[Les Cargill[_4_]]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWt...ature=youtu.be

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 12/11/2018 9:22 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWt...ature=youtu.be


As I've mentioned before,once upon a time I did a (single)blind
experiment with Monster and several other 'esoteric' brand interconnects
at -10dBV Line level, compared to unscreened coat-hanger wire. I could
not perceive a difference, even wrt noise level. At phono cartridge
level there was noise pickup which would have masked any wire effect.

It was repeated later in a double-blind scenario with the same result.

geoff

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWt...ature=youtu.be

--
Les Cargill

As I've mentioned before, pre 2000, myself and two other recording type found differences in mic cables at Flite Three in Baltimore. GAC-3, Belden (don't recall the number) and EMT (still have a length of it sent to me by Gerry Graham of Gotham sound along with the M71 Gefell mic.

We were simultaneously excited and dismayed. We all agreed on the nature of the differences.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/12/2018 10:03 AM, Ty Ford wrote:

As I've mentioned before, pre 2000, myself and two other recording type found differences in mic cables at Flite Three in Baltimore. GAC-3, Belden (don't recall the number) and EMT (still have a length of it sent to me by Gerry Graham of Gotham sound along with the M71 Gefell mic.

We were simultaneously excited and dismayed. We all agreed on the nature of the differences.

When you throw a mic and preamp into the mix you have too many
interactive variables.

It would be interesting to do a null test on mic cables with a preamp in
line. Even with two channels of the same preamp and same cables it would
be unlikely that you'd get a perfect null, so I'd suggest a test like this:

Test an ordinary cable along side an ordinary cable plus preamp and
learn (or record) the sound with the best null you can get. Then start
substituting boutique cables and lengths of zip cord, whatever, for the
cable between the source and the preamp and listen for differences.

The results will almost certainly differ with a different preamp, and
whether the source is inductive, capacitive, or resistive.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/12/2018 10:03 AM, Ty Ford wrote:

As I've mentioned before, pre 2000, myself and two other recording type
found differences in mic cables at Flite Three in Baltimore. GAC-3,
Belden (don't recall the number) and EMT (still have a length of it sent
to me by Gerry Graham of Gotham sound along with the M71 Gefell mic.

We were simultaneously excited and dismayed. We all agreed on the nature
of the differences.

When you throw a mic and preamp into the mix you have too many
interactive variables.

It would be interesting to do a null test on mic cables with a preamp in
line. Even with two channels of the same preamp and same cables it would
be unlikely that you'd get a perfect null, so I'd suggest a test like this:

Test an ordinary cable along side an ordinary cable plus preamp and
learn (or record) the sound with the best null you can get. Then start
substituting boutique cables and lengths of zip cord, whatever, for the
cable between the source and the preamp and listen for differences.

The results will almost certainly differ with a different preamp, and
whether the source is inductive, capacitive, or resistive.


The one thing that wasn't discussed in Ethan's video was source impedance.
I seem to recall there being an adjustment on one of his boxes for
impedance, but he didn't spin that dial during the tests. If your source
impedance is low enough, wire should just be wire. However if both source
and load impedances are very high, then differences in the shunt parasitic
elements of the cable might be audible (guitar cables). Similarly, if your
load impedance is very low, then series parasitical may cause audible
effects (ie: trying to run a 2 ohm cabinet via 200' of Cat 5).

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 19:32:01 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/12/2018 10:03 AM, Ty Ford wrote:

As I've mentioned before, pre 2000, myself and two other recording type
found differences in mic cables at Flite Three in Baltimore. GAC-3,
Belden (don't recall the number) and EMT (still have a length of it sent
to me by Gerry Graham of Gotham sound along with the M71 Gefell mic.

We were simultaneously excited and dismayed. We all agreed on the nature
of the differences.

When you throw a mic and preamp into the mix you have too many
interactive variables.

It would be interesting to do a null test on mic cables with a preamp in
line. Even with two channels of the same preamp and same cables it would
be unlikely that you'd get a perfect null, so I'd suggest a test like this:

Test an ordinary cable along side an ordinary cable plus preamp and
learn (or record) the sound with the best null you can get. Then start
substituting boutique cables and lengths of zip cord, whatever, for the
cable between the source and the preamp and listen for differences.

The results will almost certainly differ with a different preamp, and
whether the source is inductive, capacitive, or resistive.


The one thing that wasn't discussed in Ethan's video was source impedance.
I seem to recall there being an adjustment on one of his boxes for
impedance, but he didn't spin that dial during the tests. If your source
impedance is low enough, wire should just be wire. However if both source
and load impedances are very high, then differences in the shunt parasitic
elements of the cable might be audible (guitar cables). Similarly, if your
load impedance is very low, then series parasitical may cause audible
effects (ie: trying to run a 2 ohm cabinet via 200' of Cat 5).

Wire is just wire when source impedance, load impedance and wire
impedance are the same. Any other condition, the length of the wire
will introduce frequency response errors.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/12/2018 2:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Wire is just wire when source impedance, load impedance and wire
impedance are the same. Any other condition, the length of the wire
will introduce frequency response errors.

This is true, because you're eliminating a standing wave, and an
important consideration at radio frequencies. But at audio frequencies
and normal studio cable lengths, the effect is so small as to be
negligible. The phone company still needs equalizers to correct for
mismatches when dealing with long line (and that's where we got
equalizers in the studio from).


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 13/11/2018 4:03 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWt...ature=youtu.be

--
Les Cargill

As I've mentioned before, pre 2000, myself and two other recording type found differences in mic cables at Flite Three in Baltimore. GAC-3, Belden (don't recall the number) and EMT (still have a length of it sent to me by Gerry Graham of Gotham sound along with the M71 Gefell mic.

We were simultaneously excited and dismayed. We all agreed on the nature of the differences.

Regards,

Ty Ford


Differences greater than the influence of moving your head more that a
short distance ?

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 4:22:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/12/2018 2:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Wire is just wire when source impedance, load impedance and wire
impedance are the same. Any other condition, the length of the wire
will introduce frequency response errors.





Even at RF frequencies, only ONE end (either end) needs to be properly matched to Zo and the reflection will be absorbed and there will be no frequency response issues (other than the inherent loss of the cable increasing with frequency).

I agree, at audio frequencies and practical lengths, the R is the only issue.

mark

[geoff]

On 13/11/2018 8:32 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
..


The one thing that wasn't discussed in Ethan's video was source impedance.
I seem to recall there being an adjustment on one of his boxes for
impedance, but he didn't spin that dial during the tests. If your source
impedance is low enough, wire should just be wire. However if both source
and load impedances are very high, then differences in the shunt parasitic
elements of the cable might be audible (guitar cables). Similarly, if your
load impedance is very low, then series parasitical may cause audible
effects (ie: trying to run a 2 ohm cabinet via 200' of Cat 5).


Maybe that was thought to be too obvious to bother mentioning !

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:54:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 4:22:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/12/2018 2:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Wire is just wire when source impedance, load impedance and wire
impedance are the same. Any other condition, the length of the wire
will introduce frequency response errors.





Even at RF frequencies, only ONE end (either end) needs to be properly matched to Zo and the reflection will be absorbed and there will be no frequency response issues (other than the inherent loss of the cable increasing with frequency).

I agree, at audio frequencies and practical lengths, the R is the only issue.

mark

It has to be the load end that is matched otherwise there will be
standing waves. A mismatch at the source end alone will result in
overall level error. Actually it is still in theory a standing wave,
but it is one from a zero length line, so it just looks like a
broadband incorrect impedance.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[geoff]

On 13/11/2018 10:54 AM, wrote:
On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 4:22:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/12/2018 2:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Wire is just wire when source impedance, load impedance and wire
impedance are the same. Any other condition, the length of the wire
will introduce frequency response errors.





Even at RF frequencies, only ONE end (either end) needs to be properly matched to Zo and the reflection will be absorbed and there will be no frequency response issues (other than the inherent loss of the cable increasing with frequency).

I agree, at audio frequencies and practical lengths, the R is the only issue.

mark


Even up to the frequencies that my Earthworks can reproduce.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

Ralph Barone wrote:

if your
load impedance is very low, then series parasitical may cause audible
effects (ie: trying to run a 2 ohm cabinet viaÂ* 200' of Cat 5).



On 11/12/2018 4:55 PM, geoff wrote:

Maybe that was thought to be too obvious to bother mentioning !

For a while, the audiophools were hawking the benefits of using 300 ohm
twin lead (old school TV antenna cable) as speaker cable. It's about 22
gauge stranded wire. Of course it had to be raised off the floor by
little bridges every six inches, made from a rare crystal mined by
virgins in the Himalayas and carefully carried by yaks to Japan where it
was polished, packaged, and sold through high end audio dealers.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

geoff wrote:
On 13/11/2018 8:32 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
.


The one thing that wasn't discussed in Ethan's video was source impedance.
I seem to recall there being an adjustment on one of his boxes for
impedance, but he didn't spin that dial during the tests. If your source
impedance is low enough, wire should just be wire. However if both source
and load impedances are very high, then differences in the shunt parasitic
elements of the cable might be audible (guitar cables). Similarly, if your
load impedance is very low, then series parasitical may cause audible
effects (ie: trying to run a 2 ohm cabinet via 200' of Cat 5).


Maybe that was thought to be too obvious to bother mentioning !

geoff


Perhaps for Ethan, but since the subliminal message in the video was "all
cables sound the same", it would have done good to shed some light on the
applications where cables can actually sound different.

[geoff]

On 13/11/2018 1:17 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 13/11/2018 8:32 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
.


The one thing that wasn't discussed in Ethan's video was source impedance.
I seem to recall there being an adjustment on one of his boxes for
impedance, but he didn't spin that dial during the tests. If your source
impedance is low enough, wire should just be wire. However if both source
and load impedances are very high, then differences in the shunt parasitic
elements of the cable might be audible (guitar cables). Similarly, if your
load impedance is very low, then series parasitical may cause audible
effects (ie: trying to run a 2 ohm cabinet via 200' of Cat 5).


Maybe that was thought to be too obvious to bother mentioning !

geoff


Perhaps for Ethan, but since the subliminal message in the video was "all
cables sound the same", it would have done good to shed some light on the
applications where cables can actually sound different.



Maybe should have been qualified as "cables of the same type, in the
same application impedance".

Even then, any suitable low capacitance cable used in a high-Z
application such as a passive guitar output to high-Z amp input, the
conclusion would likely have the same result, unless significantly
different shunt capacitance. But that is a separate issue to the wire
itself, and any attached voodoo.

geoff

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

geoff wrote:
On 13/11/2018 1:17 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 13/11/2018 8:32 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
.


The one thing that wasn't discussed in Ethan's video was source impedance.
I seem to recall there being an adjustment on one of his boxes for
impedance, but he didn't spin that dial during the tests. If your source
impedance is low enough, wire should just be wire. However if both source
and load impedances are very high, then differences in the shunt parasitic
elements of the cable might be audible (guitar cables). Similarly, if your
load impedance is very low, then series parasitical may cause audible
effects (ie: trying to run a 2 ohm cabinet via 200' of Cat 5).


Maybe that was thought to be too obvious to bother mentioning !

geoff


Perhaps for Ethan, but since the subliminal message in the video was "all
cables sound the same", it would have done good to shed some light on the
applications where cables can actually sound different.



Maybe should have been qualified as "cables of the same type, in the
same application impedance".

Even then, any suitable low capacitance cable used in a high-Z
application such as a passive guitar output to high-Z amp input, the
conclusion would likely have the same result, unless significantly
different shunt capacitance. But that is a separate issue to the wire
itself, and any attached voodoo.

geoff


Right. And I think that's where Ethan's video may have missed the mark. By
not saying "there ARE applications where use of different cables may result
in different sound, and this is how and why that happens", anyone who has
encountered one of those niche applications may just brush off his good
work by saying "Yeah, well I HEARD it."

[geoff]

On 13/11/2018 3:31 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 13/11/2018 1:17 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 13/11/2018 8:32 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
.


The one thing that wasn't discussed in Ethan's video was source impedance.
I seem to recall there being an adjustment on one of his boxes for
impedance, but he didn't spin that dial during the tests. If your source
impedance is low enough, wire should just be wire. However if both source
and load impedances are very high, then differences in the shunt parasitic
elements of the cable might be audible (guitar cables). Similarly, if your
load impedance is very low, then series parasitical may cause audible
effects (ie: trying to run a 2 ohm cabinet via 200' of Cat 5).


Maybe that was thought to be too obvious to bother mentioning !

geoff


Perhaps for Ethan, but since the subliminal message in the video was "all
cables sound the same", it would have done good to shed some light on the
applications where cables can actually sound different.



Maybe should have been qualified as "cables of the same type, in the
same application impedance".

Even then, any suitable low capacitance cable used in a high-Z
application such as a passive guitar output to high-Z amp input, the
conclusion would likely have the same result, unless significantly
different shunt capacitance. But that is a separate issue to the wire
itself, and any attached voodoo.

geoff


Right. And I think that's where Ethan's video may have missed the mark. By
not saying "there ARE applications where use of different cables may result
in different sound, and this is how and why that happens", anyone who has
encountered one of those niche applications may just brush off his good
work by saying "Yeah, well I HEARD it."



You could call it an 'apples and oranges' thing though. Compare like
with like and the validity (if measured) stands.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 5:01:25 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:54:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 4:22:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/12/2018 2:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Wire is just wire when source impedance, load impedance and wire
impedance are the same. Any other condition, the length of the wire
will introduce frequency response errors.





Even at RF frequencies, only ONE end (either end) needs to be properly matched to Zo and the reflection will be absorbed and there will be no frequency response issues (other than the inherent loss of the cable increasing with frequency).

I agree, at audio frequencies and practical lengths, the R is the only issue.

mark

It has to be the load end that is matched otherwise there will be
standing waves. A mismatch at the source end alone will result in
overall level error. Actually it is still in theory a standing wave,
but it is one from a zero length line, so it just looks like a
broadband incorrect impedance.


It is the common MISconception that the load must be terminated.

If the load end is mismatched, but the source is properly terminated, the reflection will be absorbed by the source. The load will not see any reflections so the response AT THE LOAD will be flat. This is done all the time in digital PWB traces. The signal along the line has standing waves and looks ugly, because there is both the forward and reflected wave present along the line, but AT THE LOAD, where it counts, there is only the incident signal. The reflection is not re-reflected because it is absorbed by the matched source.

Mark

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 06:30:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 5:01:25 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:54:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 4:22:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/12/2018 2:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Wire is just wire when source impedance, load impedance and wire
impedance are the same. Any other condition, the length of the wire
will introduce frequency response errors.





Even at RF frequencies, only ONE end (either end) needs to be properly matched to Zo and the reflection will be absorbed and there will be no frequency response issues (other than the inherent loss of the cable increasing with frequency).

I agree, at audio frequencies and practical lengths, the R is the only issue.

mark

It has to be the load end that is matched otherwise there will be
standing waves. A mismatch at the source end alone will result in
overall level error. Actually it is still in theory a standing wave,
but it is one from a zero length line, so it just looks like a
broadband incorrect impedance.


It is the common MISconception that the load must be terminated.

If the load end is mismatched, but the source is properly terminated, the reflection will be absorbed by the source. The load will not see any reflections so the response AT THE LOAD will be flat. This is done all the time in digital PWB traces. The signal along the line has standing waves and looks ugly, because there is both the forward and reflected wave present along the line, but AT THE LOAD, where it counts, there is only the incident signal. The reflection is not re-reflected because it is absorbed by the matched source.

Mark



I could explain (I'm a microwave engineer, so this is my bread and
butter), but even better, watch this EEVblog video. It explains the
problem, if not quite the mechanism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgxFd97taY&t=797s

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/13/2018 9:30 AM, wrote:
It is the common MISconception that the load must be terminated.

If the load end is mismatched, but the source is properly terminated, the reflection will be absorbed by the source. The load will not see any reflections so the response AT THE LOAD will be flat.

Why are we talking about megahertz and gigahertz in an audio newsgroup?
At audio frequencies and for cable lengths normally used around the
studio (and much less, circuit board traces) reflections and standing
waves in electrical connections are irrelevant.

In a situation where you're transferring power, having the source absorb
the reflected power means you're losing power where you want to go.

Of course standing waves are indeed significant when talking about sound
pressure rather than volts and watts. But let's not try to apply what
Ethan, among others, has taught us about standing waves to the frequency
response in an electrical conductor.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:11:44 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 11/13/2018 9:30 AM, wrote:
It is the common MISconception that the load must be terminated.

If the load end is mismatched, but the source is properly terminated, the reflection will be absorbed by the source. The load will not see any reflections so the response AT THE LOAD will be flat.

Why are we talking about megahertz and gigahertz in an audio newsgroup?
At audio frequencies and for cable lengths normally used around the
studio (and much less, circuit board traces) reflections and standing
waves in electrical connections are irrelevant.

In a situation where you're transferring power, having the source absorb
the reflected power means you're losing power where you want to go.

Of course standing waves are indeed significant when talking about sound
pressure rather than volts and watts. But let's not try to apply what
Ethan, among others, has taught us about standing waves to the frequency
response in an electrical conductor.

Mostly it doesn't matter, but one day someone may find themselves
using extra long cables. And it is never a bad thing to understand
mechanisms beyond one's usual horizon. Think of all those early
transistor amps that oscillated hard at several MHz, and nobody knew
why they were frying tweeters because they were only analysed up to
20kHz.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:11:44 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 11/13/2018 9:30 AM, wrote:
It is the common MISconception that the load must be terminated.

If the load end is mismatched, but the source is properly terminated,
the reflection will be absorbed by the source. The load will not see
any reflections so the response AT THE LOAD will be flat.

Why are we talking about megahertz and gigahertz in an audio newsgroup?
At audio frequencies and for cable lengths normally used around the
studio (and much less, circuit board traces) reflections and standing
waves in electrical connections are irrelevant.

In a situation where you're transferring power, having the source absorb
the reflected power means you're losing power where you want to go.

Of course standing waves are indeed significant when talking about sound
pressure rather than volts and watts. But let's not try to apply what
Ethan, among others, has taught us about standing waves to the frequency
response in an electrical conductor.

Mostly it doesn't matter, but one day someone may find themselves
using extra long cables. And it is never a bad thing to understand
mechanisms beyond one's usual horizon. Think of all those early
transistor amps that oscillated hard at several MHz, and nobody knew
why they were frying tweeters because they were only analysed up to
20kHz.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



If you find yourself using cables "that long", you should be using fibre
optics.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:17:37 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:11:44 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 11/13/2018 9:30 AM, wrote:
It is the common MISconception that the load must be terminated.

If the load end is mismatched, but the source is properly terminated,
the reflection will be absorbed by the source. The load will not see
any reflections so the response AT THE LOAD will be flat.

Why are we talking about megahertz and gigahertz in an audio newsgroup?
At audio frequencies and for cable lengths normally used around the
studio (and much less, circuit board traces) reflections and standing
waves in electrical connections are irrelevant.

In a situation where you're transferring power, having the source absorb
the reflected power means you're losing power where you want to go.

Of course standing waves are indeed significant when talking about sound
pressure rather than volts and watts. But let's not try to apply what
Ethan, among others, has taught us about standing waves to the frequency
response in an electrical conductor.

Mostly it doesn't matter, but one day someone may find themselves
using extra long cables. And it is never a bad thing to understand
mechanisms beyond one's usual horizon. Think of all those early
transistor amps that oscillated hard at several MHz, and nobody knew
why they were frying tweeters because they were only analysed up to
20kHz.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



If you find yourself using cables "that long", you should be using fibre
optics.

The world is full of "shoulds".

d

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:

As I've mentioned before,once upon a time I did a (single)blind
experiment with Monster and several other 'esoteric' brand interconnects
at -10dBV Line level, compared to unscreened coat-hanger wire. I could
not perceive a difference, even wrt noise level. At phono cartridge
level there was noise pickup which would have masked any wire effect.

It was repeated later in a double-blind scenario with the same result.

Gabe Weiner and I did an A/B test between some low voltage lighting cable
(giant zip cord with doubtful dielectric) and MIT interconnects, and there
was a clear difference. He opened up the box on one end of the MIT cable
and found inductors and capacitors in there. So, of course it sounded
different. It was designed to sound different.

There are a lot of cables in the high end home market that specifically have
weird distributed reactance in order to deliberately be used as a tone control.
I am not a fan of this, but it's a thing that people do in the world of
high-Z interconnections.

It is easy to make things sound different. It is much harder to make things
sound better.

I urge people to do null testing, because if you do it in a high impedance
environment you'll hear all kinds of weird stuff, and if you do it in a
low-Z 600 ohm pro audio environment you won't hear anything at all. To my
mind this shows the superiority of the balanced low-Z interface more than
anything else.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford wrote:
As I've mentioned before, pre 2000, myself and two other recording type fou=
nd differences in mic cables at Flite Three in Baltimore. GAC-3, Belden (do=
n't recall the number) and EMT (still have a length of it sent to me by Ger=
ry Graham of Gotham sound along with the M71 Gefell mic.=20

We were simultaneously excited and dismayed. We all agreed on the nature of=
the differences.

With what mike? Again, this has a lot to do with source and load. With a
Collette you shouldn't expect to hear any differences, but with a 77DX into
a preamp set up properly for it you sure will.

And yes, a proper null test will demonstrate it.

The solution? Locate the preamp next to the mike when you're using the 77DX.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:

For a while, the audiophools were hawking the benefits of using 300 ohm
twin lead (old school TV antenna cable) as speaker cable. It's about 22
gauge stranded wire. Of course it had to be raised off the floor by
little bridges every six inches, made from a rare crystal mined by
virgins in the Himalayas and carefully carried by yaks to Japan where it
was polished, packaged, and sold through high end audio dealers.

Okay, this is another issue.

Many people in the high end community are using older loudspeakers that were
designed to be driven by tube power amplifiers with fairly high output
impedance. These speakers are voiced for a source Z of a few ohms. Put them
on a modern power amp, and the low end disappears.

So... people drive them with tiny wire, and they add a lot of source impedance
and reduce the damping, and all of a sudden the speakers sound a lot better.
They could have just stuck a 2 ohm wirewound resistor behind the speaker, but
instead they use funny cable.

Again, these are issues that show up very clearly in a null test! It is
really, really interesting listening to what goes into the cable and what
comes out the other end with an Altec A7, because you can hear how dramatic
the mechanical resonance of that 515 is.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Ralph Barone wrote:
Right. And I think that's where Ethan's video may have missed the mark. By
not saying "there ARE applications where use of different cables may result
in different sound, and this is how and why that happens", anyone who has
encountered one of those niche applications may just brush off his good
work by saying "Yeah, well I HEARD it."

Ethan's video is promoting a method for detecting sonic issues due to cables,
and he is right about it. It's the only good method for that.

Now, he hasn't shown any of the cases where you can use that method to hear
differences, only ones where you can't. But the method is still a good one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 14/11/2018 5:17 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:




If you find yourself using cables "that long", you should be using fibre
optics.



Tried that. My speakers didn't work at all !

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 10:00:31 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 06:30:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 5:01:25 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:54:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 4:22:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/12/2018 2:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Wire is just wire when source impedance, load impedance and wire
impedance are the same. Any other condition, the length of the wire
will introduce frequency response errors.





Even at RF frequencies, only ONE end (either end) needs to be properly matched to Zo and the reflection will be absorbed and there will be no frequency response issues (other than the inherent loss of the cable increasing with frequency).

I agree, at audio frequencies and practical lengths, the R is the only issue.

mark

It has to be the load end that is matched otherwise there will be
standing waves. A mismatch at the source end alone will result in
overall level error. Actually it is still in theory a standing wave,
but it is one from a zero length line, so it just looks like a
broadband incorrect impedance.


It is the common MISconception that the load must be terminated.

If the load end is mismatched, but the source is properly terminated, the reflection will be absorbed by the source. The load will not see any reflections so the response AT THE LOAD will be flat. This is done all the time in digital PWB traces. The signal along the line has standing waves and looks ugly, because there is both the forward and reflected wave present along the line, but AT THE LOAD, where it counts, there is only the incident signal. The reflection is not re-reflected because it is absorbed by the matched source.

Mark



I could explain (I'm a microwave engineer, so this is my bread and
butter), but even better, watch this EEVblog video. It explains the
problem, if not quite the mechanism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgxFd97taY&t=797s

d





Double termination is the common practice in microwave and RF systems.
Single termination on the load side or single source termination works as well and is very commonly used for digital signals.

look up series or source termination.
for example https://www.ultracad.com/mentor/ment...0placement.pdf

and again I agree, none of this is an issue for audio.
m

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/13/2018 2:10 PM, geoff wrote:
If you find yourself using cables "that long", you should be using fibre
optics.

Tried that. My speakers didn't work at all !

You must have put the amplifier at the wrong end of the fiber optic cable.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 14/11/2018 9:20 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/13/2018 2:10 PM, geoff wrote:
If you find yourself using cables "that long", you should be using fibre
optics.

Tried that. My speakers didn't work at all !

You must have put the amplifier at the wrong end of the fiber optic cable.



No, I turned the cable around so the arrow was in the other direction
and still no sound ;-/

Maybe the laser diode in my CD player was the wrong wavelength, or the
bandwidth of my power amp was insufficient ....

geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Ralph Barone wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/12/2018 10:03 AM, Ty Ford wrote:

As I've mentioned before, pre 2000, myself and two other recording type
found differences in mic cables at Flite Three in Baltimore. GAC-3,
Belden (don't recall the number) and EMT (still have a length of it sent
to me by Gerry Graham of Gotham sound along with the M71 Gefell mic.

We were simultaneously excited and dismayed. We all agreed on the nature
of the differences.

When you throw a mic and preamp into the mix you have too many
interactive variables.

It would be interesting to do a null test on mic cables with a preamp in
line. Even with two channels of the same preamp and same cables it would
be unlikely that you'd get a perfect null, so I'd suggest a test like this:

Test an ordinary cable along side an ordinary cable plus preamp and
learn (or record) the sound with the best null you can get. Then start
substituting boutique cables and lengths of zip cord, whatever, for the
cable between the source and the preamp and listen for differences.

The results will almost certainly differ with a different preamp, and
whether the source is inductive, capacitive, or resistive.


The one thing that wasn't discussed in Ethan's video was source impedance.

It rather was discussed - most sources these days are pretty lo-Z.
Anything with an RCA almost certainly will be.

I seem to recall there being an adjustment on one of his boxes for
impedance, but he didn't spin that dial during the tests. If your source
impedance is low enough, wire should just be wire. However if both source
and load impedances are very high, then differences in the shunt parasitic
elements of the cable might be audible (guitar cables).

They might be and they might not be. If it matters, buffer it or
select cables more carefully. The worst case is some sort of peizo
and there are several good DI solutions for that.

A lot of people like GeorgeL cables but I can't tell the difference
myself in practice.

Similarly, if your
load impedance is very low, then series parasitical may cause audible
effects (ie: trying to run a 2 ohm cabinet via 200' of Cat 5).


Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do that....

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Ty Ford wrote:
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWt...ature=youtu.be

--
Les Cargill

As I've mentioned before, pre 2000, myself and two other recording type found differences in mic cables at Flite Three in Baltimore. GAC-3, Belden (don't recall the number) and EMT (still have a length of it sent to me by Gerry Graham of Gotham sound along with the M71 Gefell mic.

We were simultaneously excited and dismayed. We all agreed on the nature of the differences.

Regards,

Ty Ford


Was this with a ribbon mic?

That makes me think that something like a Cloudlifter or other
buffer might be a good idea. There are even inline preamps that run off
phantom these days. One's by sE - the sE DM1.

--
Les Cargill

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 7:34:33 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWt...ature=youtu.be

--
Les Cargill

As I've mentioned before, pre 2000, myself and two other recording type found differences in mic cables at Flite Three in Baltimore. GAC-3, Belden (don't recall the number) and EMT (still have a length of it sent to me by Gerry Graham of Gotham sound along with the M71 Gefell mic.

We were simultaneously excited and dismayed. We all agreed on the nature of the differences.

Regards,

Ty Ford


Was this with a ribbon mic?

That makes me think that something like a Cloudlifter or other
buffer might be a good idea. There are even inline preamps that run off
phantom these days. One's by sE - the sE DM1.

No. A U87 and possibly a C414.

Regards,

Ty Ford