The effect of cables - A sane debate

You can try the doubling or tripling the IC cables using the humble telephone cables as you are a DIY guy. Once convinced you can try gel filled RF cables.

In my setup everything from source to speakers are now telephone wires of different cores. IC are 3 +3 cores, internal wiring is 5 core, speaker cables are 8 + 8 core. This entire exercise will not cost more than 500/- rupees.
 
@Kannan thanks for sharing your honest observations.

My experience has been quite nice.

The first step for me was to double the IC from source to buffer. I used two different pairs of unbalanced cables, both of which I like a lot. RCA splitters used was very cheap, chrome-plated ones costing Rs 10 per piece. I felt a hardness in the sound but despite that the highs became much sweeter than before. The sound stage also expanded a bit. There was more bass weight. I blamed the lack of refinement on the new splitters but felt there was clearly potential in this mad scheme. I actually had to turn up volume by 2 notches. In hindsight, I realised that this was counter intuitive.


Step 2: added second speaker cables. I don't recall the exact details but I recall that the volume still needed to be 2 notches up and in general it sounded better than doubling only source to preamp/buffer. This bore out the assertion in the originally linked article that the effect is cumulative.


The next day I bought better RCA splitters and replaced the earlier ones, and the sound became instantly more refined. The hardness was completely gone and in its place was much better sounding music. However, the volume still needed to be 2 notches up to have the same subjective SPL that I was used to before introducing double ICs.


This was when I got convinced that I must fill in the gap between buffer and power amp too to complete the chain. That Hari doubled his preamp to power amp link gave me lots of encouragement. On doubling this link the first thing I did was to decrease the volume by 3 notches from the original (no doubling anywhere) state. What I heard was:


a/ improved midrange - it sounded almost like hearing a “tubey” (in a nice way) SET tube amp. Voices stood out like I've never heard before. The closest I had heard in my setup was when I briefly had a Line Magnetic DAC at home. This DAC produced dense and highlighted mids and was likeable in many ways but the mid-range was spotlighted at the cost of higher frequency details; bass was poorly defined too. I never warmed up to that sound though I appreciated it for certain types of music. What I'm hearing now in the mids is less denser, yet sufficiently spotlighted to accentuate voices and mid-centric instruments. The quantity was just right for my taste. I know that it's not neutral in its frequency response but that didn't deter me because I've never aimed for ruler-flat amplitude response in my room.


b/ however the bass weight was clearly more than my liking. This was cured by disconnecting the super tweeters from speakers. Weird, but it's worked that way.


c/ highs: lesser than before but surprisingly it still sounds better than before and I'm actually hearing more details despite the high frequency roll off and the volume knob being 3 notches down.


More subjectively, this is the most musical I've heard my setup. The proof is in the number of hours I'm spending in listening to music without getting bored. The bass weight is now more than what I had before and this allows me to enjoy acoustic bass much better than before (small speakers - so it inherently suffers from limited bass extension). It feels like I'm listening to bigger speakers. The texture of bass is also better defined than before. Overall, I'm hearing more details at much lower volume. This reminds me of a Quad ESL I hadb heard a few years ago at a friend's place at very low volume without missing any details. For me, this ability had long been one of the hallmarks of a very good speaker. Besides the Quad, I've heard this type of sound in only one other setup (a really high end setup). Of course I'm not saying that my speakers now rival those speakers I mentioned. Just suggesting that it has gained some of that property I so admired.


After I doubled the IC from from CD player (actually an old bluray player) I observed the same improvements observed in the previous source, namely, improvements in midrange density and weight, bass weight and texture, and the slight roll off in the highs. So I am guessing that the effect can be replicated in other setups too.


The last refinements I had done was to bundle the same ICs in the same link. I didn't bother to revert to mixed ICs as it is a tedious job so I'm not 100% sure if using the same ICs bring further refinement. But even when mixing different ICs they sounded pretty damned good to my ears (and I must say, in my setup, since I haven't tried this anywhere else).


I'm certainly not reverting to single IC.
 
This is what I said skin effect .If the number of strands are increased the skin effect is taken care and the quality of sound improves.If one tries it with pure occ copper wire strands it will be a refrence level cable.
 
This is what I said skin effect .If the number of strands are increased the skin effect is taken care and the quality of sound improves.If one tries it with pure occ copper wire strands it will be a refrence level cable.
The question is how thick should it get. I guess best to be measured as Hari does to get the right average of length and thickness to keep the capacitance to the lowest.
Ultimately I guess the thickness will depend on the minimum cable length you need.
 
But skin effect has no bearing on audio frequencies at all. So that too has to be looked at.
Maybe it is the other parameters as explained in the Shroeder article
 
This is what I said skin effect .If the number of strands are increased the skin effect is taken care and the quality of sound improves.If one tries it with pure occ copper wire strands it will be a refrence level cable.

The idea is to use many thin conductors (preferably individually insulated and litz braided) together instead of one thick conductor to minimise skin effect.

My earlier question remains: is skin effect significant in 20-20000 Hz band, or can it be ignored?
 
The question is how thick should it get. I guess best to be measured as Hari does to get the right average of length and thickness to keep the capacitance to the lowest.
Ultimately I guess the thickness will depend on the minimum cable length you need.

Thickness will be decided by how much current it needs to carry.
 
Mpw if that question is addressed to me then the power cable is Lessloss. I used to have the DFPC original power cable. This was probably 9- 10 years back
 
Joshua, what would be your recommendations for make/brand of coaxials for IC and speaker cables if one desires to attempt the "doubling" experiment ?
Sorry, I haven't come across a coax that I like for analog line level use, though I use for phono applications. Never tried coax for speakers (other than the one I mentioned in an earlier post).

In an earlier post you stated your observations of the gel filled RF cable for speaker. Did the RF sound better than the "double" speaker cable, keeping everything else same ?

The RF coax cable happened some one and half years ago. Doubling is happening today. Different time frames so no direct comparison, but I remember being utterly impressed by the coax speaker cable.
 
One of my friends owns Duelund 20 awg and Duelund 16 awg ic. I asked him to double the Duelund 20 awg ic and compare it to the Duelund 16 awg ic. Doubling the 20 awg gives an effective 17 awg

He tried them and replied there’s not much difference in sound when you double the 20 awg ic and compare it to 16 awg. More or less they sound the same, give and take a little.

The differences that you’ll are mentioning when doubling the ic is more or less the same he heard too when switching between a single run of 16 awg and a single run of 20 awg
 
Thickness will be decided by how much current it needs to carry.
In my telephone wire case - i am using 0.4 mm (which i think is 26awg) wire in 3 +3 cores for IC and 0.5 mm (around 24 awg) 8 + 8 cores as speaker cables. All individual cores are PE insulated.
 
The entire philosophy of Lessloss power cables is based on skin filtering. I have owned their power cables and they were very nice. You can read more about it on their website.

https://www.lessloss.com/docs/QA-on-Skin-filtering-and-the-Idea-of-Power-Cord-Performance.pdf
Again the same question after reading this article. Can ferrite beads use to filter the HF noise on the skin surface of the conductor by converting them to heat? Will enameled single core copper wire be used as a resistive coating on the skin surface of the conductor to block the HF noise.
 
I have used ferrite. I hated the sound. It makes the sound very dull and rolled off. I think ferrite is more of a rf/emi blocker

Litz wire is made of strands where each strand is insulated hence preventing signal from jumping from strand to strand. As per my understanding that’s how it reduces skin effect

In my understanding what you’re doing is the perfect example of a Litz wire. What I have is tinned copper strands. Because tin is a poorer conductor as compared to copper it behaves in some ways like a Litz wire but is technically not one
 
So, for a meaningful and low cost experiment it would be wiser to do as Hari recommends. I did find some RF coax cables and the specs look interesting and they are not pricey. (The term "Burial" sounds crazy though) This is just for reference, I will attempt the telephone cable.


View attachment 29788

  • Cable Specification
  • RG-11 Direct Burial Underground Coaxial Cable, Belden PPC Brand, 14AWG Solid Conductor
  • Tri-Shielded 77% Braid, Two Layer 100% Foil Shield
  • Direct Burial, and Outdoor Application
  • UL ETL
  • Connectors
  • Belden PPC Brand
  • Constructed with Nickel and Anti-Corrosion Materials
  • Weather Boot (Grommet), Aqua Sealed Compression Connectors
  • Usage
  • HD Over the Air (OTA) Antenna
  • DirecTV / Dish Network & Other Satellite
  • Ham radio, short wave Antenna
  • Cable Modem Internet
  • HD Digital Cable TV
  • Cellular Boost Antenna
  • Speed sensor, & other F-connector coaxial required devices

Just check out RF coax cables used for RF & microwave applicatiions are 50 ohms terminated and SPDIF requires 75 ohms termination. The mismatch can cause jitter.
 
At Mumbai members.
Since quite a few of you in this trials are living within reasonable vicinity, why not you guys have a meet and have an objective session and share the experience on the thread.
 
So, for a meaningful and low cost experiment it would be wiser to do as Hari recommends. I did find some RF coax cables and the specs look interesting and they are not pricey.

Look for reputed brands like Andrews, Amphenol, Gore, etc. I would not waste time with cheap RG-11.

Also see a guide to different cables with the RG initial:
https://www.amphenolrf.com/coaxial-cable-guide
The OD will give you some idea of how thick the core conductor will be.
 
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Red Mahogany finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
Back
Top