You can
say...can't happen...I say try it. I experimented enough that I know beyond
doubt that that was the effect. I could hear much more subtle effects with
that processor between a digital cable and balanced. Since I have been told
that that processor was notoriously bad in dealing with incoming jitter, I
expect that is what made the difference. In the case of the connection
between my DAT and my DTI Pro, it doesn't seem to matter at all. I'm sure
in a better, more up-to-date DAC the differences are minimum, if they exist
at all. Still, it is worthwhile experimenting if you are curious.

That seems to go against what you said earlier: "Put an ordinary
interconnect between the digital out on your CD player or transport and
most any DAC, except perhaps for a few of the best. You'll here(sic) it."

[[email protected]]

Chung wrote:

I never heard that jitter causes bass to be overly emphasized and treble
rolled off. Care to provide a source for that theory?

What does audible colorations caused by jitter sound like? Or at least
what have you "heard" it is supposed to sound like?

Scott

[jwvm]

On Nov 25, 10:59 am, "Andy" wrote:
Now, I'm not an audio expert, but I am a computer expert.

Your cables for Ethernet are not shielded at all, just twisted, and
there's 8 seperate wires in Ethernet. Two straight wires are an
antenna; a twisted pair is not.

There's really no reason to shield a twisted pair.. it works for
computers, and they are much more sensitive to noise on the line than

Sorry Andy but what you say is not true. Digital logic circuits have
noise margins on the order of a volt or so. Signals for twisted pair
will be balanced which provides substantially more noise rejection. A
line level audio signal is on the order of a volt and unbalanced so
noise of just a few tens of millivolts can be very obvious during quiet
passages. Ideally, common-mode interference would be completely
canceled by balanced input circuitry but real-world balanced circuits
due not have an infinite common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR) so noise
can still corrupt a signal. Most consumer audio gear does not have
balanced inputs so noise reduction will be considerably worse. Under
some conditions, such as having a low-impedance signal source like a CD
player and relatively short cables, twisted pair may work
satisfactorily but this is not a robust solution. BTW, professional
microphone cable is shielded twisted pair and signal sources have
impedances on the order of a few hundred ohms to reduce noise further.

[Chung]

Jitter distortion muddies up the sound. Jitter is a form of FM
distortion similar in principle to wow-and-flutter, except the magnitude
and the modulating frequencies are obviously different. People often
describe excessive jitter as a muddying of the sound. Low level details
are lost. But you can try listening yourself. Arny's PCABX website has
clips with various amounts of jitter. The one thing that jitter does not
do is alter the frequency response, like adding bass and reducing
treble, as Mr Lavo suggested. Also, for jitter to be audible, it has to
be really bad. That DAC has to be really poorly designed to have audible
jitter distortion.

wrote:
Chung wrote:

I never heard that jitter causes bass to be overly emphasized and treble
rolled off. Care to provide a source for that theory?

What does audible colorations caused by jitter sound like? Or at least
what have you "heard" it is supposed to sound like?

Scott

[[email protected]]

Chung wrote:
Jitter distortion muddies up the sound. Jitter is a form of FM
distortion similar in principle to wow-and-flutter, except the magnitude
and the modulating frequencies are obviously different. People often
describe excessive jitter as a muddying of the sound. Low level details
are lost.

OK yeah that does seem substantially different than excessive bass and
rolled treble. Thanks.

But you can try listening yourself. Arny's PCABX website has
clips with various amounts of jitter.

Not sure it would be very useful. I don't have anything attatched to
the computer that would be in any way revealing. But thanks again for
your description of the sonic characteristics of jitter.

Scott

[Harry Lavo]

wrote:
Chung wrote:

I never heard that jitter causes bass to be overly emphasized and treble
rolled off. Care to provide a source for that theory?

What does audible colorations caused by jitter sound like? Or at least
what have you "heard" it is supposed to sound like?

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Jitter distortion muddies up the sound. Jitter is a form of FM distortion
similar in principle to wow-and-flutter, except the magnitude and the
modulating frequencies are obviously different. People often describe
excessive jitter as a muddying of the sound. Low level details are lost.
But you can try listening yourself. Arny's PCABX website has clips with
various amounts of jitter. The one thing that jitter does not do is alter
the frequency response, like adding bass and reducing treble, as Mr Lavo
suggested. Also, for jitter to be audible, it has to be really bad. That
DAC has to be really poorly designed to have audible jitter distortion.

Well, perhaps it has something to do with the cable that I used being a
Monster 1000ii, with its different three sized wires. Perhaps their were
differential effects, I don't know.

To the degree I have heard jitter with digital cables, it adds a "greyness"
or "scuzz" overtop of the sound...as you say obscuring detail.

Nonetheless, I heard what I heard, and changing out to a digital cable
changed the frequency balance to a neutral response, and changing back to
the 1000ii changed it back..done many times and with many different cd's
playing...and the difference was not subtle. If you want to say I am
wrong....find a Phillips 880 and a Proceed PDP and hook up a Monster 1000ii
interconnect between them. Until then, it will have to remain a mystery.

[BEAR]

---MIKE--- wrote:

Not all line level cords are shielded. Kimber cables for example are
twisted rather than shielded.

---MIKE---

In the White Mountains of New Hampshire

(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')


They're not twisted.

They are braided.

There is a difference there.

One advantage is significantly lower capacitance per foot - presuming
the braid is like the one Kimber or that Bear Labs uses... :-)

In some cases, and in some applications the addition of or use of a
shield is certainly beneficial and may be mandatory.

_-_-bear

[Chung]

wrote:
Chung wrote:
Jitter distortion muddies up the sound. Jitter is a form of FM
distortion similar in principle to wow-and-flutter, except the magnitude
and the modulating frequencies are obviously different. People often
describe excessive jitter as a muddying of the sound. Low level details
are lost.

OK yeah that does seem substantially different than excessive bass and
rolled treble. Thanks.

But you can try listening yourself. Arny's PCABX website has
clips with various amounts of jitter.

Not sure it would be very useful. I don't have anything attatched to
the computer that would be in any way revealing. But thanks again for
your description of the sonic characteristics of jitter.

Scott

I use my iPod. Certainly you can burn a CD containing those signals and
listen for yourself.

[Chung]

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote:
Chung wrote:

I never heard that jitter causes bass to be overly emphasized and treble
rolled off. Care to provide a source for that theory?

What does audible colorations caused by jitter sound like? Or at least
what have you "heard" it is supposed to sound like?

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Jitter distortion muddies up the sound. Jitter is a form of FM distortion
similar in principle to wow-and-flutter, except the magnitude and the
modulating frequencies are obviously different. People often describe
excessive jitter as a muddying of the sound. Low level details are lost.
But you can try listening yourself. Arny's PCABX website has clips with
various amounts of jitter. The one thing that jitter does not do is alter
the frequency response, like adding bass and reducing treble, as Mr Lavo
suggested. Also, for jitter to be audible, it has to be really bad. That
DAC has to be really poorly designed to have audible jitter distortion.

Well, perhaps it has something to do with the cable that I used being a
Monster 1000ii, with its different three sized wires. Perhaps their were
differential effects, I don't know.

No, there can't be any differential effects in a cable carrying a
digital signal that result in a frequency response error.

To the degree I have heard jitter with digital cables, it adds a "greyness"
or "scuzz" overtop of the sound...as you say obscuring detail.

It has to be really bad. Or rather, the designer of the DAC has to be
really clueless.


Nonetheless, I heard what I heard, and changing out to a digital cable
changed the frequency balance to a neutral response, and changing back to
the 1000ii changed it back..done many times and with many different cd's
playing...and the difference was not subtle. If you want to say I am
wrong....find a Phillips 880 and a Proceed PDP and hook up a Monster 1000ii
interconnect between them. Until then, it will have to remain a mystery.

It's really not a mystery, at least not to me. For the frequency
response to change, there have to be massive differences in the data
received. The DAC will lose lock, and all hell will break lose, before
the frequency response can change. Think about it. The data received
have to be grossly different!

[MC]

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Nonetheless, I heard what I heard, and changing out to a digital cable
changed the frequency balance to a neutral response, and changing back to
the 1000ii changed it back..done many times and with many different cd's
playing...and the difference was not subtle. If you want to say I am
wrong....find a Phillips 880 and a Proceed PDP and hook up a Monster
1000ii interconnect between them. Until then, it will have to remain a
mystery.

It's really not a mystery, at least not to me. For the frequency response
to change, there have to be massive differences in the data received. The
DAC will lose lock, and all hell will break lose, before the frequency
response can change. Think about it. The data received have to be grossly
different!

Agreed. This is sort of like saying, "The words in my word processor cease
to be misspelled when I put a golden power cable on my PC."

The essence of a digital signal is that there is no such thing as a slight
difference. Things are either exactly the same or definitely different.
Just as there's no such thing as making a slightly sloppy-looking capital A
when you type. You either hit the "A" or you don't.

There are digital audio systems that try to work around fairly serious
defects in communication, and then you get the jitter and other things
people have been discussing. But if a change between brands of relatively
short cable introduces jitter, some digital designer has been massively
incompetent, or the hardware is simply defective and the cable somehow works
around a defect.

In fact, let's pursue this last possibility. The hardware is defective,
plain and simple. For example, if a digital signal is *way* too weak, you
can get a situation where some brands of cable work and others don't,
because one of them introduces just enough additional loss for communication
to break down. But that can only happen when communication is on the verge
of breaking down because of a severe hardware problem, i.e., nowhere near
working the way it was designed to.

[pj]

Many years ago (early 80's) when Central Florida had a nice audio club, I
remember a meeting in which we had a:b comparisons of many different exotic
interconnects. Believe it or not, a very inexpendive set of home-made
interconnets were either the best or might have been the second best, and
certainly considerably better than a lot of the very expensice ones we
heard.

The cable was made from the higher quality Radio Shack 300 ohm antenna wire
(the flat stuff) that had white foam dielectric (teflon I seem to recall)
....not the cheap wire with no foam! There is no shielding on this wire so
if you get a lot of RF interference in your area, this might not work well
for you. I think there used to be a shielded version of the antenna wire,
but it didn't sound quite as good as the unshielded version (but still
pretty good).

I have no idea whether this wire is still available but if it is, it is
certainly worth a try. It looks funny, but who cares.

"Greg Grainger" wrote in message
...
I well remember the debates about speaker wire. I think the question has
been settled to everyone's satisfaction - zip cord, lamp cord, or other
mass-produced 'common' wire is perfectly acceptable for use as speaker
wire, provided it is of sufficient cross-section.

Now, what about interconnects? I remember debates about this at various
times, but I don't remember any conclusions being arrived at.

Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the signal?

I am talking about tuner-preamp, CD player-preamp, or preamp-power amp,
for example.

For the record, I have a Revox Cd player and tuner, Apt-Holman preamp, and
Bryston 4B power amp.

MAny thanks in advance,
Greg.
--
Greg Grainger grainger(at)vex.net

'What a world of gammon and spinach it is, though, ain't it?'
- Miss Mowcher

[digital]

.
Earlier this year, I sat down with two different groups of audiophiles, both sets consisting of individuals with deep musical and or audiophile backgrounds.

We spent a long afternoon conducting blind auditions using a pair of Magneplanar 1.6QR loudspeakers, Roksan amplification hardware, a Pioneer transport and Musical Fidelity DAC. Our source material was carefully chosen for fidelity: employing Redbook and SACD recordings of material that we were all intimately familiar with.

The loudspeakers and comfortable seating arrangements were in one room, the audio hardware in the other - with speaker cables running under the door between rooms.

After a great deal of auditioning - we all were damned and determined that we could hear a distinct and easily identifiable difference between RCA cables when we were told which cables were which. Unfortunately as soon as the door closed and we had no way in hell of seeing which cables were in place – none of us were able to identify one cable from another, not even statistically close…

At one point after the main listening sessions were over, members were fooled into thinking that dirt-cheap, “Free in the box” RCAs were in fact $400.00+ ‘high-end’ silver interconnects…

Moral of the story: we, the audiophile community, cannot hear what we think we can hear…

cdnav.com
.

[[email protected]]

Greg Grainger wrote:

Now, what about interconnects? I remember debates about this at various
times, but I don't remember any conclusions being arrived at.
Can I use zip cord as an interconnect cable without degrading the signal?

Short answer is no, you can't get away with unsheilded zip cord for
interconnects. Nor should you accept what people THINK about zip
being perfectly acceptable. This is an experiencial issue, not an
intellectual issue. Use your ears, give some decent speaker wire and
interconnects an audition. (Try just the interconnect difference
first, then speaker wire) If you can't hear a difference, no worries,
you just saved a lot of money. Sadly, you will likely hear the
difference, with the level of quality in your system. Enjoy.