Need your opinion on Blue jeans LC-1 stereo interconnect

[shanmune]

I have the BJ LC-1, purchased it a few years back. It sounds bolder, more upfront and louder than the Nordost Blue Heaven, but over extended listening I realized it does not provide the more delicate and nuanced presentation of the Nordost. So I use it for my DVD player instead. But given the rest of your chain it fits in perfectly art the price point.

G0bble

These are much cheaper and good cable too but not equal to Nordost.. High end Audio Interconnects cables - Imported cable - Chennai - Home Appliances - Electronics

This is not my advt...

BJ IC cable -

Big bass, bold dynamics, reduced details, reduced nuances.
If you like a big rounded off sound, you will like it.
If you have a system sounding thin and anemic, this cable will help improve.

While I am waiting for BJ LC-1 interconnects to arrive, I was looking at the technical details (electrical characteristics) of some of the other brands like Nordost, Chord, etc. Being a novice, the idea is to understand what the interconnects do in changing the sound signature. Thad has also pointed out that cables are not meant to be "Tone controls". At the same time, I can see from the above posts that interconnects do make some difference.

I went through many articles trying to know the role of the interconnects. Based on those reading, what I have understood are these points :-

1. A decent interconnect with proper LCR (Inductance, capacitance, Resistance) values should be more than enough for a very good performance. When I say "very good performance", it indicates that the interconnect is transparent with very minimal alteration to the audio signal. The other important thing is the shielding. Rest of the parameters are irrelevant..

Also, I understood that the capacitance is the most important thing for the interconnects to stay transparent and it should be kept at a minimal value.

Based on the above understanding, I looked at the electrical parameters of various interconnects. Except for few, I couldn't find the details. Fortunately, I found the details for Nordost. Interestingly, few of the posts above have clearly indicated that Nordost is better than BJ LC-1.
When I looked at the capacitance value, Nordost Blue heaven has 45 pf/feet, but LC-1 has only 12.2 pf/feet.

Even though LC-1 has a better value for capacitance, I still see Nordost performing better.
Now, I have these questions :-

1) Considering the lower capacitance of LC-1, is it transparent when compared with Nordost ? Is this the transparency which some times make cables sound less pronounced or detailed ?
2) In the context of the above question, is Nordost boosting/altering certain frequencies for the sound to be more pronounced/detailed ?

Some times, I hear people saying that transparency may sound less detailed, but bright/forward sounding cables may sound attractive compared to the former.

I wish not to create another debate, but my curiosity made me to write this post. It will be great if someone gives good technical explanation and correct my understanding. I stress my point here - I just want to learn and that's the motive. I may be wrong in my assumptions/understanding and I am willing to be corrected.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Thad has also pointed out that cables are not meant to be "Tone controls"

Something which you would never hear from cable companies, the usual reviewers, or even quite a few audiophiles .

Now that I have a nice pre-amp sitting on it, I'd love to re-cable my desk-top setup. I honestly would expect any change to be only very subtle but, assuming than it is true that BJ cables are transparent, I would then know that any flavour I hear is the result of the equipment, or what I might have added with EQ. That's the way I'd prefer it to be.

However, the total cost, whilst not even approaching the price that some fancy boutique company might charge for a single piece of wire, would be enough to make me think twice ...and to think what Mrs. G might say about me spending my money on, err, wire. I think she might be far more outspoken than I ever could be!

It's hard to state absolute meaning for audiophile vocabulary. To some, transparent might be the greatest compliment possible. To others, it might imply that their favourite part of the audio spectrum, which they prefer to be emphasised ...isn't. Thus, the bass-head will hear "lacking in bass," the detail-freak will hear, "Not enough highs" and, maybe, the vocals-connoisseur will ask, "what happened to my rich mids?"

At my electonics-dumbo level, I understand (well, not really ) that combinations of resistance and capacitance favour different parts of the audio frequency range, so it seems that a cable can act as a filter. Taking away from one thing can make it sound like another has been added, but can cables add? I doubt it, but I'll jpion you in listening to an engineer's answer, if we get one on the thread, and learning.

 

[gobble]

I don't know what measurement parameter is resulting in the more nuanced presentation of Nordost - but after reading the cable construction technology of Nordost I became a believer in that type of approach - thirty separate (99.99999% - optional) OFC conductors, (plated with silver - optional) in a flat array micro-litz construction, with a dielectric that is mostly AIR using their extruded jacketing technology. In fact I have experienced really excellent sonics with a DIY preamp with a local made cable from SP road - used for internal wiring (compared to many other cables I tried in its place). That one too has very loose jacketing that will let in air inside the surrounding dielectric and is composed of many fine and thin silver coated copper strands that are thinner softer and silkier than the finest hair. One of my pending projects is to learn litz braiding or something similar like Kimber kable uses and make my own DIY RCA using WBT or other quality connectors. The project is planned a few months away though.

In fact I used to think the cable was very shabbily made with its loose jacketing but was bowled over when I actually heard the sonics compared to others. Many other cables also use foam dielectric with air bubbles and different manufactures may achieve similarly good results with different construction, but the key appears to be ultra-thin and fine quality silver plated wires and air as the dielectric. Screw the shielding.


PS: If you are looking at a slightly better than desi budget IC yet a budget IC by global standards, then take a look at AudioArt IC's.
G0bble

 

[jls001]

Some times, I hear people saying that transparency may sound less detailed, but bright/forward sounding cables may sound attractive compared to the former.

Transparency means that the cable does not add any (or least amount of) character of its own. So for example, if it is the connection from the source to the amplifier, this cable will allow the characteristics of the source to show through. It will not add, or add only very little, of its own characteristics. Any audio component can only degrade the signal. This degradation is also known as "character". So saying the cable is transparent means it imparts the least degradation to the audio signal.

 

[shanmune]

...and to think what Mrs. G might say about me spending my money on, err, wire. I think she might be far more outspoken than I ever could be!

I was made to answer so many questions for getting ODAC. I don't know the situation when the cables arrive...

At my electonics-dumbo level, I understand (well, not really ) that combinations of resistance and capacitance favour different parts of the audio frequency range, so it seems that a cable can act as a filter. Taking away from one thing can make it sound like another has been added, but can cables add? I doubt it, but I'll jpion you in listening to an engineer's answer, if we get one on the thread, and learning.

Based on what I read from many articles, it is the capacitance which matters a lot for interconnects. DC resistance effect is negligible for the reason that the input impedance of the amp or pre-amp is very high (in the multiples of 10k ohms) and also the current that flows through those wires is too low (roughly in the range of 1/10000 ampere at max). So the signal attenuation due to pure resistance is almost zero. On the contrary, even some light capacitance can short circuit higher frequency signals. That is, the higher frequency signal from the source sees the capacitance as the shortest path for return (since the path to the amp/pre-amp is the longest path due to high input impedance). For speaker wires, both capacitance and resistance matters a lot.

Regarding your other point on cable adding some thing to certain frequencies - I guess badly designed (or even may be intentionally designed by that way ) interconnects may have higher capacitance and it can do the signal alteration. I think you have gone through the article written by Roger Russel on speaker wires. Though this one is for speaker wires, I am just quoting one small paragraph from that article.

Several speaker wire manufacturers make wire that has high capacitance yet almost none of them publish exactly what the capacitance actually is. Capacitance is of concern not so much that it could cause a possible high frequency rolloff but that it can affect the amplifier feedback and cause the leading edge of transients to overshoot. This in turn can make an audible difference in the system sound. It can make the sound brighter, which some audiophiles mistake as greater detail.

 

[shanmune]

I don't know what measurement parameter is resulting in the more nuanced presentation of Nordost - but after reading the cable construction technology of Nordost I became a believer in that type of approach - thirty separate (99.99999% - optional) OFC conductors, (plated with silver - optional) in a flat array micro-litz construction, with a dielectric that is mostly AIR using their extruded jacketing technology. In fact I have experienced really excellent sonics with a DIY preamp with a local made cable from SP road - used for internal wiring (compared to many other cables I tried in its place). That one too has very loose jacketing that will let in air inside the surrounding dielectric and is composed of many fine and thin silver coated copper strands that are thinner softer and silkier than the finest hair. One of my pending projects is to learn litz braiding or something similar like Kimber kable uses and make my own DIY RCA using WBT or other quality connectors. The project is planned a few months away though.

In fact I used to think the cable was very shabbily made with its loose jacketing but was bowled over when I actually heard the sonics compared to others. Many other cables also use foam dielectric with air bubbles and different manufactures may achieve similarly good results with different construction, but the key appears to be ultra-thin and fine quality silver plated wires and air as the dielectric. Screw the shielding.


PS: If you are looking at a slightly better than desi budget IC yet a budget IC by global standards, then take a look at AudioArt IC's.
G0bble

Thanks for your thoughts. As you said, the ultra-thing silver plated wires might be key. I am trying to understand the significance of silver coated wires. May be to do away with the skin effect caused by the higher frequencies. In another article, I read that the skin effect becomes prominent only in the Mhz range, but our audio frequencies get close to only 20khz. So again, my curiosity has only increased. Another point is the conductivity improvement. Pure silver has 5% more conductivity than a pure copper. Again, in case of silver coated interconnects, silver is present only as an outer coat for each wire and so I am not sure whether we will have that full 5% more conductivity advantage.

When you say that you hear better sound with those silver coated wire interconnects, I can only let off my rational thinking away and start enjoying the music. My only question I have the for the cable manufacturers - Why are they not giving full scientific test measurement data for each and ever design feature they have incorporated into their cables ? For example, which is the parameter that gets improved for silver coating and what is the measured data for that improvement ?
In the cable manufacturers provide such data, then there will be no war on the cable topics. Or do they go by the listening test rather than by doing the measurement test ? I guess only time will answer.

By the way, did you try with Murthy's cables as part of building your setup ? I am not sure if he is also selling silver coated interconnects.

 

[gobble]

Hi Shanmune
I dont remember everything that I read about Silver plating and its justifications right now. I do know that I like the sound of plain copper Wires better than silver coated ones. Provided they beat my nordost cable or match them in all other aspects. But I was never able to audition another copper cable that impressed me and at a price I could consider sensible. So the nordost has stayed in my system and I forgot about buying other cables. The BJ LC-1 has the lack of "glare" compared to silver- but that is not to say the nordost sound has distracting glare by itself , only in direct A-B comparison it is a useful adjective to use to describe and contrast the sound of silver with copper. The preamp cable by coincidence also has silver. I didnt go looking for silver preamp wiring- turned out well so it became a favorite.

I do have Mr Murthy's silver cable lying around waiting to be resold. It is good for a bass boomy system to tame the flab as a natural tone control. If one has a yearning for more bass body, it should be avoided. In fact i am going to cut it open sell the silver and reuse those excellent locking WBT RCA plugs for my DIY rca cable.

G0bble

 

[gobble]

I just discovered a 30 second test for a cable and it showed the shortcomings of the LC-1 against the Nordost BH.

The first 30 secs of the track "We will rock you" by Queen to be precise. The BH IC does not mass the clapping of a 100 hands into one messy din, and there is a sense of rhythm and timing to the sound that decays rapidly into a quiet background. Moreover the individual hands are better separated and delineated compared to LC-1. The LC-1 by contrast, creates one unholy mess and makes it sound like a chaotic and noisy din dominated by interference. The experience emotionally is quiet like riding a bike right behind a hurtling truck on a dusty road. Makes you grimace with all the dusty muck thrown about chaotically.

I believe I read somewhere the clarity of audience clapping has a lot to do with inter-modulation distortion in the gear chain. If that is true the BH or any better cable does a good job of suppressing it and keeping it down. It is possible that while other cables have good construction and shielding etc their fundamental architecture in terms of choice of stranding, gauge, braiding and dielectric etc does not cancel out the IMD as effectively as other cables.

In future any IC I audition will begin with this 30 sec benchmark - only then will I bother to proceed with further listening for how I like the lower bass and top end etc.

G0bble

 

[kanwar]

I believe I read somewhere the clarity of audience clapping has a lot to do with inter-modulation distortion in the gear chain. If that is true the BH or any better cable does a good job of suppressing it and keeping it down.
G0bble

Do you even know what is Inter-modulation distortion in actual?

How it gets generated and what are the factors influencing its generation and you are here propagating a ugly myth that cables suppress them?

 

[gobble]

Do you even know what is Inter-modulation distortion in actual?

How it gets generated and what are the factors influencing its generation and you are here propagating a ugly myth that cables suppress them?

If you read enough cable reviews you will find many that claim the cable influences the amp subtly on this front. Here is one example

Other possible reasons are the effects of inter-modulation distortions caused by varying susceptibilities of different cable designs to low frequency interference*

Or

Your amplifier will deliver more power to your speakers and exhibit lower intermodulation distortion as it is freed from amplifying nonmusical noise, especially power robbing low frequency noise.*

Or it could be Passive Inter-Modulation (PIM).

Passive intermodulation (PIM), however, occurs in passive devices (which may include cables, antennas etc.)
In the field, PIM can be caused by components that were damaged in transit to the cell site, installation workmanship issues and by external PIM sources. Some of these include:
Contaminated surfaces or contacts due to dirt, dust, moisture or oxidation.
Loose mechanical junctions due to inadequate torque, poor alignment or poorly prepared contact surfaces.
Loose mechanical junctions caused during transportation, shock or vibration.
Metal flakes or shavings inside RF connections.
Inconsistent metal-to-metal contact between RF connector surfaces caused by any of the following:
Trapped dielectric materials (adhesives, foam, etc.), cracks or distortions at the end of the outer conductor of coaxial cables, often caused by overtightening the back nut during installation, solid inner conductors distorted in the preparation process, hollow inner conductors excessively enlarged or made oval during the preparation process.
PIM can also occur in connectors, or when conductors made of two galvanically unmatched metals come in contact with each other.
Nearby metallic objects in the direct beam and side lobes of the transmit antenna including rusty bolts, roof flashing, vent pipes, guy wires, etc.

But I dont know if PIM can be a factor in audio applications or only RF.

You can search and research and post what you find that disproves this theory. G00gle is your friend.

G0bble

 

[kanwar]

Other possible reasons are the effects of inter-modulation distortions caused by varying susceptibilities of different cable designs to low frequency interference

Your amplifier will deliver more power to your speakers and exhibit lower intermodulation distortion as it is freed from amplifying nonmusical noise, especially power robbing low frequency noise.

Apart from the sonics, If the cable is badly designed and has no suppression to unwanted signals[EMI/RFI/HUM], then you can expect the clustercrap appearing in the music, at the same time proving the amplifier's rejection capability is very poor if not designed well to reject common mode noise well enough. For example mobile phone pilot tone demodulating into beep and heard in speakers. It is called EMI/RFI-ingress in technical terms. Above said is meant for general context only

Passive intermodulation (PIM), however, occurs in passive devices (which may include cables, antennas etc.)
In the field, PIM can be caused by components that were damaged in transit to the cell site, installation workmanship issues and by external PIM sources. Some of these include:
Contaminated surfaces or contacts due to dirt, dust, moisture or oxidation.
Loose mechanical junctions due to inadequate torque, poor alignment or poorly prepared contact surfaces.
Loose mechanical junctions caused during transportation, shock or vibration.
Metal flakes or shavings inside RF connections.
Inconsistent metal-to-metal contact between RF connector surfaces caused by any of the following:
Trapped dielectric materials (adhesives, foam, etc.), cracks or distortions at the end of the outer conductor of coaxial cables, often caused by overtightening the back nut during installation, solid inner conductors distorted in the preparation process, hollow inner conductors excessively enlarged or made oval during the preparation process.
PIM can also occur in connectors, or when conductors made of two galvanically unmatched metals come in contact with each other.
Nearby metallic objects in the direct beam and side lobes of the transmit antenna including rusty bolts, roof flashing, vent pipes, guy wires, etc.

This falls more under RF domain, rarely to do with audio because the frequency of operation and the effects of PIM are more prominent over RF.

 

[shanmune]

I just discovered a 30 second test for a cable and it showed the shortcomings of the LC-1 against the Nordost BH.

The first 30 secs of the track "We will rock you" by Queen to be precise. The BH IC does not mass the clapping of a 100 hands into one messy din, and there is a sense of rhythm and timing to the sound that decays rapidly into a quiet background. Moreover the individual hands are better separated and delineated compared to LC-1. The LC-1 by contrast, creates one unholy mess and makes it sound like a chaotic and noisy din dominated by interference. The experience emotionally is quiet like riding a bike right behind a hurtling truck on a dusty road. Makes you grimace with all the dusty muck thrown about chaotically.

I believe I read somewhere the clarity of audience clapping has a lot to do with inter-modulation distortion in the gear chain. If that is true the BH or any better cable does a good job of suppressing it and keeping it down. It is possible that while other cables have good construction and shielding etc their fundamental architecture in terms of choice of stranding, gauge, braiding and dielectric etc does not cancel out the IMD as effectively as other cables.

In future any IC I audition will begin with this 30 sec benchmark - only then will I bother to proceed with further listening for how I like the lower bass and top end etc.

G0bble

G0bble,
I appreciate your effort in experimenting with your cables and sharing your views. Thanks.

Yes, the scientific theory that you have put may be challenged by another scientific theory, but at end of the day, you have noticed a significant difference in the sound and more importantly , it appealed to your ears. In the end, that's what matters ... isn't it ?

Okay ... let me put my thoughts/understanding after reading your post. This is just an another interpretation (loosely based on my own limited scientific knowledge). When you say "a lot to do with inter-modulation distortion in the gear chain", it is meant that the IMD is seen at the source output (like DAC/CD player/pre-amp). Am I right ? If so and if a cable is claimed to be transparent (going by the popular definition of what transparency is), then it is not suppose to do anything with the input signal from the source and so it shouldn't be suppressing the IMD seen in that input signal. Should it not just pass whatever the input signal is from the source to the amp even if contains garbage ? Should it not be following "garbage-in - garbage-out" ?

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

G0bble had an idea. We can all express ideas, we should not be shy to do so, because then we can get corrected, but an idea is not a scientific theory.

My non-engineer idea is that no cable could suppress distortion. The most it could do (leaving aside its basic requirement to protect aginst incoming interference) is to act as filter, giving some slight preference to either highs or lows, hence the tone-control-cables claims. Yes, garbage-in-garbage-out: why would an "audiophile" have equipment that produces [noticeable [unwanted]] distortion in the first place: aren't we better at choosing our gear than that, even at entry and mid levels? Oh whoops! I just bought an amplifier that produces distortion, I'd better spend more money on cables... People really do and think like that?

It is also true that the non-engineers amongst us use technical terms in un-technical terms. I remember very well, because it was my first hifi ah-ha! moment, that when I bought my Cyrus amplifier, the difference against the previous Sherwood was so pronounced that the words that went through my head were "Good grief, I've been listening to 'distortion' up to now!" I have no idea if I was using the 'right' word or not.


~

 

[Jatt_boy]

It is also true that the non-engineers amongst us use technical terms in un-technical terms.

~

Infact the biggest fallacy in reviewing a certain thing.

 

[srinisundar]

Thanks Moderators for reopening this thread.. Hearing is believing.

 

[Jatt_boy]

I think no one is contradicting your hearing prowess

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

At long last...

I put my money where my mouth is and ordered LC-1s for my desktop system, which is actually my main listening system.

Whilst they don't even begin to "compete" with high-price cables, they still cost enough to make a completer re-cable quite expensive. My order, with shipping, came to about UK150. I expect to buy some more, but it will have to wait.

My personal thinking is not to look for improvement or change, but to be able to say, "Now I can forget about those cables." If I notice a change, that will be interesting. If the change is for the worse, I'll have to come here and admit it!

(My current cables are made by Cambridge Audio, bought from Richer Sounds, and have been in use for many, many years)

I don't remember if anyone posted the link to the Bluejeans LC-1 Design Notes. It is a pretty full account of the reasons for their choice of cable. I hadn't seen it before!

Bluejeans LC-1 Design Notes.

The connectors are covered on the product page. The company's openness is appreciated, but the lack of certain "stock" features, claims, buzzwords etc is unlikely to appeal to many.

Technically, can I see any real potential advantage? I mentioned that I'm using them for the desktop system. There is a lot of equipment, both audio and computer. Bluejeans claims that the shielding is really good. That could be an advantage, but I don't have a way to assess the shielding on my current cables. I think it is a single braid, but the terminations are too neat for me to see.

 

[shanmune]

At long last...

I put my money where my mouth is and ordered LC-1s for my desktop system, which is actually my main listening system.

Whilst they don't even begin to "compete" with high-price cables, they still cost enough to make a completer re-cable quite expensive. My order, with shipping, came to about UK150. I expect to buy some more, but it will have to wait.

My personal thinking is not to look for improvement or change, but to be able to say, "Now I can forget about those cables." If I notice a change, that will be interesting. If the change is for the worse, I'll have to come here and admit it!

(My current cables are made by Cambridge Audio, bought from Richer Sounds, and have been in use for many, many years)

I don't remember if anyone posted the link to the Bluejeans LC-1 Design Notes. It is a pretty full account of the reasons for their choice of cable. I hadn't seen it before!

Bluejeans LC-1 Design Notes.

The connectors are covered on the product page. The company's openness is appreciated, but the lack of certain "stock" features, claims, buzzwords etc is unlikely to appeal to many.

Technically, can I see any real potential advantage? I mentioned that I'm using them for the desktop system. There is a lot of equipment, both audio and computer. Bluejeans claims that the shielding is really good. That could be an advantage, but I don't have a way to assess the shielding on my current cables. I think it is a single braid, but the terminations are too neat for me to see.

I got convinced in getting LC-1 after going through the LC-1 design notes. Apart from the actual product quality, I also look at the company's honesty in making claims. At the end of the day, I will have a good peace of mind in knowing fully of what I am buying and that too from a company which is honest enough. Bluejeans fits my bill and so I went with that.

Based on my limited knowledge, I see excellent electrical characteristics for LC-1 and those are more than enough to get convinced about the transparency of that cable.

In case you see a difference in the sound with LC-1, then I wouldn't even hesitate to call your older cables as not so transparent :lol: (ha ha ... said this on a lighter note )

When I got the LC-1 cable, I found the build quality to be excellent. The RCA connects are well made and have enough force to fit correctly with the other components input/output. The only thing is the cable is not as flexible as other cables available in the market. If you have cramped space and need to route your cable through a narrow space, you may find it bit difficult. Other wise, I am already a big fan of BJ for their honesty Nothing more than that

 

[gobble]

150GBP sounds too much. I got an sub cable and the lc-1 and component all together for much less.

G0bble

 

[jls001]

(My current cables are made by Cambridge Audio, bought from Richer Sounds, and have been in use for many, many years)

I have opened very old coax cables used in pro applications in temperature- and humidity-controlled environments. The braided shield on some makes were badly oxidated while some looked pristine. Just to be on the safer side, it is good to replace them with new ones as copper oxidates over time.

I don't remember if anyone posted the link to the Bluejeans LC-1 Design Notes. It is a pretty full account of the reasons for their choice of cable. I hadn't seen it before!

Bluejeans LC-1 Design Notes.

Completely agree about (good) video cables being well shielded. I have never tried them as audio interconnects but I have no reason to believe they will sound bad. Also recommended as analog audio interconnect is double shielded coax cables meant for IF and RF applications.

The connectors are covered on the product page. The company's openness is appreciated, but the lack of certain "stock" features, claims, buzzwords etc is unlikely to appeal to many.

That's their marketing! It's just that they don't use the usual argot the cable marketer.