Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Of course it is. There are faulty interfaces and faulty DAC design too.
What does that mean?
Need your opinion on Blue jeans LC-1 stereo interconnect
- Thread starter shanmune
- Start date
Of course it is. There are faulty interfaces and faulty DAC design too.
What does that mean?
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
Absolutely right!!!!! And also, my reference for something may not be your reference, so who is right? Or wrong!A very simple question to everyone:
How would you ascertain that a certain cable is Transparent/Neutral or adds vivid colors?
Where is the reference to compare and see the difference.
One cable can sound dull, another can sound bright, yet another can sound warm. But how would you TAG a certain cable with transparency or coloration???. This is what i don't understand.
If someone says Cable B is adding Color and Cable A is neutral, how can you say that? There is a high possibility that what a cable is transparent to one individual could be brighter to another, cause we perceive the things differently.
srinisundar
Well-Known Member
Absolutely right!!!!! And also, my reference for something may not be your reference, so who is right? Or wrong!
Also add my voice is not other person voice.. Yes this is true every person has different voices and you can easily differentiate.... so there will be difference on hearing too
Thanks Gobble for your offer. In fact when I was experimenting with two other different ICs from Murthy, I heard some differences. So in that way, I believe that there are differences in the sound signature of different cables. The only thing that I am yet to understand is the scientific reasoning behind those differences. When you heard the difference between BH and LC-1, you were very much impressed with the former. Based on your subjective analysis, you see BH doing better. From the point of view of objective analysis, we see LC-1 to have excellent electrical characteristics. Going by that, is there a case where LC-1 is really transparent (least alteration to the signal), but the sound is not appealing to your ears ? I certainly understand it is tough for anyone to verify or answer that, but in case if anyone has good engineering reasons, then it would be great to know that as well.
Certainly I will ping you some time and make a visit for the cable shoot down. Good to hear that the Chennai club is planning to make a cable shootout. Probably the bangalore club should win the race in doing the shootout ..:lol:
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
Of course! But that is besides the point.Also add my voice is not other person voice.. Yes this is true every person has different voices and you can easily differentiate.... so there will be difference on hearing too
Absolutely right!!!!! And also, my reference for something may not be your reference, so who is right? Or wrong!
Sadly this thing is not easily grasped by the Folks.
Absolutely right!!!!! And also, my reference for something may not be your reference, so who is right? Or wrong!
Keith,
You are right !!! No one is absolutely right nor wrong when it comes to subjective things. How about the objective part ? I guess I am repeating the same question here and sorry for that ...
In terms of least alteration to the signal, which is best ? --> Is it a decently built and electrically good IC ? -or- Is it an exotic cable ? I am looking for someone who can give me an objective data. The thing is I am not an expert and that's why I am looking for such objective based answers. I am yet to get those answers
I am afraid I won't get those answers as well :sad: Hope I am proven wrong on that 
Shanmune,
You cannot linkup personal tastes choices which are subjective things with the objective data which is measured through the scientific experiments involving test equipment.
Objective data can only tell you regarding certain performance level but equating that with personal tastes is a fallacy in itself.
You cannot linkup personal tastes choices which are subjective things with the objective data which is measured through the scientific experiments involving test equipment.
Objective data can only tell you regarding certain performance level but equating that with personal tastes is a fallacy in itself.
Yes Kanwar, I certainly understand that we shouldn't link the subjective thing and the objective part. Also, if you look at all of my questions, I have tried not to link both...
May be I have not correctly phrased few of my questions to put things clearly, but as a whole, I am looking only for the objective answers.
My question simply revolves around these in search of an objective answer :-
- Apart from the electrical characteristics (and of course shielding), are there any other parameters which make the cable truly transparent (I stressing the point - least alteration to the signal path) ?
- If there exists such additional parameters, are there any measurement data to support it ?
Last edited:
Apart from LCR influence, For making the cables transparent I only know about this
hyeah:
Apart from LCR influence, For making the cables transparent I only know about this
Kanwar, I got the answer I was looking for . Thanks !!!
... but more than that, I liked the way you answered it ...
The term "bright" is not some scientifically calibrated term. I mean it is not rigorously co-related to some number which can be traced back to some amplitude or phase or some such parameter measured at some specified or generally accepted frequency. It is a generic term and WILL mean different thing to different people, depending mainly on personal tastes and listening preferences, and is thus pointless to try to quantize it. It simply means that the treble is accentuated with respect to the other parts of the audio spectrum. There is no absolute reference.
Regarding co-relating transparency to measured electrical parameters, well, scientists/researchers/engineers could perhaps find a relationship, or already know some aspects of it. But knowing how opaque (pun intended) the cable industry is, those who know it are not telling So, you are unlikely to get your objective answer. On the other hand, it is also possible that these relationships are really still in the realm of the unknown. Further, aren't some people more inclined to cables that accentuate certain sonic characteristics? After all, we often hear of cables being attributed to have bass that "plumbed to subterranean depths" or producing "fluid, ethereal and sparkling" treble, blah blah blah
Shielding, in my opinion, can be done away with for many applications, especially if we are dealing with line level signals. But for phonographic applications it is VITAL. The most famous example of unshielded cables is Nordost. Another example with rudimentary shielding is Anticables ICs. One of the best sounding ICs (to my ears) I have ever heard in my setup was an Audiaz flat cable (much like a Nordost). I actually opened it and found that it was made of 8 solid core copper cables, housed in a flat teflon sheet without much adornment, the leads laid side by side like a Nordost flat cable, four leads selected alternately carried the signal and the remaining alternate four served as return. Note that I didn't call it shield, as it wasn't a shielding arrangement. It used Eichmann Bullet RCA plugs.
Regarding co-relating transparency to measured electrical parameters, well, scientists/researchers/engineers could perhaps find a relationship, or already know some aspects of it. But knowing how opaque (pun intended) the cable industry is, those who know it are not telling
So, you are unlikely to get your objective answer. On the other hand, it is also possible that these relationships are really still in the realm of the unknown. Further, aren't some people more inclined to cables that accentuate certain sonic characteristics? After all, we often hear of cables being attributed to have bass that "plumbed to subterranean depths" or producing "fluid, ethereal and sparkling" treble, blah blah blah Shielding, in my opinion, can be done away with for many applications, especially if we are dealing with line level signals. But for phonographic applications it is VITAL. The most famous example of unshielded cables is Nordost. Another example with rudimentary shielding is Anticables ICs. One of the best sounding ICs (to my ears) I have ever heard in my setup was an Audiaz flat cable (much like a Nordost). I actually opened it and found that it was made of 8 solid core copper cables, housed in a flat teflon sheet without much adornment, the leads laid side by side like a Nordost flat cable, four leads selected alternately carried the signal and the remaining alternate four served as return. Note that I didn't call it shield, as it wasn't a shielding arrangement. It used Eichmann Bullet RCA plugs.
Point well taken.
So do you see having shielding, though beneficial in rejecting the noise, compromises a bit on some other electrical characteristics ? For example, are you saying that the capacitance might increase due to shielding ?
Very interesting to read about the four leads selected alternately carried the signal and the remaining alternate four served as return. Though I am not aware of the benefit, I get a feeling that this particular layout might increase the capacitance. I may be wrong, but I am just thinking that way ...
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
Well said!The term "bright" is not some scientifically calibrated term. I mean it is not rigorously co-related to some number which can be traced back to some amplitude or phase or some such parameter measured at some specified or generally accepted frequency. It is a generic term and WILL mean different thing to different people, depending mainly on personal tastes and listening preferences, and is thus pointless to try to quantize it. It simply means that the treble is accentuated with respect to the other parts of the audio spectrum. There is no absolute reference.
Regarding co-relating transparency to measured electrical parameters, well, scientists/researchers/engineers could perhaps find a relationship, or already know some aspects of it. But knowing how opaque (pun intended) the cable industry is, those who know it are not telling
Bravo! Can you tell us what appropriate size the cores were?
I don't know the physics behind it but there are those who believe that the best dielectric to separate the signal-carrying conductor and the return conductor is air. The next best is natural cotton though it has lost favour in the face of the onslaught from the next best material - namely, teflon tubes (especially with solid core silver running through it
). Noise rejection is achieved by twisting the two conductors. Of course this isn't anywhere near as good as a braided shield or double layer of braided shielded that provides near 100% or better than 100% shielding. Strictly speaking, less than 100% shielding is also fine (that's the principle on which electromagnetic Faraday cages are made).Addendum: having said the above, I would still advise to stick to cables with double (copper) braided shielding for audio ICs.
Last edited:
24 AWG-ish, approx the same as CAT6 strands. I have read somewhere that the optimal conductor cross section for line level audio signals is 24 AWG. And about 28 for phono tonearm cables. Of course I don't know the veracity of this claim.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Your friendly local BlueJeans fanboy* responds with a quote from their site:
This is just from the article on exotic materials (the point of teflon, by the way, is more to do with fire regulations that audio!)
*
... Hope I'm still a fanboy after getting the cables! :lol:~
From old days, I remember solid dielectric made from polymer were effective but signal loss was less in air core, made of thin pipe pattern around Central core.
But it's characteristic used to change with air humidity. It's loss and frequency response used to vary wrt temperature and season.
Then people found some middle way of air core and solid core - polymer foam as dielectric which has pro and cons of both but better stable from practical use case.
All above experience is from microwave frequencies FROM VHF 2 to 1600 MHz and cable running beyond 1-10km. Wrt to this I don't imagin how bad audio interconnect cable can go. We are discussing all technical term for audio world with 20-20KHz and few meters running length within indoor secure environment. I feel its should be indistinguishable for audio in ear. Ymmv.
But difference is audible sometime.
But it's characteristic used to change with air humidity. It's loss and frequency response used to vary wrt temperature and season.
Then people found some middle way of air core and solid core - polymer foam as dielectric which has pro and cons of both but better stable from practical use case.
All above experience is from microwave frequencies FROM VHF 2 to 1600 MHz and cable running beyond 1-10km. Wrt to this I don't imagin how bad audio interconnect cable can go. We are discussing all technical term for audio world with 20-20KHz and few meters running length within indoor secure environment. I feel its should be indistinguishable for audio in ear. Ymmv.
But difference is audible sometime.
Last edited:
For excellent sound that won't break the bank, the 5 Star Award Winning Wharfedale Diamond 12.1 Bookshelf Speakers is the one to consider!
