XXHighEnd

Hi Peter,
another homepage  “stumbled” across my eyes in the internet.

For information the link for us „Krauts“ in this forum
http://www.audiophil-online.de/themen/bnc-stecker.html
and
the homepage of the German manuf.  Phonosophie ( a reputated name  in the HiFi scene) http://www.phonosophie.de/International/everbindung3.html

In general  Phonosophie recommends to attach BNC adapters  to the  RCA connectors  for a better SQ.

So I rummage around my surplus for a 50Ohm BNC cable and appropriate 50Ohm RCA/BNC adapters bought 3 years ago.

After the exchange of the cables (between the NOS1 and the power amp)  I was quite shocked. My brain tells me (hearing an old Herbie Hancock record) there are a hell of distortions. Changing to one of my test records the same impression but with much more details in the beginning, and after a while it dawned to me, there are overtones never heard before.

To make long stories short:

1)   This cable with the BNC connector is “merciless” to your whole setup, and will reveal a wrong setup of the speakers (placement of the speaker in the room).
2)   Cymbals are more detailed
3)   Bass is amazing without any distortions down to the low frequencies. I hear the Stanley Clarkes bass on the record “Romantic Warrior” as I remember it from a  “Return To Forever” concert in 2010. ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Returns-Chick-Corea-Return-Forever/dp/B001HPGRSQ/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1410041716&sr=8-12&keywords=return+to+forever%2C+live )
4)   More air between the instruments
5)   Less distortions over all frequencies.
6)   I had to "readjust" my speakers. (to turn them more to the sweet spot/listening place)

I heard the “seagull” record new. ( this tune is one of the best recordings with an amazing 3D image)

I do believe that this cable is something for our English tweak freaks. ( I used an ordinary Dartzeel 50 Ohm BNC cable (coaxial) for computer connections - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_cable )

Regards

Joachim

Hi Jachim,

I am Reading correctly that you are running the NOS into 50 ohms? Or is it just extra plugs rca-Bnc * 50 ohm cable *Bnc-rca?

Regards, Coen

Hi Coen,

rca-Bnc * 50 ohm cable *Bnc-rca

= correct

The adapter has a resistance of 50Ohms too.

Joachim

Edit: When I'm reading the first sentences here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_cable#Choice_of_impedance
everything should be ok.

I had to increase due to the 50Ohms the XXH volume from -31,5 to -28,5 for the same SPL.

Edit II: Note to Mani - this BNC cable, details and photo later today, might help to place the NOS1 + PC outside of the listening room without a degeneration of the SQ.

Hi Joachim, I'm very interested in this. Please share the details when you have some time.

Mani.

Hi,
attached a photo of the BNC cable (everybody knows this type)
Make: Huber + Suhner – http://www.hubersuhner.com/en-CH/Home
Type: K08852 K_02232 T; item no. 521 165 - from the year 2006  (type + item no. has been changed)

EDIT: This is a high temperature coax cable with a double screen - design strand-7, colour=brown, see
http://literature.hubersuhner.com/Technologies/Radiofrequency/RFCablesEN/?page=48

The cable was assembled by Dartzeel and is quite expensive. In 2005 the price of a 5m stereo run was around € 2000,00.  It will be much cheaper to buy it in a special shop elsewhere and to assemble it on our own.

The losses within this cable are over a distance of more than 500m insignificant.

Joachim

P.S. I went to bed at 6.30AM this morning, the music was that engaging. (my wife is in London for a visit with friends)

Hi Joachim - very interesting I read about this a couple of years ago and filed under "must try that" but forgot. Just in time to try with my new Orelino's which are due this week. As the benefit is to reduce/remove reflections in the cable then using BNC/RCA converters probably will not have much adverse impact.

Nice one!

Cheers

Paul

Hi Paul,

Phonosophie performed listening tests with the same type of cable (not that type I grabbed by accident), one cable with RCA connectors and then the other one with BNC + adapter, which was superior.

See the picture of the upper cable on that link.  http://www.phonosophie.de/International/everbindung3.html

The difference of  the "characteristic wave impedance"  of the cable and the RCA/BNC adapter shall be nearly identical due to possible "energy turbulences" at that connection. "So their weak explanation."

I used this same cable with the RCA/BNC adapter with a WEISS DAC a couple of years ago (preNOS1 times) and the improvement of the SQ was audible, but not that dramatic as it is now.

Joachim

Thanks Joachim. Well, I can't find this exact cable anywhere. But what I did find was a pair of 3.4m Huber + Suhner 50 Ohm BNC cables and some 50 Ohm BNC-RCA adaptors. I've ordered all this for about €200 - so not a lot of money to at least give them a go. If I like the result, I'll look into getting a nice pair of 10m cables so I can hopefully keep the NOS1 in my basement.

Thanks again for the suggestion.

Cheers, Mani.

Hi Mani,

that's a very good price. (no snake oil)

Joachim


EDIT I: This is a high temperature coax cable with a double screen - design strand-7, see
http://literature.hubersuhner.com/Technologies/Radiofrequency/RFCablesEN/?page=48

Edit II: The only explanation for the big difference of the SQ is, that there are more HF emissions (mobiles, wifi etc.) around us than as we are anticipating.

EDIT III: For Arguments of the improvement of the SQ see Reply #5 from Paul too!!!

Joachim,

Will you never ever put up such a thing - a thing which really makes my blood running - on a Sunday when nothing can be obtained/ordered ?

Thank you.
Peter

Huh? What makes your blood boil? The suggestion to use a 50 Ohm coaxial cable with BNC/RCA adapters, or the fact that Joachim made the suggestion on a Sunday? The former I have no opinion about (until my cables arrive), but the latter makes no sense - surely the internet is open on a Sunday.

What am I missing? Some sort of Dutch joke that only our German friends would understand? Nah, can't be.

Mani.

Ha, ha

as an audiophile freak I'm used to "Rock Around The Clock" seven days a week. By the way, it's Tuesday and did you order?

This cable/connector combination produces a right/left separation as heard in the beginning with W8 and the optimal listening position is the sweet spot (edit: as always) now. Prior to the installation of that cable it was possible to listen with a satisfying result in "off axis" positions.

Joachim

Thank you Mani,
but I think Peter was annoyed (frustrated) only, that he had no such cable in his garage/storage on a SUNDAY.

we Germans are "special" with jokes, and are not understanding these pretentious jokes with the fine nuances from the English people. I like their humor.

I see translated (synchronized) films of Inspector Barnaby very often, and their dialogues are for us Germans that "upper-crust". Great! :good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsomer_Murders


Joachim

I had a German friend at University who was adamant that 'The Life of Brian' was funnier dubbed ("synchronized") into German than it was in its original English. I cry with laughter whenever I watch this film in English, so it's probably just as well that I can't speak, and therefore can't watch it in, German.

Mani.

Yes ?


Oh ?

See ?
I have mine.
By now.
Finally.

Joachim,

It took me 3 seconds to know that you were right in every aspect.

Then I thought to bring some news :


But because of my more or less challening post you now were ahead of me.
So the emphasis is the most (strange) occurring aspect actually. After two minutes I asked Ciska "what's the change ?". -> Hmm ... more fresh ?
I said "no, come here in the middle and listen".

There's a stereo effect I am not aware of that it can happen.
In addition, and this was the very first I noticed, the "Windows 8 plane" of where the sound springs from has vanished. It's just everwhere.
And indeed, I really don't need to listen to the seagulls to know the now "super effect".

All the time of the past 3 hours or so I was thinking "can I survice until 6:01am ?". But I will save it for the next couple of days. Completely amazing.

Joachim, apologies that I did not respond right away (while you addressed me). But is was all so logical to me that I *had* to try it first, actually knowing what the result would be;
This is about (eliminating) reflections and that only; like Paul said (and the German text btw). It is too stupid not to think of it myself.

So, the very first time I got excited about cables. Still 1$ btw. :yes::yes:
And there will be more of this, I'm sure; Just spent 16 hours of "research" on it. But part 2 is a bit more difficult.
And part 1b. :swoon:

Of course your hint already existed, Joachim. But I think this is from eras (or contexts) from more ancient history where things were different from how they are today.
Today it is just the best what could happen in 2014.
Or ?

Super thanks.
And a promise - no, guarantee : this will lead to so much more ...

Best regards and the 2014 prize for you, Joachim,
Peter

Hi Peter,

ok, my wife heard the improvement of the SQ after her return from London immediately.

Joachim

R u guys kidding us?

Correct me if I'm wrong but 2 adapaters, 50 ohms each that's a load of 25 ohms for the NOS1(a), output and terminating impedance not taken into consideration. You are just listening to the extra distortion of the output stage. I have speakers here with a higher impedance.

You must have had a loss of gain.

It could work but what impedance was the NOS designed for? Irrc most audio cables and RCAs are about 75 ohm, terminate both sides with that and you will eliminate reflections as well.

Please don't think I am sceptic about the idea, it was on my todo list as well but the output stage needs to be designed for it.

regards, Coen

Hi Coen,

I'm not an electrician and - yes, we are I'm kidding, because I'm now on "cloud 9" with an amazing SQ!!!

For the test with the adapter I took a spare BNC cable, which was designed for a 50Ohm connection between the Dartzeel pre- and poweramp. This cable is double shielded and had a positive audible impact compared to the RCA connection between those two amps.

The NOS1 output impedance is acc. to the datasheet 33Ohm. Edit: The volume setting of XXH is the same as with the former RCA cable for my prefered SPL. Setting is/was -33 to - 31,5.

My advice is, buy this double shielded BNC cable  + adapter (cost appr. €300,00) install it and listen. You will not believe it, what you hear.

I daresay, if you want to improve the SQ with the same beneficial effect to your present audio chain, you have to invest in one of your components additional > € 5000,00 on top, at least!!!

kind reagrds

Joachim

So what about those of us who are fully balanced? Are there any lessons here that can be applied to XLR?

Hi,

it seems that the double shielded cable (note from Paul + Peter) has the major impact (influence) to the SQ.
I found a sample picture (see the lower one) how to assemble such a XLR connection with that cable. Please get in touch with an expert and ........ .

http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/connection/xlr-rca-1.html

You are the first guy to test such a cable with the XLR connector.

kind regards

Joachim

I have been thinking about this Todd, but no real other solution than what Joachim's connection scheme shows. However, not like that, but with using 50 Ohm "terminators" again (the adaptors). It will be up to you whether you net gain on it. I'd say yes, but which also depends on the length of the interlink.
Regarding length, the 75 Ohm solution would be better, but this is all to try out because 75 Ohm can't be as optimal as 50 Ohm (for exactness of the match with cable and connector).

As we will see, this is only the beginning ...

Hi Joachim, Peter

toddn has FULLY balanced system, meaning his amplifier input is balanced one, not single end (RCA). Why would he go BAL / UNBAL route ?

George

I also use amps with balanced inputs.  Exciting to see where this will go...

George,

Try to change attitude. Not that you behave so badly (haha) but try to put to your mind that nothing is absolute.

Especially in electrical design a 100 decisions can be taken to go from A to B. The decision for A determines most of the path to go to B. Or the other way around, the decision to WANT B determines what A can be. You think the latter which takes out all the options.

Say that in two very same situations you can choose for XLR or RCA. XLR will be the better one. Right ? Well, even that is not necesserily true because if the situations are really the same, XLR will have 6dB more output. For example with your NOS1 this is the case (so, the 6dB more *input* to the amp determines the more output). This means that the digital attenuation has to be set differently (assuming no preamp of course) and *that* already influences SQ.
We can neglect such a phenomenon, but all matters. So it is just an example at micro level, while at the more impacting level the examples also exist.

What we have at hand here is such a more impacting example. Why ? because 50 Ohm etc. termination for XLR does not exist. Not that we wouldn't be able to make it ...
So think "no connectors" and all options are open.

Example in the same realm is the two extra connectors we need for this at this moment; there's no single brain cell in me that thought about that being detrimental. Oh, it will be undoubtedly, but the advantage of the elimination of the reflections outweights it inifitely.

Thus, change attitude. :)
Peter

Maybe ...


Funny, but you could say "nothing" because all will work with 33 Ohm output impedance. This is exactly why ...


... I never thought about THAT. Instead I've been keen only to get this to work as soon as possible.


A double no-way. Coincidentally (or not, because Joachim anncounced such a thing) I payed attention to that, but no. And, I couldn't imagine that either, because it doesn't work like that. For that matter (indeed) my old 75 Ohm setup would have attenuated more. But this was "open ended". So, with the setup as of now this is "terminated" and things could be different.

And because there is no way that I am listening to distortion now suddenly, it will be my nice task to find out why this works so much for the better. I really must dive into it, but a first idea I have is that there now will be a 50 Ohm - 100K relation between the *end* of the interlink and the amplifier. Don't ask me what that does for net effect at this moment. Similarly the 33 Ohm - 50 Ohm relation close to the DAC will do something but what is to find out.
I'd have to look a long way back, but IIRC there's 80mA of current output.

When the above is combined with a cable with no loss now, possibly this can explain why it only works for the better.
To keep in mind (but correct me when I'm wrong), when reflections are (fully !) eliminated this is not only about distortions not happening (new signal gets mixed with old signal -> a few ns propagation time through the cable back and forth), but such "mix" of signal also attenuates (cancel out). And creates standing waves. All in the cable I mean.
A bit more on this in a next post.

Peter

About what I perceive from it at the more "measurement" level ...

So, always my standing waves subject. You know, my means to "measure" whether things are right or wrong. Notice that this is largely about buzzing sounds for certain frequencies.
Of course I always talked (implied) acoustical standing waves, but you must realize that once we can make the buzzing less by means of a better source, it can't be about acoustical standing waves. OK ?
So it is *always* about electrical (electronic) implications.

As a sort of conincidence, or luck for our current subject, I am listening to my latest "Want some Bass" DSP settings for the Orelo MKII speaker;
It will be obvious that any "more bass" will also be more critical for the standing waves phenomenon. Do notice though that in my case this is not about "how more lower the frequency the more standing waves will occur" and that this is merely about buzzing as such, where buzzing can be at 100Hz or 150Hz or 350Hz etc. etc. So, 40Hz does never buzz as such (it's too slow). A fly buzzes.

With the current DSP setting, this buzzing is not always immediately apparent when you are in the listening room; you need to go outside of the listening room for that. And, what I always say : if outside you perceive a live band playing, all is fine. And how (when) does that happen ? when the frequencies remain even - in balance.

With my latest "Want some Bass" speaker setting, this was not 100%. I could notice it in the room here and there, but it did not disturb me. The more bass just made me happy enough to leave it be, although each time I hear something buzz I know it is not right.
But now go to the toilet. :yes:

So a few doors further and it makes me want to take some analyser with me in there because it is there (or then) where you can exactly hear all the jumping out frequencies and actually continuously. Say something like 12dB more loud than what the normal balance would imply. Thus really so much that an analyser would easily show it, and right away you would know what to attenuate. But I am not into room correction and all what I really get from it is that something is wrong in the base. Still it only happens with my more emphasized bass settings. So easy to think it is me with wrong settings or a speaker which can't cope with them. Still strange because I see no relation with the frequencies I hear jump out.

Logical, when they spring from the source. :swoon:
Source this time = interlink.
So easy : standing waves in the interlink (and don't you think this can not happen !).

Of course easy to say afterwards, after noticing that with this cable I could stay in the toilet forever without being annoyed by anything. It's only that I didn't bring my beer, so ...

---

Btw, bass is only way more than before. And oh, this is such a situation that everything is way more (recognize ?). Also totally easy to feel on ... ?
the woofers of course. Much much more control as it feels (more stiff/firm movements).

Peter

Hahaha, this got me going.

Does all this mean that standing waves could be inside speaker cabling too?

Yes. Or at least I far away already throught about tackling that too - somehow. But next thing I thought of : I have no speaker cables. Yes, the internal wiring; too short to be bothered about.

Peter

two adapters: terminated at both ends with 50 ohms. That's a properly terminated transmission line. Mind you that the imperfect 75ohm RCAs are still in service (!).

Here's one for you: what about the shift from a capacitive to a resistive load for the NOS's output?

With a terminating load of 100kOhms and a cable capacitance of 60pF the cable capacitance starts to dominate from 1/(2*pi*R*C) = 26,5 KHz. No doubt this will do something for the phase of the signal. Now with a 50 ohm resistance this will be 2000 times higher (MHz), with 25 ohms 4000 times.....

regards, Coen

Hey Coen,

I'm afraid I need a couple of hints here. I mean, I don't see what you're getting at and the sense I get from it is (was) negative (derived from previous post(s)). From your last post I must derive a positive sense ??
Am I wrong ?


Unimportant I think because not part of the capacitive load. And resistive (if any) ? Also unimportant (it is about what happens in the cable)


I am not 100% sure at this moment whether we can say that. But what would be true is that the capacative (varying) load is out of the equation ?
So this is what I assume for now and this is where the positive properties start. But whether you try to calculate the influence of a "filter" or not, it is not about that at all ...
And what it is *is* about in my view, looks to be to good to be true. So I'm probably wrong on that (but it would be the explanation).

I have prepared a few texts for some possible insight with the clear notice that I don't know all about all. 8)
So, positive or negative, Coen ?

Peter

-Quote-
Characteristic Impedance

Characteristic impedance is a high-frequency phenomenon that is a function of the "distributed" R, L and C (inductance and capacitance per unit length). Characteristic impedance Z0 is calculated as (Lu/Cu)1/2 . Lu and Cu are inductance and capacitance per unit length. From the Z0 equation, you can see that Z0 is independent of the length of the cable, the frequency and the resistance. This behavior holds true only if the wavelength of the frequencies on the cable is much shorter than the transit time of a signal from one end of the cable to the other. When this is true, the characteristic impedance will stay relatively constant regardless of the length of the cable and the cable will exhibit "transmission-line-effects". In general, if an event is so fast that it completes a significant voltage transition before it is noticed at the far end of the cable, this will cause transmission-line-effects to occur. Transit times are very short for typical audio cables. For example, a 20 foot speaker cable has a transit time of around 40 nanoseconds. In order for transmission-line-effects to occur on this cable, signals at frequencies above 25MHz must be present. This is orders of magnitude higher than audio frequencies. Therefore, transmission-line-effects and characteristic impedance are definitely second-order effects on audio cables, however resonance may play more significant part than previously imagined and this relates to termination of the characteristic impedance.

-Unquote-

Original text see here:

http://www.empiricalaudio.com/computer-audio/audio-faqs/should-i-match-impedances

Impedance Matching

comment from the manuf. NuFOrce see:

https://www.nuforce.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=635:impedance-matching

Edit:
For a mechanical guy the above explanation, identical found on other homepages too (ratio source/load = 1:10), is quite sufficient. The (my) combination NOS1 and power amp satisfies this ratio and I do not have to increase the XXH volume.
I hear no distortions in the highs and lows, they are better than before. The “clicks” on the cymbals are better to follow and the bass is very tight (no wobblings and rumble at the subwoofer anymore).


Joachim

What about both? ;)!

I do think that distortion -for a 'voltage source'  output- will increase with current; at least that's what I've seen in most amp/preamp test reports. Is this audible or important? That's another question. You must be able to measure this.

BTW this is the 'impedance mismatch' Joachim pointed out in his last post, like my tube phono output preamp playing into 25 ohm with gross distortion (way to much current needed), loss of gain and HF (high output impedance) and finally loss of LF (too small output caps).

No doubt either that the phase angle of the output load has an influence on the performance of the DAC's output opamps. These must be in some feedback arrangement (Inverted or not) which will be sensitive to phase twists. This corresponds with anecdotal evidence on this forum that lower capacitance cables sound better.
A rule of thumb 1:10 ratio, that would mean a happy NOS1 at a load of 330 ohms?

The point where cable capacitance becomes important in this setting is determined by the load at the end of the cable.
Now we shift the frequency by increasing the load (=lowering the resistance) this point is moved at least three decades upwards, making the load for the DAC resistive for the whole audioband.
This is the good stuff, again: is it measurable and important? I don't know it's audibility is speculative but plausible.

Unlike for the very high frequencies, audio signals encounter the plain parallel cable capacitance and series inductance (which is very small) and not the characteristic impedance. Joachim's snip points this out clearly. This should be taken care of in USB transmission lines for instance (proper termination, short cable?).
Yet there could still be HF energy in the relevant spectrum on the DAC's output that would remain undamped in a normal setup potentially causing unwanted interference.

I see enough good stuff to offset the bad so in the end you can call me positive :).

regards, Coen

Hi,

I was searching the internet with the following keywords:

"impedance matching preamp power amp"

and there are tons of informations, most of them "driving" in the same direction.

In Audio no "impedance matching" is necessary. (in general: source [DAC] impedance shall be very low + load impedance [power amp] shall be much higher, more > 1:10)

The best article for "mechanics" I found is here:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan03/articles/impedanceworkshop.asp


Joachim

Before we all drift off in the wrong direction, I think this was "wrong" :


So if my amplifier is 100K, the impedance relation is 33 - 100000 and this is not related to some 75 Ohm or 50 Ohm under way. And if it is, it is about the difference between the normal 75 Ohm and the now 50 Ohm.
Do not relate this to the output impedance of 33 Ohm of the NOS1.

N.b.: Nobody tells that any interlink is 75 Ohm, but the connectors hope they are. :) (but they will not ever be).
*My* interlink was 75 Ohm alright, but that's coindicence (not of course but I use coax, so I can know - do you ?).

Peter (will try to come up with some more)

Coen, allow me ... You seem to put things upside down. But I know, this can be "language". So, "will increase with current" or "needs more current" ? I'd say the latter, and this is quite the opposite (BUT, it can be literally what you say just the same, but then you needs to examplain a couple of things !).
And "way too much current needed". I'd say "way too few current available" which again is something different.

It feels like some lecture is boiling up, but it is not quite on the top of your head yet. And oh, no lectures in my head anyway - just saying (again). :) :)

But I will try a few things more ...

Ok Peter,

The 33ohm output impedance is the result of a series resistor? That makes my cable capacitance point somewhat less relevant.

Regards, Coen

Yes.
And no on the latter remark.
:swoon:

Gentlemen,

We must be very cautious not to dig such stupid texts as that from NuForce. This is just "copying from the internet" behaviour
1:10 - nice (but at least now you understand how I said yesterday that I don't bother about 33 Ohm because ALL will "match" that).

No, this is BS.

Because Joachim linked to an Empirical Audio page, I can do that too :
http://www.empiricalaudio.com/computer-audio/audio-faqs/are-cable-resonances-real
Don't try to understand this - just digest and see what kind of things play a role. Not "may play", they just do.
And now envision that we talk about this in this topic.

Btw, "impedance matching" does not exist. Try to get that from this link I gave.

Peter

We must think out of the box. Or maybe not, but the box where our lecture is in, is not one. Just look into that link from my last post and if you can get somewhat of it, you can already see that a couple of things are not solvable for the amplifier-speaker relation, while we think we can solve it for a DAC (pre)amplifier relation, while we KNOW it has been solved for e.g. communications networks.
Now what.

Because it was said, think about USB as such "communication network". Must be 90 Ohm (2x 45 Ohm (differential) actually) and all is right. All ? Yes, for the purpose. This is about the frequency, the voltage and the current. All is here in a fairly small "bandwidth" (because all is a given).

If you, for fun, would look what's actually better for our interlinks, 50 Ohm or 75 Ohm, it will be very hard to find an answer because there's too many trees to see the forest (this is Dutch). You, all over the place, will run into smart remarks like "75 Ohm is for video and 50 ohm is 'enough'". This is all bandwidth related and (obviously I hope) video requires a higher bandwidth. Similarly you may run into "can I use a digital interconnect for analogue". Answer will be often Yes, but nothing is worked out further because why to do it anyway "because it will be over-rated".

Let me tell you in between the lines : All I do (and you don't see much of that anyway) is about over-rating. This will remain so as long as we can detect audible differences which can't be measured anyway (or we don't know how to, but that's the same). Partly this is related to how ultra high frequencies can play roles and those frequencies can not be measured (can be GHz range).

Contradiction :
While most you will run into is about "we don't need that bandwidth for audio", we better think the other way around :
When these high frequencies are let loose things might go wrong so we better use (e.g.) a cable with less bandwidth so it nicely filters that out.
Remember : cables filter (see Coen's equation about the 26.5KHz for example, and don't be bothered about the truth of it - it is just there one way or the other).

Where was I ? Thinking out of the box. We HAVE to because there is no box for us, never mind we thought there was one. Ok, there is one, for class 1. That says "use 1:10 and you're good". But now WHY and in what situations does it count ?

Hi Peter,

all this are "keywords"  for a search within BING or Google. They were discussing this theme in the forums of CA + Audiogon too.

Joachim

EDIT:
If we are looking for a problem in the internet with keywords, we get thousands of informations, and 99,9% are not covering our search.
So we have to filter, and we will find in one article a paragraph or sentence for our problem only, and this goes on and on and on and in the end the “puzzle” is completed.

For a cable, all is about reflections (well, on PCB traces this counts just the same, but we ususally don't "see" that). The Empirical Audio page names it "Resonance" but it really is the same.

Again saying that I don't know all (hence I too can't go into all the details when the chips are down) you can take it from me that a signal must be damped at the other end (the receiving end) and that (indeed) this is a function of L, C and R (induction, capacitance and resistance). These are properties of a cable and when the whole of the cable complies to the same outcome (which would be Z, the impedance) then the signal will be 100% damped at the other end. Damped = No reflections.

It is here where we can easily get lost in our audio interlinks, because it is not taken into account that such a thing can exist. This, while in the pre-era of UTP Ethernet cabling, all was about coax and of various protocols. Btw, cable TV still is. And always and ever this is about one thing only : proper termination.

For metter imagination, we can just as well try to see that cable TV was first with this all. Improper termination ? then you'd have ghost images. Aha, those we can see ! Now think what we would be able to hear of that; way more difficult, right ? But what could be seen with TV and could be improved by just looking, worked out into ... digital. I am not 100% sure but I think it was ArcNet which applied the very same as cable TV and it just worked. Later of course cable TV went digital over the same cable (hence damping means did not need to change). Later, Ethernet went the same route but with a different impedance and again later UTP was better. And of course telephony started to implement the same (digital) over copper (but with less (twisted pair) wires).
OK, UTP is not related, although we could start thinking about UTP interlinks. But never mind that (for now ;)).
Point is : all is an evolution but we might wonder who is going to take care about our audio evolution ?

Why do ALL analysers work with BNC connectors ?
Think of this like analysers contain better oscillators than the equipment they need to measure. But of course *that* became ancient history, and only in the last two years or so.
Next step could be the proper "interlinks" for the equipment the analysers measure.

... Which of course still doesn't answer the question why those interlinks of an impedance of exact 50 Ohm are better.
Well, unless we realy understand ...
(now let's see)

It would be nice if someone can come up with why any "resistance" at the other end needs to be (rule of the thumb) 10x that of the output "resistance".

I know, the general answer again will be about this "damping" needed, and to some degree it will be related to current vs. voltage and that implied by the output.

But whatever is said, it will be in the context of a capacitive load (I think !). It will be related to frequencies as well. But in the very very end I think it is about one single thing only : have those reflections under control the best.
"The best"; again see that Empirical Audio page for what actually always happens, with a speaker driver as the example, that not being a "constant" load.
I don't see much difference with a capacitive load for our interlinks.

But if it were about reflections and that only, and our nice all over 50 Ohm BNC interlink takes this out of this world, then what ?

Then what ? I guess then I need to find those boxes with the answer burried somewhere. But too many boxes with too much in them, so now I am going to be speculative, pretentious and possibly dumn :

Then no capacitive load is in order, and thus it is resistive.
:clapping:
Yeah, maybe.
But like I told in my last post from yesterday : I'd hope for that. But now why ...

Please notice or keep in mind : From here on it is going to be quite confusing. How ? Well, because of my speculation at first how reflections can cancel out (and add) and how this could be an explanation of the better (way more poserful) bass. I am not so sure any more whether this "explanation" is for real, and whether it can be replaced with what's following. Do notice though that whatever is true from the following, this cancellation etc. WILL also be in order with improperly terminated cables. And the relation with digital again : while digital will keep on working until appropriate voltage levels (alsways the same - High or Low) collapse, everything of the same at microscopic level in analogue, just changes sound right away.
So with our new cable we have two changed phenomena in order : The cancellation etc. because of reflections and :

More power because of current and voltage being in phase.
Never forget for now : if I am right that we can look at a resistive load now (and it wasn't even my idea - it was Coen's suggestion).

Side note : A resistive load can be seen as one which is always equal. It is equal when more current is pushed through (up and down going level of the music (loud/soft play)) and it is equal for all frequencies.
WOW, wouldn't we like THAT !
Yeah yeah, that is why I hope for it.
BUT to keep in mind : All I am doing is finding an explanation for the ridiculously better sound.

More side note : A capacitive load can be seen as a battery which needs to be charged first before at the other end the voltage comes out of it. Of course this is the working of a capacitor. But our cable is doing the same (it is a capacitor), normally.

Hopefully digging in the right box, what happens with a capacitive load is that first current is needed to create the voltage (and the voltage is what makes our speaker move (amplifier ahead of it)). The voltage lags (comes behind) the current. Now, still looking for the right box ;)) what happens next is that the both (current and voltage) react and the sum of the both is the "net power" we feed to the load.

With a capacitive load (or inductive load the same thing) the real power we feed to the other end is always less than with a resistive load. So, with a resistive load the power is optimal (current and voltage is 100% in phase).

Both feet back on the ground : I won't believe that we suddenly are able to "work with" a pure resistive load. Still, it can have become more of that. This means that we feed more power to the other end than we did before. And this is audible in everyting. Also remember what I told yesterday : "All is more of it".
So it seems logical that we are in this direction.

The other part of it - less distortion, all really "better" - should be because of the frequencies having less influence. And THIS would be the real deal. So, this is not about frequencies being attenuated (because of cable length or reflections or etc.) but about the reactance of the other end (which reactance is not there with our all 50 Ohm cable) not changing the phase of the power (of current + voltage) so to speak, while the reactances (now not there) vary per frequency.

If this is not true then the least what I learned from this is that we must aim for it. So it is still just a start.

Peter

PS: Nice reference from The Power Box :
http://www.aspowertechnologies.com/resources/pdf/True%20vs.%20Apparent%20Power.pdf
Of course this is not about audio, but it is AC and audio is AC.

:bye:

Hi,

attached a file from a Dartzeel manual with their arguments for the choice for  a coaxial BNC cable.

Keywords are:  “external disturbance immunity”, “virtual absence of losses” and “without any sonic alterations”

This seems to be the explanation for the superior SQ with the BNC cable, but their “impedance matching” does not cover our case.

Joachim

If you have read the PDF I linked to in my last post, you will better understand these texts (which I trust) I copied from some forum :
(notice that "driver" here means a device that creates current like in "we need to be able to drive that length of cable) :

---

For a back-of-the-envelope calculation, capacitances in parallel add together. So, for example, if you had 2 loads of 15pf, the total would be 30pf. Drivers have a characteristic output impedance. Transmission lines (board traces) have a characteristic impedance. Loads (receivers) have a characteristic impedance. Impedance is defined as
the ohmic resistance plus the net reactance, which can be either capacity or inductive, or can equal zero. In the case where the net reactance is zero, you would have a purely resistive load.

In situations where the source, line and load impedances are not equal, there will be a reflection of the signal. In other words, when the source sends a signal to the load, the signal will bounce back to the source and distort the signal (i.e. make it less square). The exception to this rule is when the length of the transmission line is small compared to the wave length of the signal.

---

and a somewhat more difficult one :

---

A resistive load passes current in proportion to the instantaneous voltage. If there is voltage across the load, it is passing current, regardless of time.

A capacitive load pases current when the voltage across it changes, and in proportion to how fast it is changing. Any steady voltage drives no current through a capacitive load.

So resistive loads draw current throughout the time when the source applies voltage to it. The capacitive load draws a spike of current when the source tries to step the voltage, and slows the rise time of the step, if the source has series resistance.

If the load is a resistance and capacitance in parallel, then the source must supply both currents simultaneously.

If the load is a series combination of resistance and capacitance, the capacitor blocks any DC current, and the resistor limits the current that can be passed during any fast rate of rise or fall, but extending the time the current passes, after the step in voltage has stopped changing. There will be and exponential decay of current as the resistor drop shrinks, and the capacitor sees the fill applied voltage gradually,  onstead of as the source changes it.

---

I like to highlight this from the last text :


Notice that with "steady voltage" DC is meant. This also implies that the slower the AC change (hence the lower the frequency), the less noticable the result will be when a capacitive load is in order.
Now you also know why we remove input capacitors.
And what the aim is wihh the cable ...

Peter

Hi Joachim,

You understood this wrongly I think. You must have gotten it from this in that PDF :


This is the very same as what I said a couple of time like : "All over 50 Ohm cable".
Or "all through" if you like.

So for maybe better explanation : A cable can be "impedance matched" within itself. And when this is so, it means that not only the cable is matching e.g. 50 Ohms impedance, but also the connectors and their connection.

If you'd observe 50 Ohm BNC connectors and 75 Ohm BNC connectors, you'll see that both are different. This is not because it is another standard or so, but because of the dielectricum causes the "impedance" (think inductance now) and the dielectricum can not be the same for 50 Ohm and 75 Ohm. The cables are also different and this is not because they have a resistance of 50 vs 75 Ohm but because of the LCR properties which togther create the impedance. For a cable this can be done in all sorts of means because it is a relation between the copper, the shield and the dielectricum (but the diameter of the copper is the same for all e.g. 50 Ohm cables because otherwise it won't fit the STANDARD connectors (for 50 Ohm)).

Look at the construction of the connector, which is not for "grip" ...
Now compare an RCA connector and see that nothing CAN be done about any impedance. There's just no (dielectricum) facility.

Btw, all is so fragile (and important) that (they say) not even 75 Ohm or 93 Ohm can perfectly be impedance matched. Only 50 Ohm can (somehow).

Side note : Dozens of such connector means exist with maybe the most familiar one the F connectors (for satellite cable). All come along with their matching cables.
So are we done with this ?

And to get what I mean :
All I need to do for better matching "throughout" is replace the 33 Ohm resistor in your NOS1 with a 50 Ohm and ...

And nothing (yet) because BNC is not the best connector at all. TNC for example is way better. It comes with/for what cable ?
But before that we must first cut out the BS of the additional adaptors, right ?

How many times did I say it by now ? It is only a start.
Regards,
Peter

Something else about that DartZeel PDF :

What they say in there I did not DARE to say this morning :
Why the h*ck should the cable length be so limited. So I thought of the cable TV example. Hence from the source to your house is, how long ?

DartZeel talks about 1Km "and not to make fun". Well, I right away agree just because I don't see why not.
But take out the reflections !

:scratching:
:)

It will need some current though.

There is something else I like to mention :

From the mere hip-hop scene I have this album (CD) MC-Hammer - Too legit to quit. I have played this a 100 times from my TEAC P1 whatever CD transport. And well, right from the start with computer audio, this did not want to work any more.

Like with so many complaints with computer audio (sure when I started with it) it is too "light-weight". Well, something like that. It is a very dynamical CD of good quality also (IMO) and the dynamics of it became too profound to nicely play it.
And thus I regularly test it (like I do with all which won't play well) and yesterday, finally ... it worked. And HOW !

In other words, no matter the speakers I used since "digital" or no matter the number of woofers and/or sub woofers, and just was too light. Too snappy. Harsh because of that. No fundament.
Now ? oh man. First there's the similarity with the old sound, but next is what all has been added for SQ over the years.

It is (now) also easy to hear what it requires. Something like 3x 380V or so. And that is what we mean (I include Joachim); you can just feel that all was squeezed before. Now it's unlimited flow of current, so to speak.

Peter

Can't touch this!

Peter, the link provides excellent information on the -loudspeaker-cable resonances. Allthough I think the resonance picture with the simulated Proac is a little misleading since a computer model will assume an ever rising impedance for the tweeter induction (rising of the impedance on the right side). This will not be the case in practice.
How did they solve it? I guess by placing notch filters parallel to the cable.

Nevertheless it is a real phenomenon and the resonance energy can creep into our precious audio signals. Also there is a likely source of UHF because of the NOS character of the DAC specifically designed for very wide bandwidth square waves. Not to forget USB noise creeping into our cable.

Hmmm, I wonder if this is how the Bybee products work: just eating -excess- HF energy (do they work on digital too?)?

There's more ways to skin this cat, yet the simple termination solution sounds excellent to me.

The discriminator between professional telecom cables and boutique audio stuff is the tight tolerance for the characteristic impedance. These cable's intended use is for much longer distances then in our home environment and you cannot have your impedance vary much otherwise it won't work and you invested a lot of money for nothing.


So the NOS sees 33 + 50/2 = 58 ohms for LF and 33 ohms for HF   ;) and seems to be comfortable with it.

from the article:

If the amplifier is not designed to drive very low-impedance loads, say 1-2 ohms, it may saturate, causing distortion. Even if it does not saturate, the circuitry that eliminates crossover-distortion in most amplifiers may not work optimally at high loads. In fact, the crossover distortion in most amplifiers increases with load.

This is what I was referring to. This is true for any class AB amplifier, including opamps. Seems to be a non-issue.

Now let's have a look what's in my cable box tonight.

regards, Coen

Hey Peter, so there's a distinct possibility that I'll be able to use 10m cables no problem? That would really be great.

Will you now be offering the NOS1a with an option of 50 Ohm BNC output connectors... and the Orelos with an option of 50 Ohm BNC input connectors? Or does the use of 50 Ohm BNC-to-RCA adapters negate this?

Mani.

10m?

For killing reflections/resonances no problem, but cable capacitance will become more significant (this is relevant for audio frequencies) so ymmv...

regards, Coen.

Thanks Coen.

The 50 Ohm Huber + Suhner cables (the ones I've just ordered and the ones that Joachim is using) are around 95pF/m. So a 10m run would still be under 1nF. Is there a straightforward way of calculating how this would affect audio frequencies?

EDIT: According to the Huber + Suhner data sheet (the one Joachim linked earlier), at 6GHz, these cables attenuate at 1.5dB/m. From the graphs, it's hard to get a meaningful figure for the Mhz range, let alone the KHz range... but it's obviously going to be very low.

Mani.

I just looked at it:

Source impedance is with 33 ohm series resistor and 50 ohm the first adapter: 19 ohm. This is low enough for a 1 nF cable: -3 dB on 830kHz. The second adapter containing also 50 ohm even improves on this.

Regards, Coen

Ps. audio signals have very long waves (>10km for 20 kHz) so the hf characteristic impedance does not apply. We must take the capacitance  into consideration.

Thanks Coen.

Cheers, Mani.

 :good: :good: :good:

Calculation of (normal audio) cable attenuation

see:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-cable.htm

Thanks Joachim.

So Coen, were you calculating with 1nF/m? This comes to -3dB at ~830KHz. Putting 95pF/m comes to -3dB at 8.8MHz.

???

Mani.

Hi Mani,

You're right. I have misscounted the number of digits on my unscientific calculator. 1nF was for the entire cable.
Anyway in the mhz range other stuff becomes important as wire induction, and of course the hf transmission characteristics.

So thanks to the low source impedance cable capacitance still doesn't matter at 10m. This was actially my first point  :scratching:.

I didn't make it to the box tonight and i wonder if I did not throw away all my scr*p token ring coax. if so I could start with a simple video cable and do the 75 ohms in the connectors. (Did anybody try this allready?).

Regards, Coen

What do you mean with that, Coen ?

Terminating the 75 ohm video cable with 75 ohm resistors in the RCA plugs.

Similar to using two bnc-rca adapters with 50 ohm resistors buid in for a 50 ohm cable.

Regards, Coen

Coen,


If it were that easy ...

Peter

No it isn't that simple, but I wanted to mimic the setup that started the discussion and it is the most easy to do.

A proper one would involve extra series resistance at the nos1 cable's end (42 ohms). This is for a later moment.

Regards, Coen

Peter,

Hmm. Are you referring to a ftz style capacitors at the output? That would complicate it. I'd better start with resistors at the amp's end only. If I can find the proper rf ones in the scr*p box.

Regards, Coen

As I mentioned before, I've bought a nice pair of Huber + Suhner cables for peanuts (compared to the retail price) on eBay and am waiting for them to get here from the US. If I love the way they sound, I am either going to have to: 1) bring the NOS1a up from my basement into the main room or; 2) have some new H+S cables custom-built for me (for $$$), as the cables I bought are only 3.4m in length and I need 10m. I'd really rather not do either of these things if I can avoid them.

On Peter's suggestion, I ordered some long (and cheap!) 50 Ohm cables and connectors from Farnell yesterday and they arrived about 30 minutes ago.

And oh là là...

Interestingly, it's kind of hard to describe the way they sound, in much the same way that the NOS1a's sound is hard to describe. The cables just sound 'right'... as if there's no cable there at all.

For the last few weeks I've had a pair of very expensive Tellurium Black Diamond cables on loan from a dealer (although I haven't really been around much to listen to them). But having compared the two just now, I'm so sorry to have to say that these 50 Ohm cables are MUCH better... even though they're much longer and of course much cheaper. The Telluriums are going back to the dealer today, and I've saved myself quite a lot of money. Hey Joachim, thanks for the tip man!

I can't help thinking that what we're (everyone, spearheaded by Peter) doing here is amazing. Anyone in their right mind looking for a truly state of the art system would use the knowledge on this forum to put together a nice PC (or get one built for them), install XX, buy a NOS1a, buy a nice pair of active speakers from Bert/Peter... and connect everything together using these 50 Ohm cables. I'm absolutely certain that $-for-$ it'd trounce anything else out there.

Mani.



 

Hi Mani,

What Bnc to RCA adapters do you use? With or without the 50 ohm resistor in them? What type is the cable (like Rg 58u)

Thanks,

Regards, Coen

Hi Coen, here's what I'm using:

RG58 BNC M/M, 5M (Farnell part no. 1351884)

I had already ordered these adapters from Mouser earlier in the week:

Emerson 27-8110 BNC Female to RCA Male adapters (Mouser part no. 601-27-8110)

But Farnell do similar adapters.

HTH.

Mani.

Hey Coen,

There is no such thing as a resistor in a cable or connector or anywhere. Unless you put such a thing in there yourself. ;)
It is impedance.

Regards,
Peter

It says so in this post, including the mention of loss of gain:http://www.phasure.com/index.php?action=post;quote=32240;topic=3026.0;num_replies=68;sesc=1f48dd3a878ffdfd1e9814fa31887d94

Reference is also made to a Dartzeel audio cable which is designed with a 50 ohm interface between amp and preamp:
- power amp input spec version A:BNC: 50 ±1 ohm, de 1 Hz à 1 MHz,
- preamp output spec: 50 ohms for BNC, < 100 ohms for RCA, 600 ohms for XLR

Now I had the (incorrect) notion the sound improvement was about the merits of this setup.

So this all about adding a 50 ohm (to 75 ohm?) characteristic impedance BNC-RCA adapter to be able to use a standard 50ohm cable?

If so, this adapter is only physically terminating the BNC cable and nothing else. How much further can you go in this case then concluding that it is all about the way the connector makes contact mechanically.

regards, Coen

OK Coen, you lost me. :)


Almost. Here is my correction :


Now it's Yes.
But it is allowed to replace BOTH "50 Ohm" with "75 Ohm".


Correct.


Very wrong. Or better : Very far.
It is about now non-existing reflections if all is right.
And now I have the feeling that you did not read many of my posts in this topic. Or that my English is too poor to even want to start reading them.
Still you should.
:yes:

Peter
;)

PS: For your weekend :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance

Question before ordering any cable / adapter etc. My audio setup at the moment:

NOS1 > 0.6m IC > AMP1 > 2 pairs spkr cable > SPKR + AMP2,3 > SPKR LF section(s)
AMP1, 16W dual mono for each 8" Coax driver
AMP2,3 200W plate amp(s) for 2x12" (sub)Woofer sections

What reflections I have in 0.6 mtr interconnects ? (pure silver in foamy ptfe, twisted pr)

I can change above setup by using 2 sets of IC's: 0.6 + 3 mtr pairs - eliminating one pair of speaker
cables (high signal) but adding 3 mtrs low signal. Or using same lengths IC's perhaps ?

Thanks in adv.
George

Hey Coen,


From what I have read Bybees work at a quantum level to reduce noise in any electrical circuit. I am pretty sure that noise levels are reduced regardless of frequency so should work in digital too - but would you need to reduce quantum noise in digital circuits? would quantum noise affect trigger levels square wave shape mmmm that could be a whole discussion apart.

The scientists that developed Bybees were able to measure base noise levels and used an empirical approach to reduce it. They had a hunch where to start but basically used expensive and exotic materials (gold silver special ceramics) and played with amounts thereof to "slipstream" electrons thereby stripping them of quantum noise. As no one really understands the quantum world (Feynman said anyone who thinks they understand quantum mech's has not read it properly) and as an empirical approach was taken I doubt that anyone really understands how they work.

Anyway I fitted mine early today to the Orelino's and will report later.

Cheers

Paul

Hi Coen,

I'm back with the XXH volume (gain) to my normal setting between -33 and -31,5 for my accustomed SPL.
("burn in" of the cable or hallucinations?? During the night the ear reacts different.)

Joachim.

Hi George,

This could be one bridge too far for me at this moment;

Let's say that "we" are used to reflections in the digital (connections) realm. This, with the exception of analogue cable TV where you can see it (ghosting). The point here is that a digital signal is about "high" and "low" (voltage) which represents the 0's and 1's. This is not allowed to be disturbed. Thus, when a 1 becomes a 0 because of interfering reflections (or noise etc.) then the connection does not work any more. This besides jitter, which we can see as crucial as what we talk about in the analogue domain. So, in the digital domain reflections also imply jitter and this is as out of control (and as important) as what we talk about now - the analogue domain.

For jitter we deal with that in quite another way and this is "solve it elsewhere". Think like re-generating the signal further down the line in good fashion. With digital this can be done once the 0's and 1's come across in well fahsion;
In analogue we can't do that, because no "good signal" can be recognized (there's no definition for that).

Because the re-generating of the signal can't always be done - or actually most often it can't be done (don 't think audio now) all sorts of analysers and test equipment exist for it. So, a signal is set up, and such an analyser can measure the reflections hence quality of the signal. Think a bit like empirical analysis and how to "tune" things.
When we'd would like to know how this works out in audio (analogue), we'd need such a (same) analyser.
N.b.: I have been looking for 3 days in a row for something affordable, but I'm afraid it needs some fund raising first; second hand somewhere in between 5-7K euros.
After that I would be able to create the best connection for one type of connection (known equipment from front to end) *or* I will be able to see that things don't matter at all in such and so conditions - actually like I (we) try to do with the exact 50 Ohm cable.

Notice that it would be about the most cheap connection possible (because it's all just technical stuff without snake oil) like our cables from now would cost a few euros when self made. So first spend that 5-7K to next be able to make a cheap cable which by guarantee is the best.

All 'n all George, I can not answer your questions. One thing maybe : It will never be the best to connect two "loads" to one source. So keep your one interlink as is (and replace that), and not connect other amplifiers to that same "source" (= DAC).
The "bridge too far" is also about what happens with the high level connections, which of course are very different to begin with (think about the impedance relation). Generally this is harmless in itself but that too undoubtedly can be improved upon vastly. Or like with the loudspeaker cables in general (again see that Empirical Audio page).

Regards,
Peter

Yesterday evening I replaced the 10m XLR cables in my main system with the 50 Ohm BNC cables and adapters. (I'm actually using 2x 5m lengths and a central 50 Ohm BNC connector per channel to make up 10m, as I couldn't find any 10m BNC cables off the shelf.)

The sound has been totally transformed for the better. The realism is now truly amazing.

But this is in no way a criticism of the 10m XLR cables I bought from Juan. These were designed with a balanced connection in mind. It was only once the Orelos were here that we realised a truly balanced connection was not possible. Running these cables singled-ended over a 10m length is just not what they were intended for.

The 50 Ohm coaxial cables and adapters, however, seem to be totally unfazed by the 10m length. It's really as if they're simply not there.

I agree with Joachim that a few things need to be readjusted after installing these cables. The bass is now tight, tuneful and utterly realistic, but tends to take the 'back stage' more than before. I'm going to explore some of the DSP options with the Orelos to just bring that gorgeous bass forward a little.

Mani.

Okay, is this cable what you folks are talking about and does the length matter?

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/BNC58-3

Hi,

this cable should work for our intention (low budget price), and for longer distances as well. Let us say <20m minimum.

see datasheet attached. The capacitance is 101pF/m.

The conductor of this cable is a "stranded tinned wire", which is not the best material/conductor for our purpose.


Joachim

Thanks Joachim, I'll look for a cable made with solid copper instead of stranded.

Hi, see this cable on Ebay.com

K02252D HUBER SUHNER TEFLON 50OHMS CABLE

and buy the appropriate BNC connector from Hubner+Suhner ............. .

Joachim

I don't think the 'cheap' cable I bought is any better than the one Brian mentions (although it is a bit more expensive):

http://uk.farnell.com/radiall/r284c0351008/lead-rg58-bnc-m-m-5m/dp/1351884?Ntt=RADIALL+-+R284C0351008

I can't find the conductor material from the data sheet, but assume it's also just tinned wire. But the cables (2x 5m in series) sound very, very good.

I'll be able to try the H+S cables in my office system when they come, hopefully next week. This'll give me an idea of how important the quality of the conductors themselves is.

Mani.

Hey, thanks Joachim. I've just gone ahead and ordered 20m. Do you happen to know where I can get the Huber + Suhner 50 Ohm BNC connectors? Also, will I need a special tool to fit the BNC connectors?

Mani.

Well, I just ordered the following (silver plated solid copper---a bit more expensive.):

http://www.l-com.com/coaxial-rg142b-coaxial-cable-bnc-male-male-30-ft

Didn't see the posts after my initial one this morning. Manny, let us know if there's a difference between the cheap cable and the "Huber" cable. Thanks guys.

Here,

the connectors

http://ecom.hubersuhner.com/ecomm/products/Radio-Frequency/RF-Adaptors/pcat-4/index.html


Joachim

Edit:

http://ecom.hubersuhner.com/ecomm/distributors/our-distributors.html

Cable assembled to connector via Crimp technique, see page

http://literature.hubersuhner.com/Technologies/Radiofrequency/RFCablesEN/?page=74

@Mani - stop, cancel your e-bay order.
K02252D has Steel + Copper + Silver center conductor.

You should look for K03252D or RG393 or ENVIROFLEX 393 (blue colored jacket) for extreme low loss coax.
There's also H-S SUCOFORM_250-1_FEP capable of 18GHz, but I could not find any adapter with such capabilities...

Think that RG223/U cable of some known brand like Belden, Draka etc. would offer satisfactory quality as well.

@Peter,
Thank you vm for very detailed reply !  :drinks: 

Hi Joachim, I was talking about the actual BNC connectors for the wire, and not the BNC-RCA adapters (although I'll certainly look into getting a couple of pairs of H+S adapters too).

Having done a search, I think I'll need a couple of pairs of these:

http://www.hubersuhner.com/ProdDet/2761105

Mani.

Hmmm...

Does the 'St' stand for steel or antimony?

Mani.

Here's data from www2.hubersuhner  (com)

Hi Mani,

yes, that's the right ones.

Joachim

The cable you ordered has the same capacitance with 96pF/m and a lower operating voltage as the mat'l combination CuAg, and both cables are double shielded. That is the identical cable I have.

Hi Joachim,

Yesterday night I was discussing over phone with my friend mentioning H+S coax cables and he pointed me to e-bay link where K02252D is available for just $2.99 / meter.
If you look at photo here (http://www.ebay.com/itm/K02252D-HUBER-SUHNER-TEFLON-50OHMS-CABLE-/200866551844?pt=US_Radio_Comm_Coaxial_Cables_Connectors&hash=item2ec4945824) you will notice that cable jacket is different, I would say transparent, not the same as on your cable(s). And K03252D costs much, much more (~$12/feet).
That's the reason I warned Mani on his e-bay purchase. And yes, capacitance of K02252D is 97pF. H+S data here (http://www.sucoflex.com/mozilla/hs-sup-search-prod-rf-cab-2g?p_Query=K_02252_D&query=K_02252D&applied=1&search=type&display=12&vt=12246&unit=si&step=1&list=q&listed=2&sort=asc&col=1&prm=FCC875491265C2ED1A349A178CE77754)

Hi George, thanks for the 'warning'. I suspect the jacket in the photo looks transparent because of the flash photography. I can't believe that anyone would sell counterfeit cable that retails for only $3/m - doesn't seem worth their while - and the eBay seller definitely looks like a genuine RF dealer.

But I totally agree that it'd be better to get the K03252D cable. 'Better' more from a psychological point of view than sound POV perhaps, because we have no idea if they actually sound different. If the real point is impedance matching, then there might not be a difference in sound.

The K02252D cable has cost me very little, so I'm inclined to go ahead with the purchase because the K03252D cable looks much harder to obtain. If anyone knows where I could get 20m of K03252D then please let me know asap, as in which case I would definitely cancel my order.

Cheers, Mani.

This is what looked interesting.

http://www.cablesondemand.com/category/CORG142/product/CO%2D142BNCX200/URvars/Items/Library/InfoManage/CO-142BNCX200.htm

*edit* this cable has the similar specs as the H+S cable
http://www.amphenol.ru/pdf/RG-142.pdf

Any good BNC to RCA adapter?

Hey VJ, the performance looks similar to the 'expensive' K03252D H+S cable. But then again, the 'cheap' K02252D H+S cable seems to have similar performance too.

Not too sure about the description of the Amphenol either:

"Solid Silver-coated Copper Clad Steel Conductor". Sounds more like the K02252D than the K03252D.

Mani.

Hi Mani,
I might be missing something but from the "cables on demand" it says solid silver coated copper center conductor.
Again from that PDF on the top it mentions something about steel on top, but the details it mentions the inner conductor is silver-copper.

From the datasheet you linked:

http://www.amphenol.ru/pdf/RG-142.pdf

Ambiguous... and disingenuous if it is indeed copper-clad steel, IMO.

Mani.

Yep, and hence ambiguous. Can they still call it 'silver copper' if it is 'silver-coated copper-clad steel'?

In any event, I can't imagine the 'steel' is a mistake.

Mani.

Strange indeed.
It's the same "MIL-C-17 type" grade, I presume it should have the same specs.
Anyways Amphenol claims to be the inventor of BNC connector.

According to H+S "High Temperature - K series" (page 48) coax cables Joachim provided link to, the best (double shielded coax) is RG_393.
That's why I mentioned it earlier.  Plus variation of it, with blue colored jacket, ENVIROFLEX_393. Then comes K03252D, RG142, RG400 etc.

Hi,

the above is the correct term. (see ASTM B 452-09, for electronic applications)

------------------------

I went through all technical datas of the Huber+Suhner cable families, and the ENVIROFLEX and K - types are covering our application best.

When I have a look to the attenuation diagrams (see above from nik.d), and see where  the audio frequency is working, the curves of the cables are not that far apart.
The capacitance of both families is nearly the same (94pF/m & 96pF/m).

I think it will not a big mistake if we stick to the K_02252_D.

My proposal: If somebody wants to climb to the top he may test the K_02252_D60 and write his experience.

When we have a look to the weight and the diameter of the conductor of the cables, the _D60 is ......... .

Joachim

Hi,

both same cables (RG 142)  are a "silver-coated copper-clad steel wire". Conductor dia=0,95mm.

see:

http://www.awcwire.com/productspec.aspx?id=m17/60-rg142-coaxial-cable
&
http://www.hubersuhner.com/ProdDet/3147173

Joachim

No mention of any steel conductor in the RG142B cable that I ordered:

http://www.l-com.com/multimedia/catalog_page/2K14M1_165-RG142B-U-and-RG213-U-50-Ohm-Cable-Assemblies.pdf

The order was from here:

http://www.l-com.com/coaxial-rg142b-coaxial-cable-bnc-male-male-30-ft

Hi,
Can someone explain why something like this would not be appropriate?
http://www.trilogycoax.com/pdf/wireless/aircell_catalog/AirCell_Catalog_Plenum.pdf
I see the following interesting features
Item: AQC012J50
Capacitance: 72 Pf/m
Velocity of propagation: 95% speed of light (RG142 @ 70%)
Dielectric: Air

What is different is the corrugated jacket.

Thanks,
VJ

P.s Anyone with recommendation of a good BNC to RCA Adapter?!

Hi,

Note to boleary & vrao.

When I have a look to the diagrams of  Reply #97 by nik.d I'm "nitpicking". Beg your pardon.

Both diagrams are showing nearly no differences (nothing due to the small scale) in the audioband up to 20KHz within the single and the double shielded cables, and we should hear no deviations in a blind test until otherwise proven.

Joachim

EDIT:

Mani is very enthusiastic with his intermediate "cheap" BNC cables, and it will be interesting to read his comment about the new cable (K_02252_D).

Agee :)

Intrigued by vrao's question on 'Good BNC to RCA adopters' have searched  a few.
The only one with tech details, most important would be Freq. Range, is the one Mani already suggested: Emerson 27-8110, Fr.Range: DC to 2GHz.
No other manufacturer/distrubutor is stating this information. And here are few suggestions, from easy available to 'boutique' one's:

Emerson 27-8110 @ Mouser Part#: 601-27-8110
http://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/AIM-Cambridge-Emerson-Connectivity-Solutions/27-8110/?qs=dEO1gfb2FsoQhhrXS/AHfA==

Bomar @ Digikey Part#: 991-1109-ND
http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en?pv166=318&pv167=614&FV=fff40016%2Cfff803d6&mnonly=0&newproducts=0&ColumnSort=0&page=1&quantity=0&ptm=0&fid=0&pageSize=100
http://media.digikey.com/Photos/Bomar%20Inter%20Photos/R0844.jpg

Pacificcable Part#: RFA-8392
http://store.sacelec.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=299

Oelbach Part#: 4601
http://www.oehlbach.com/en/computer/dvi-vga/adapter/bnc-co-2


George

Thanks George.

From the pic, the Emersons look like they should have a gold-plated centre pin. The ones that I received from Mouser definitely do not have this. But the packaging stated the exact same part number.

The Oelbachs look nice - I'll probably try to get these if I can at some point (again, for purely psychological reasons and being able to sleep well at night).

Incidentally, I have asked for my K_02252_D cable from eBay to be cancelled (I haven't received a reply from the seller yet but am assuming it will be OK to cancel). My thinking is that if I'm going to bother replacing the cheap cables I'm already using then I really want the 'best' I can find (again for purely psychological reasons). Otherwise I may as well just keep my current cables, which sound great anyway.

Mani.

Does it matter if the adapter is rated at 50 or 75 ohms? Joachim, in his reply #2, said he used 50 ohm adapters, so I ordered 50 ohm too. Looking at Nik.d's list above I couldn't tell if they were 50 or 75 ohm.

http://www.l-com.com/coaxial-coaxial-adapter-bnc-female-50-ohm-rca-male

George, thanks for the list.
As mani mentioned the Ohelbach looks very interesting, but there is no mention about the impedance?

@vrao
Yes, that's very confusing for say very well respected cable factory. Their PDF is, say, ridiculous.
For Mouser, Digikey & Pacific Cable ones I'v checked by filtering (50 Ohm) Pacific Cable has same connector with *-75*
added at end of product name. Did not post direct link to mfr site 'cause my browser is blocking Java App for this product.
Riddle still remains on 'boutique' and most expensive one. BNC connectors of 75 Ohm impedance are larger in diameter
and that's the only difference between them, AFAIK.
 

perfect!

Joachim

All,

Last Saturday, my 5th day of listening through the BNC interlinks, I started to be sure I could hear a flavor in the highs. Maybe it has been there from day 1, but let's say that I heard a few things for the better anyway and I didn't want to hear flavors.

But yesterday things changed;

Listening through this cable 6 days ago started out with the more emphasized bass (see Want some Bass (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3025.0) topic. It brought a better balance in everything although I would say that generally it could be too heavy to my taste. So as promised in there (link) yesterday I reverted to the normal neutral speaker settings, just to see how the BNC cable would behave from there.

First notice, if I observed well, was the still more bass. Actually a bit strange, because it was difficult to notice less bass. Well, it was less, but the "too heavy" remained.
Since I was doing this to bring back more dynamics - because the more bass tends to mask the higher frequencies which makes everything more "slow", I played another of these MC Hammer albums (I mentioned MC Hammer earlier in this topic) to see whether that one now was too dynamical. Actually I chose MC Hammer again because I expected it to be OK because the bass seemed still OK. Well, that worked !
Hmm ...

At 3 quarters of it, I started to observe Madonna / Michael Jackson synthesized (grey) drums as something like "he too" but with the notice I most probably did not play that album ever in digital. All sounds super much better than 10 years ago, so that's why the "he too".
So I switched over to one of my mere test albums to see how that would behave. Actually for the bass only.

After 15 minutes I shut down the whole system because I was totally fed up with it. Ouch ouch ouch.

Coen, might we have bet over a nice bottle of whiskey, pick your brand ...

All right (not), I now know where such an interconnection gets its "virtues" from. And actually it is very interesting;
Assuming that everyebody perceives the Silverstone USB3 interface the same way ... this cable is that times 3 or so.
But let's first go back to how the cable started "working" :

So, the more bass (see link I gave) is really that. The whole picture changes, and you don't hear me say it is wrong to begin with. However, what surely happens is that the highs are masked and without all starting to be dull right away, it *is* true that all gets slower of it. So the snap of a snare drum turns into a "less snare" simply because of the higher frequencies are overwhelmed by the "tom" part of the snare drum (the cabinet of it). This is not per se wrong, but it *is* more slow, and for comparing with reality you could be disturbed by it. Also, the lower frequency instruments with snap, will become more low frequency because of it. And strangely enough a kick drum is an example of that. Things get "heavy" ...

If you listen to this for a couple of days - which was 3 days in my case - all sorts of revelation happen when you are able to add some special kind of highs. Like a Silverstone card in 3 fold. :yes:
All opens up and while the more square fragile frequencies where mushed out by the lower ones, things really start to happen when you make those fragile frequencies ... more square. But by what means ? Silverstone card means. And what was that ? "creating" holes in the "smoothnes".

What is the Silverstone card actually doing ? Making a cymbal "vibrate" better into a cymbal. Can't be put to words, but you'll know it (if you have one, especially with normal NOS1 (not NOS1a)).
So holes = on/off = square. Very nice for localisation and also very nice for separation and imaging. And depth. And more.

Because this is Joachim's subject (topic), I'll make another side step;
It hasn't been emphasized too much, but somewhere in between the lines in some post from some topic in this forum (pfff) I told that my Seagull did not work so well any more. And what was going on there ? I "turned down" the squariness. By what means was that ? Oh, NOS1a and in combination with the new Custom Filter means of XXHighEnd.
Did I care ? maybe some times. But there's more ease in the sound and in the end you could hear that this was about "distortion" as such. Difficult to explain it through distortion, but if something is too square (for our system to cope with) then the result is distortion.

Joachim, you said it : The Seagull flies as never before.
Yes, maybe. I tried it too a few days ago, but I already couldn't concentrate on the (perceived) music in there because the fragility of the sounds had vanished. I now refer (thus already a few days back) to the often same flavor. Actually hard to recognize the whole track because of that (recognition points had vanished).

And so I yesterday set the speaker to the "lean" setting (the original measured setting) and put on one of my well known "test" albums;

With now all my attention to "could it be the cable" I right away noticed that I couldn't see the size of the cymbals. This is how the triple Silverstone effect jumped to me; Too much of it, and with its impact on especially cymbals, now all cymbals were influenced into sort of too small ones.
No, no way this could be right; actually I heard "hash" but with a lower frequency we normally dedicate "hash" to. A very profound on/off sound.

I couldn't say at all the sound was too lean, but I now noticed as well that the bass was not what it can be. Also hard to explain, but where an electric bass nicely showed its frequency, the acoustic bass was coloured. Too much of it ? possibly.
But I couldn't observe the basses for too long because the highs started to hurt. Really hurt. I said to myself "this is dirty". Not grey - the opposite I'd say, but the too much on/off of it made it dirty. And thus painful as well.

Of course my big mistake has been that I tried the BNC cable in an already tweaked setting to begin with (the more emphasized bass). This is how the cable looked to be doing good. So on top of the overwhelming bass it was able to just pop up a sufficient amount of squariness to net make the imaging even better. All went better because of it.
Except for the flavor ...
(and flavors KILL me !)

So without the "bass tweaking" it is totally rubbish. And I wished I had tried the cable in the normal setting to begin with.

Please notice, up to disclaimer (and also pay attention) :
*Because* this is listening to tweaked sound to begin with (more bass), it WILL be so that my observation is subjective now. In other words, things are not right to begin with, and THUS we can't relate to mere reality and we start to pick the best virtues out of what we hear and tend to neglect the anomalies. It's what we want. Still, it is not said that *with* the more emphasized bass the net result can not be better with the BNC cable. It's a weak balance. So in this case (or my case) it is about me just not being able to listen to flavors since I got used to tune for neutrality. And, I already know that not so many people even want that or know what it is. To summarize this :
I don't like the cable because it implies a flavor BUT in the already flavored setting to begin with (emphasized bass). And please remember, with the normal speaker settings I have no complaints apart from a handful of albums not playing (too dynamical or too lean if you want). This too is "me" and possibly I am quite alone. So my bass is neutral, is OK, does not lack a thing to me (and of which by now it could be clear that I am alone on that one already) and if THEN (in that setting) such a cable is mounted, well, then the cable s*cks all over.
Of course it is my opinion that it s*cks anyway, because it is my opinion that it should be used in a neutral setting to begin with. But if I am alone in
a. my bass is neutral so all is right;
b. put in that cable shows 100% clear how bad it does,
then who am I as this loner to decide for you that the cable can't work in your preferred bass-heavy (my opinion) setting.

But tonigt I will be back to the normal cablle - that's for sure.

Also watch out for my next disclaimer :
It is not said (or 100% sure to me) that it is the cable which "creates" the distortion. I mean, it can also be that it passes on better what the source is really telling. If that would be the real truth, then too bad and nothing much to do about that at this moment. Yes, maybe apply a nice heavily ringing filter. But I am not going to do that anyway ...

Peter

Peter - Aren't your "normal" interconnects coaxial cable? I thought they were when I came over. If they are coax what impedance are they? in other words what is the comparison between.

Cheers

Paul

Paul,

I'd say "nothing" because not terminated (properly). But the cable itself, 75 Ohm.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

fair writing.

We audiophiles are listening with different cables, and the BNC cable with the adapters are in a reasonable price league, and we are not bankrupt after a “failed” test perception.

As I wrote a couple of times, “bass freaks” are bass freaks and their audio system is tuned for it!
I did never hear such basses (as heard in Peters superb listening room) in live concerts.

Opposed to Peter, I believe in cables or in other words, I do hear differences between some cables. For a longer time I heard music with the Nordost Valhalla and changed in 2009 to the Swedish Entreq (Challenger) cables. There was a small difference between these two cables, and it was to distinguish on a very high level.

I never heard such a drastic difference in cables as between the RCA and BNC cables as now.
The bass in my system is now more realistic, nearer to the sound of live concerts. At deep frequencies the driver of the active subwoofer is now under full control, no undefined notes anymore.

On my system (see settings in profils) is less bass with the BNC’s than with the RCA’s. That is opposite to Peters findings with the Orelos MKII.

This BNC cables are producing less noise than the RCA’s.

The clicks of the cymbals on the Sakura, Sakura track on Stanley Clarkes CD “Jazz In The Garden” (http://www.amazon.com/Jazz-Garden-Stanley-Clarke/dp/B001VFM0QU/ref=sr_1_8?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1410775739&sr=1-8&keywords=stanley+clarke ) a better to hear/follow than ever.

For tests I’m more listening to live concert CDs, such as “Tenderness” from Al Jarreau (I saw him in a Frankfurt concert) ( http://www.amazon.com/Tenderness-Al-Jarreau/dp/B0016OAUAY/ref=sr_1_10?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1410776113&sr=1-10&keywords=al+jarreau ) and what is coming from the speakers is very realistic., also the “Return to Forever” live CD’s.

Eberhard Weber is playing a wonderful bass on the CD “Endless Days” and the SQ is great on my system. http://www.amazon.com/Endless-Days-Eberhard-Weber/dp/B00005BG87/ref=sr_1_9?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1410779098&sr=1-9&keywords=eberhard+weber

Every cable is a compromise in our systems, one person emphasises the highs, the other the mids and the next one the bass ……….. .

The BNC cable is for my system the best compromise and I can’t go back to a RCA cable.

So, happy testing for the forum members.

On our adjacent “toilet” :), eh, library with the computer table the SQ is great.

Joachim

P.S.
Peter, I have problems with the interpretation of the following definitions:
-   so holes = on/off = square; squariness
-   grey
-   flavor

EDIT I:

-Quote-
Also watch out for my next disclaimer :
It is not said (or 100% sure to me) that it is the cable which "creates" the distortion. I mean, it can also be that it passes on better what the source is really telling. If that would be the real truth, then too bad and nothing much to do about that at this moment. Yes, maybe apply a nice heavily ringing filter. But I am not going to do that anyway ...
-Unquote-

My assumption is, due to the construction of the double shielded cable there is less noise and < HF immissions, and what we hear is nearer to the reality.

High frequency on/off sound. So the sound goes on and off in a high frequency, that in itself implying squares as such. And that creates the :


So say that a 12KHz intended tone is going on/off for 50% of it's "duty cycle" then the result is 6Khz but not a sine (plus very high frequency harmonics beyond the audio band).


Not neutral. All "cymbals" sound similar.


It is okay if you think that, but anticipate that you fool yourself. For example, it is true that the "ticks" etc. on cymbals are better audible, but it is not right that no "developing" sound of the cymbal is there. This is how all the ticks an random cymbals start to sound the same.
You are even allowed to judge all as "better resolution" and from there more sharply boundaried, but you never win any game (from me) when that again all sounds similar while it is clear that nothing should sound similar.

Also, no double triple etc. cable is going to help a thing here, because I am using that for ages already (and for that reason btw).


This is the danger-part;
I tend to agree with this with the BCN cable in. But nobody ever is going to convince me that *thus* not-neutrality will be our share.  But hey, I punched the subject enough I think, and everybody (now fed with some mere negatives) can decide for his own. So please do, and don't stop reporting !!

Thank you Joachim,
Peter

Oh My.....
Last night I did my research on another cable with
50Gz bandwidth.
I guess it's irrelevant now.

 :dntknw: :dntknw:

With this in mind ...

I thought, what the h*ck, let's try to measure differences in THD between the cable I always use and the BNC cable.
Well, I never got 'round to that ...

I saw a pile of noise (like 200uV-p while it should be 25uV-p). What ?
Yep.
Hmm ...
That noise appeared not to be there from the measurement PC - only the audio PC. I didn't understand and even removing the USB cable did not matter (with the measurement PC it did).
One hour further :

Two weeks ago I moved the measurement PC (= "server" as well) down to the basement and with that all the power arrangements changed. That server PC (connected through isolated LAN/Ethernet with the audio PC) went into a separate earth ring. Before this change it always has been in the same earth ring as the audio PC.
But what can now be the difference ?

I honestly don't know.
Always and always the audio PC had to be in the same ring as the audio equipment itself BUT connected to mains earth (and the equipment not). Today ? well, I moved the audio PC into the earthless outlet (same as the audio gear) and ... gone was the noise (notice that this whatever noise itself is  inaudible anyway).

One more thing (but actually for a different topic) :
When the NOS1a is connected to the server PC (in mains earth and another earth ring), the black wire in the NOS1a has to be CONNECTED or otherwise I would see the same noise. However, that PC does not contain any isolated Silverstone card. For the audio PC this did not matter (as how it was prior to this change - and noise remains as high and looked completely the same). Now, with the NOS1 connected to the audio PC (with isolated Silverstone) as of the change I applied, the wire has to be LOOSE, or otherwise the noise is slightly worse (but I can't incur for any high levels any more anyway now).

How the power meter (to the audio PC) can show 4 Watts of usage more in this situation ? Of course I can't tell. But it should be related to current now flowing over hot + neutral while previously part of it went over earh as well (and the meter not taking that into account I'd say).

D*mn difficult stuff AGAIN.

Same album as the one because of which I shut off everything yesterday is playing for 22 minutes now. Maybe it is because of this typing that I still survive it.

???

Peter

PS: Can't listen much more today because I need to go out shortly.

Or not. :)

Or indeed. :swoon:

So I see you guys looking for the highest bandwidth, but all you can imply with that is amplifiers not coping. Or speakers.
So think about this ...

Peter

Well, I'm with Joachim on this one.

I first tried the BNC cable (a single 5m run with BNC-RCA adapters at both ends) in my office system - NOS1 (not 'a') connected directly to Stax headphones. There was simply no question that this was the most transparent of the cables I had to hand, including some pretty expensive stuff. I listened for hours to this setup and had virtually no complaints. My wife also agreed. Incredible detail, but totally smooth. The most tuneful bass I had heard through these headphones. My Stax are >10 years old and were the cheapest of the range back then. I love their tone, but have always thought the LF is a bit full and slow. But not with the BNC cable - the bottom end really tightened up.

I then tried two 5m runs in series to create a 10m run. There was virtually no change in the sound - maybe a tad brighter, but really nothing noticeable.

Having assured myself that these cables were 'the real deal', I routed a pair of 10m runs under my floorboards from the NOS1a in my basement to the Orelo speakers in my main room. The sound was transformed (for the absolute better).

I hear no 'flavour' whatsoever. Even on the same album, differences between the recording/mixing/mastering of different tracks are clearly audible.

How can my experience be so different from Peter's? I dunno... Maybe his BNC-RCA adapters are not truly 50 Ohms, and mine are???

In any event, my BNC cables are here to stay until I can be convinced that they're adding a flavour to the sound. At the moment, I don't hear them 'adding any flavour', but rather hear them 'taking away a mask'.

Mani.

I rephrased that a couple of times, but I think it still showed the opposite of what I meant to say (I just put it wrongly). During that typing I thought "okay, it won't be so that this doesn't disturb now because I'm typing and not really paying attention to the music ?!".

At this moment I am fairly sure that my noise problem played a large role in this all. So I say/quote it again :


... and if the source contains noise ...

I was able to play a couple of albums yesterday after all and what I could tell from it is that the highs seem to be way more extended (+ refined !) than before. Mind you, this is with the (my) standard DSP setting hence the perceived "lean" setting. Well, nothing lean in there anyway and I really don't see how anyone would want more / more powerfull bass.

So, continuing with this cable ... :yes:

Peter

Hi Guys,

Seems to be a very interesting discovery (if I may call it). Certainly worth attempting as the cost is very minimal. However for guys (like me) who are still using a pre amp,  should we go a step further & attempt to change the interconnect between the pre amp & amp too?

Best regards,

Arvind

Hi Arvind,

please see the PDF in the Reply #45 of this thread.

I do not have any experience with a 50Ohm BNC connection from the NOS1 to a preamp. You have to test it.

From my experience with the 50Ohm BNC connection between the Dartzeel pre- and poweramp the difference ( if we make it simple) to the RCA connection was appr. 20% in favour for the BNC.

You will get the best result/SQ omitting the preamp (Peters suggestion for the best SQ possible since the beginning), if your poweramp has a decent/reliable DC offset protection.

The BNC connection between the NOS1 and the poweramp creates a new SQ.
Mani wrote, that he do not hear any cable!

kind regards

Joachim

Arvind needs the gain of his preamp ...


Huh ??
Only if you refuse to use the DC Offset procedure.
Or, of course, if you like to use Pahse Alignment.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

eh? So I'm behind as always!  :dntknw:

Please explain. Thanx.

Joachim

Joachim, explain about what ?
I don't understand. And I won't believe that you don't know how to set the DC Offset right in your NOS1(a).

And if it is not that, then it is your turn to explain ... :yes:

Peter

Hi Peter,

thanx.

when you are talking about the NOS1 especially it's ok. Meanwhile I have another procedure for it, and it works quite well.

Joachim

Hi,

I will check out the SQ diff between Nos1 & pre amp. I can't go without a pre amp due to gain reqd by the pre amp (as Peter mentioned) to drive the amps.

Probably a very stupid question; why can't the 50 Ohm coax cable be directly terminated with RCA. Why terminate it with BNC & then use an adapter.

Regards,

Arvind

Huh? "DC offset procedure"? I know how to check the DC offset with the built-in meters, of course. But there is a procedure? For what? For minimising the DC offset? If so, please let me know where I can learn more about this - I've searched and can't find anything.

Mani.

Today my cheap BNC arrived. 4 times 3 meters including adapters for 25 euro. Put it between the preamp and 4 mono poweramps. Tubes in pre and top-poweramp. Silicon in the bass.
Well it was very clear to hear the difference. The hash has gone, maybe lacking transients or just the distortion missing? I think the latter.
Because my son wants to see the soccergames the sound is coming from sattelite-tv through the pc and it is amazing how good even that sounds. TV-voices sounding very natural too!

I'll order more bnc's for all low-level sources.
At my supplier they have readymade cables of 3m for 50 ohm and .5m and 1m for 75 ohm. These are goldplated and look nicer but I'm convinced the better sound has to come from the interface between 50 ohm impedance from the cable and the different impedance meeting each other not in the boundary with the cable but in the boundary between adapter and amplifier. So reflections stay in the adapter.
This effect should be the same for 75 ohms, as long as both cable, connector and adapter are the same.

Thanks for this incredable tweek!
(Sorry for the manufacturers of expensive cables!)

Hi Arvind,

see this "explanation"

Signal cable
.........
Where possible RCA connectors should be avoided: they may be the established standard for most Hi-fi equipment but bring a number of disadvantages. The separated earthing they provide is not ideal and has a negative effect on the noise ratio. RCA connectors can also create reflection that can detract from the real signal in the cable. We recommend BNC cable with RCA adapters to reduce this.

from

http://www.phonosophie.de/International/setup.html

at the bottom of the page.

Joachim

Pfff ...  :)

If you'd switch on your NOS1 without checking the DC Offset, then ?
Then it can be wrong and when so you'll *have* DC Offset.
So what do you do ?
You apply something to get it right. That "something" is a procedure. Especially because it's written out in the install guide.

It is as simple as that.
Let's stop this subject, because it is related to nothing. :wacko:

Peter

A small intermediate report from my side :

I can NOT be sure at this moment, but I think that the BNC cable shifts the spectrum in such fashion that generally dynamics are lost (or less would be a better description).

This is quite contradictionary because I am fairly 100% sure that the highs gain from it. But about the bass I don't know;

It feels like an "outward spread" from say 500Hz or something (the 500Hz is jist a wild guess and may be totally off). So think like this "cross point" is under-emphasized and what's taken out there goes to the bass and to the highs. The effect ? All is more slow.

What I will do for tonight's session is *lowering" the bass output. So, it is not only me saying that there's more bass output with this cable, and to me it is already clear that for my normal setting this now is too much. But notice : Not in the realm of too much really, but in the realm of something not being right. This very very much depends on the album (or recording if you want). But for example, a Bob Marley just doesn't want to play AT ALL any more. It is just completely coloured, heavy and without the snap it normally has. I say : the mid has gone. Just poop ... vanished.

How ?

Peter

And a next one :

Let's say I was able to solve the "issue" by lowering the bass output. Story is more complicated - but only to indicate that we can ignore my previous post.

Next though, Mani gave me a hint dat normal Arc Prediction could be better and "will post in the forum". Well, Mani apperently did not, and probably he withdrew his findings, but meanwhile I tried it myself ...

Maybe it's wrong judgement, but previously it was quite easy for me to hear the "distortion" from normal Arc Prediction. I mean, after using the Custom Filter this was easy.
But not now and I actually liked it very much.

So I don't want to make it all tooooooo complicated, but it looks like the "distortion" as such was incurred for by the normal interlink. And this can very well be (transients are higher with normal Arc Predition).

Although very much burried in this topic, and nobody will ever find it back, I now have a next remark :

The Custom Filter (from the also hidden 1.186-i) implies a slight flavour as well. I never told about this because in my view the "less distortion" was more important, but since now that distortion seems to be out of the way ...
The Custom Filter brings a small flavour of "hissing". Hard to explain because this is not hissing at all, but I don't know how to describe it better. Let's say that the top end of the frequency spectrum (OK the end that I can still hear) mushes into a "white" sound (not grey !). So when you listen closely you can hear this white flavour;

Yesterday, after setting all back to normal (the "standard") for my Oreo MKII speaker, and after listening to Arc Prediction, all came together and I (finally ?) heard back my usual sound (I have been using the Custom Filter exclusively since May). But the "usual sound" means : that now (somehow) it is right away obvious that *nothing* sounds the same. IOW, apparently we can get used to flavours as well (I knew it, but I learned to not be disturbed by it).

All 'n all today's message is : I think people using the Custom Filter should revisit Normal Arc Prediction *IF* they are using the BNC cable.

Peter

I tried custom filter last night and did not like it compared with Arc Prediction. On the Elvis Costello track from hell it really did seem that the custom filter introduced a "metallic" type edgy distortion to the vocals. That is with my RCA interconnects. I will try coax in the next few days hopefully this weekend.

Paul

I don't think I need to wait any longer with reporting with what I hear today.
But first the sequence of happenings/changes, so people can follow; topics with main numbers and sub letters were applied/active at the same time (like 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d).

1a. NOS1.
1b. My previous speakers and amps.
1c. 75 Ohm coax Interlinks with Neutrik connectors. Length 1m80.
1d. Audio PC connected to mains earth.

2. Orelino Speakers + amplifiers.

3a. Orelo MKII speakers + new amplifiers.
3b. 75 Ohm coax Interlinks with Neutrik connectors. Length ~4m.

4a. NOS1a prototype (all components new).
4b. XXHighEnd Custom Filter.

5. NOS1a production version (used DAC board from my original 4 year broken in NOS1).

6. Bass tweaks for people who think they like more bass.

7. BNC Interlinks + RCA adapters. Length = 3m.

8. Disconnected Audio PC from mains earth.

9a. Back to native ("original") Orelo MKII DSP measured settings.
9b. Back to Arc Prediction.

BINGO

If you follow the sequence, you can see how things can creap in for the worse. Or better, how the one challenges for the other while actually we should always "reset" back to base. Well, look at my list. Undoable to even think about such thing. For example, why would I go back to Arc Prediction at the stage of #5. The well broken in DAC board sounded better, so "no need to". But it's just an example because it's full of it. Also see #8, which was for the (measured) better, most probably since 4a.

Still, I dedicate the biggest POSSIBILITY for change to the BNC cable. So if I now look what NET changed, it's actually only that (but a bit depending on where I start to observe the list / my history).

I can't even begin to tell what just the audible changes of going from #8 to #9 are. It's just totally crazy. As if I have cascaded 10 DSP processors with all their own goodies for the sound (OK, I am against DSP for such means, but I hope you get what I mean).
The room is so full of sound everywhere with *nothing* I could detect for anomaly or disturbing or whatever, during a sheer 6 hours of continuous playing.

I can also tell you that these 6 hours where the most challenging, especially when we moved outside for probably the last BBQ of the year and outside we listened to the music coming from around a couple of corners at something like close to 90dB hence my normal listening level, while inside it played at 110. For hours and hours everybody could pick their favorite to play (think a 100 tracks from 100 different albums), actually focused on "musical icons", meanwhile teaching our Paul what in our opinion those icons are. So it went all over the place, and much of it was from the 60's or early 70's. All sounded as good and as balanced.

What I just tried to describe is the for me very strange phenomenon that you can play for such a long time, and with so various material, that it is actally impossible that you don't run into something with too lean bass, too sharp highs or something else wrong. But nothing-nowhere.
This is how I wrote the BINGO"; as if I suddenly found how all the pieces of the puzzle must be layed. And that after so many years.

I am convinced it is about the interlink, because what it does was audible for me right form the start (just the same as Joachim described it), but all of that suddenly popped out in ten-fold. Why ? that must be the Arc Prediction Filtering.
And so my still a bit cautious conclusion :

With Arc Prediction the transients can be called infinitely high (depending on what's in the material). I could also say : there's nothing in there that filters those transient. No-thing.
The Custom Filter though, sure filters. It's only the the time-domain is still very OK (hardly any ringing).
Now we must think further and how those transients were "killed" in the normal interlink. Killed should mean : reflections of them and which for electrical (not digital) means high frequency reflections (or reflections of high frequencies (only ??) - also good).

What I just said HAS to be so, because after the NOS1a (that pronouncing all very better/more) I *had* to make the Custom Filter because I could hear distortion (and I did not blame the NOS1a). And the Custom Filter sure helped. It also ("at the same time") tamed the sound we could perceive as too fresh perhaps. I liked it.
Now ? well, now I'd say that 12dB of high output has been added and totally nothing distorts. It's back to the "infinitely highs" as I have described longer ago with which I mean that you can hear that it can even have way more highs output, and nothing will start to distort or get nasty. You just turn up the volume of the cymbals so to speak.
And with the (BNC) interlink now not messing up the signal, all is ... well, I can't describe it anyway. All I kept on noticing over and over again was that live bands played to us from the room inside.

If this is not the best ever, then I don't know.
:heat::heat::heat:
Peter

(the above from the other topic, because I think it fits better in here)

I have been thinking about that, because I can see that people have difficulties with obtaining the right type. Maybe it is psychologically because "we" want to improve further, but meanwhile nothing seems to happen for many.

So yes, of course, we can provide a set. I just looked at the invoice and it says EUR 73,74 for the set of 3 meters plus (gold plated) adapters. If I add 15 euros for the trouble plus the shipping (normal mail) then it's 90 euros.
Shorter/longer lengths are available too (max 5m).

Do notice that the 73,74 is quite ridiculous because it's still a 1$ cable plus connectors of a few. But in this case I don't like to make them myself (too dangerous for the soldering/crimping thinking about the exact 50 Ohm impedance FWIW :)).

Regards,
Peter

Peter,

Can you clarify exactly what your mains earth arrangement is (I have lost track!). You say that the music PC is not connected to mains earth. I know that NOS1a is also not connected to mains earth. So are the Orelo MkII's connected to mains earth? (I assume they must be!!). If they are does that mean that the music PC earth is connected to NOS1a earth (via the usb link) which in turn is connected to the MkII earth (via the coax interconnect). So there is just one mains earth connected and that is at the MkII's.

Or do you still have the USB link earth wire isolated?

Cheers

Paul

Hey Paul,

---

Audio PC - No earth;
NOS1a - No earth;
Amps (speakers) - No earth.

USB3 in Audio PC - Isolated;
Ground wire in NOS1a - Disconnected.

Audio PC connected to Server PC through wired Ethernet;
Server PC connected to different Mains ring (incl. earth) with all further devices connected to *that*.

No Monitor connected to Audio PC (video card still in);
No mouse and keyboard connected to Audio PC.
Note : RDC goes via (same) Ethernet cable between Audio PC and Server PC.

---

I think this is all what's relevant.
Peter

Peter,

I'm a bit puzzled.

How is this coax terminated?
Which Neutrik connectors do you use?

For those of us, like me, that have balanced amplifiers, how should we terminate the coax cable? Directly to XLR? Or via BNC and RCA and not using XLR?

Which coax do you use? I need 2 x 8 meter.

Many questions  :scratching:

Thanks.

Regards,
Stanley

Neutrik is not offering 50 Ohm BNC connector. See here (http://www.neutrik.com/en/support/faq/does-neutrik-also-offer-50-ohm-bnc-connectors)

Stanley, am I crazy or did I see this post about literally like it is now before ? I am pretty sure, but I can't find it (in this topic).
Anyway, back then already I couldn't answer the question(s) easily because I don't see the relations well (and next I suppose I "forgot" because you deleted your post ?).

There is no THE coax cable with balanced (but maybe something can be tweaked - also see your own suggestion which is in the area).

I don't use Neutrik connectors, because there is no Neutrik connector in order anywhere (though in your NOS1 you can assemle 75 Ohm (RCA !!) CONNECTORS (mind the difference with PLUGS). And next you could use 75 Ohm coax; but it still does not comply to your balanced connection, so ...

So ... you can need 2x 8m, but of what ? of something which officially can't exist.

Best regards and don't get frustrated now ! :)
Peter

Hi,
Though a few recommendations have been made, the coax cables still seem a bit of a mistery. What are the technical requirements one would look for in a coaxial cable.
I found a cable which has a 50 GHz bandwidth. Though the BNC to RCA connector will not have this bandwidth (the adapters that I have seen in the 2 GHz range). Would this be a desirable parameter?
http://www.delaireusa.com/screamer.html

Thanks
VJ

Hi Peter,

Haha, .. I can't remember I asked about this before and I didn't delete a post.

But I now see this was addressed in answer #21 before.

Time for experimentation.

Regards,
Stanley

Hey VJ,

The cable itself looks good to me, but remember I already answered upon the high bandwidth (as a possible negative).

What I personally would not do is create (imply) that bandwidth difference between cable and adapter (as long as I knew about it anyway, like in this case).

But what maybe puzzles me more (also implied in a previous post) is that you guys make a lot of fuss about this, while all it takes is ordering a pair "just 50 Ohm BNC + adapters" el cheapos and give it a go. I mean, the $ can't hold you back, or ?

It's about the principle (OK in my modest view) of no-reflections and when "we" keep on looking for whatever other properties nobody can really judge, all what happens is ...
NOTHING.
I just checked my email, and for you 9 days have passed since you could have ordered them. You could have gotten them by long by now ... :yes:

Best regards,
Peter

I played with this configuration for two days. Yesterday was the third, but at the second album something went wrong. And since that never happened to me before it can not be a coincidence :

A fairly loud tick, music stopped, another tick and music started again and I am almost sure that it was related to someone opening the door of the fridge (music stopped) and close it (music started).
But actually not sure because 20 seconds later again a loud tick and no fridge doors in order then. This is where I pressed stop.

Proceeded with Attended and this time 1 minute into the track, same thing. And because the loud tick reminded me of DC Offset, I checked that, et voilá. All wrong.
Huh ?

At this moment I am not even sure why music stopped (and was so easy to restart - just Stop and Play again, if not by itself anyway), but possibly the USB connection went out of order because of it.

This thus was with the "black wire" disconnected; I always advise people not to leave the room with that not connected, although I always do (it has been like that since May for this NOS1a configuration). This also because of the (forum) reporting of boleary (Brian) who seemed to have run into similar. In this case though, what was changed was the "no mains earth anywhere" configuration. So possibily this does not combine.

What I'll do tonight is play with the "black wire" connected. Next I hope I will forget about the issue, because such a loud tick is not really funny. Whether it helps ? maybe not.

Lastly, please notice that at this moment I do not see why a mains earth connection has to be there in the first place (from say one point at least).
So Paul, can you try to explain why you seemed so surprised about no earth connection anywhere ? Obviously you can be correct, but I don't see how.

Thanks,
Peter

I am not sure I was that surprised there is no earth connection in your system. It was simply that I lost track and wanted to know what your earth connections were. When the topic of earth connections originally came up I followed it closely. I tried disconnecting earth's as discussed in the topic but it had absolutely no effect on sound quality in my system at all. So I did not pursue it and lost track of where your system got to. But I did end up by trial and error finding an earth arrangement that really worked well and reduced noise in my system down to tiny levels and that helped SQ a lot.

With house earth being a big aerial bringing all sorts of sh*** into the system not having it connected does have its attractions. But what about the safety implications assuming that the case say of your PC is not connected to PE (have I got that right?).

My system has a dedicated earth via a spike in the garden maybe that helps - anyway these 118dB horns have virtually no noise at all - I was really surprised at just how quiet they are.

Cheers

Paul

I waited before trying the 50 coax 50 bnc interconnects in my system. I simply wanted to get used to my new speakers using familiar components including the (rather special IMHO) interconnects I use. These interconnects I have used for a few years and nothing else I have tried comes close. A couple of years ago I went to a hi-fi dealer (he bought my mono block SET amps) - my interconnects embarrassed every other interconnect he had to hand including some very expensive.. They have been absolutely fundamental to getting good sound quality in my system since I first tried them.

So how did the 50/50's sound? well when I first connected them they sounded very impressive - coherent good timing etc etc very impressive. But then after extended listening I started to tire of them. They really did not sound right at all. There is grey, dry sound which I find really irritating. They also introduce a harshness to the sound. Maybe they need running in - I have only given them 30 hours or so but I do not hold out much hope that they are going to end up with a permanent place in my system. But anyway IMHO a decent i/c needs virtually no running in.

When I put my usual interconnects back in my system the sound regained its colour and natural warmth - the kind of sound that could keep me up all night (if I was allowed!!).

Peter - you were using 75ohm coax i/c's and now you are using 50/50 coax. Personally I think that is a fairly limited comparison. Have you tied other interconnects in your current system?

I have not finished comparisons yet but that is the way it is looking so far.

Cheers

Paul

Hi there,


This could have been my post.

Since my amps were slammed together as an interim experiment,  I had been busy first with regular maintenance and debugging on the power amp. I had to do some noise fighting and component tweaks and the result is worthwhile. Now I wanted to get used to this sound first before trying the 50 ohm cables.

I test drove the BNCs on my regular (low end) CD player and this was just unlistenable. Just like the RG58 cable I had fabricated with RCAs myself a long time ago. They fared a lot better on the NOS1a. Quite a drastic departure from the sound I am used to. There is a certain extra speed and clearness about the sound that is attractive, but the music is robbed from its soul and like Paul I am experiencing listening fatigue (irritation as result of hardness and lack of tone).

I'm afraid the BNC cable is never gonna fly in my system. Nothing lost though it was a too cheap tweak not to try.

regards, Coen

Hi,

Interview and two videos about cables from a technical aspect:

http://www.audioholics.com/gadget-reviews/speaker-cable-and-audio-interconnects

Joachim

Hey Paul, at 30 hours I felt the same, BUT, after 70 hours of running in things are dramatically better. I listened for a good four hours today. Incredible sound here.  I had no idea how grey sounding my old solid silver interconnects were. (Darwin Silver Plus.) Mid range-male vocals- have come alive here. Mickey Newberry's Shenandoah from his  Live in England cd was a revelation.

Hi Brian - I shall leave them to burn in longer but I also have an idea about a tweak to the cable so watch this space

;-)

May it help ...

I too had the distinct idea that the cable needed a couple of days of breaking in. And this is not something I experienced before. OTOH who am I with my 1$ cabling.

Peter

Hi Paul - If that is so then I'm afraid you still didn't get what this is about. But I won't repeat it for the 10th time, and instead I'll put it differently now :

No ANY cable without a BNC connector or the like (many exist) is terminated properly. Also not when you spend a 10K on it. This, while a properly terminated cable costs ~1$ and the trick should be in there.

Additionally, not any interlink is allowed to show such huge difference, unless it is completely wrong or (~) completely right. I follow the theories of (~) completely right and work to that. If that does NOT work out, I seek further (see my "bad day" post from a week or so back) *and* I find something.
All other is subjective to our ears and system.

I also want you (again !) to please digest this in good fashion, which merely is for others, but which should put your own feet on the ground. So please :

You again or still, apply tweaks which are not mine. Best example is the sugar cubes, which I sent of pure misery out to you. And no, no need to come back with that in a "but I don't use them any more" fashion. You did, and you loved it while I got mad form them. Remember, these are TWEAKS without justification, until you put up that justification (now compare with the BNC cable but first understand its appliance). So now you're for sure using ByBees. Another sheer TWEAK. Mind you, no single tweak ever ever worked for me. This too is subjective (I could be fairly deaf) but what it's really about is that you put forward your findings in the context of your tweaks. Paul, this is useless to others.
And to yourself, because you won't know what you're listening to.

Everybody can do what he wants but I am here on this forum to protect people from listening to (or throug) subjective appliances.
And so I just tried, again.

Now please continue.
Regards,
Peter

I read somewhere recently that the recommended differential cable impedance for USB 2.0 & 3.0 is 90 ohms +/- 10%. Perhaps you should be experimenting with a different cable?
Plenty or research & whitepapers available

FWIW : I investigated this and even MIL spec won't do better than +/- 15%. And all what I found further did not claim specs at all. Quite messy, this business.
What a dedicated Audio manufacturer makes of this ? no idea, but probably worse because it needs the ($$$$$) measurement equiment first.

The only thing I ran into is the iFi Gemini (http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/accessory-gemini/) which claims an exact 90 Ohms, but which I won't believe anyway because it's a trick (which can not be varified either). So in this case it's the easy separation of data and power, and that "will do it" ? No way. And if so, cause yourself not to need the USB power in the first place and you're done.
No, it is not as simple as that.

Anyway I tried to find something good, and I sure can obtain the +/- 15% cable (just over 100 euros), but I was actually looking for better specs. However, the sheer fact that a (rare !) manufacturer tries to make the best of it and *still* says +/- 15% (that's a 30% variation) tells me that it can't get any better. Here, most probably, it is about the same "issue" as with RCA, namely that no dielectric is physically possible because of the way of connecting. Now don't ask me what an e.g. 75 Ohm RCA cable will really be (this is a bit what Paul missed, perhaps), but take it that any small mismatch will imply reflections. And again : With digital this is allowed up to the point that data (LOWS and HIGHS) get interpreted wrongly, while with (our) normal analogue signal EACH small deviation (= reflection) will matter.
And so : what was regarded important for digital is even more important for analogue. OK, says me.

What I have been thinking of is self-create a balanced 50 Ohm connection; I think this can be done although it will be hard (for me) to verify whether it works, unless THD shows that it's all wrong. Now, the same I could attempt for USB; just use a 93 Ohm complete cable, and make it balanced in the same fashion as the balanced idea. And I do have all the 93 Ohm stuff (from ancient network history ...) while I no-where see it to purchase.
Could be fun ...

Peter

PS:


The first part of this is not entirely true;
I don't have the "output/input" terminals. However, I already looked around a bit in the office's attic, and possibly I am able to find a dozen or more old network cards who have them and which can be used (but it won't be a nice-looking solution). Anyway this is finite, so in the end not the real solution. But I'm fairly sure that when I look harder I can find something for 93 Ohm ?

Peter - really no problem I agree with you 100% and I should not have worded my post the way I did (sorry!). I fully agree that TWEAKS are not the way to go in terms of the engineering development of a system. Absolutely I agree that comparison of 75 ohm without correct termination versus 50 ohm with correct termination is a correct and valid engineering comparison.

However for me, here, in this room, now, listening to my system, my normal interconnects are MUCH better than the coax. That is, in terms of sheer musical enjoyment, there is just no comparison. Now for sure I am listening to RCA interconnects that are not "properly" terminated. I may be listening to a whole bunch of distortion and liking it who knows?  Can I measure it? - no. However I feel I should post about it if only to raise a note of caution that coax is not (at this stage) necessarily a panacea (I get the feeling that interconnects are very complex and no one properly understands all yet). You have stated the 50 ohm coax with 50 ohm terminations is only the first step.

For sure, in future, I will think more carefully about the wording I use!!


Ah yes, to us we have to classify these as a TWEAK for the simple reason that we do not have the means to measure what they do in a circuit (at least I don't). BUT allegedly others (the scientists that developed them) do, and to them, I am sure it is not a tweak because they were developed using measurements and produced a demonstrable result. Well as we cannot do the measurements or see the results then I I have to agree they have to be classified as a TWEAK.

So it is time to put my hand up and say that I am guilty as charged - I have been found guilty of TWEAKERY of the first order. I shall be more circumspect with future posts.

Cheers

Paul

Ya ya ya ya, that all wasn't necessary Paul.
But you emphasized the right thing : we can not measure and me neither ! And the latter I hate.
So it is still true that I spent two full days in looking for something affordable. I think it's that important.
Well, as long as we see that no snake oil exists or should exist, and when we start to believe it's all technical stuff we talk about. Never mind audio is voodoo some times.

ha !

Peter

One reason folks might find differences with their coaxial cable is the difference in wire sizes and center conductor construction. By sheer luck I selected a cable with an 18 gauge silver coated solid copper center--no steel. (RG 142). I think the cheaper cables using RG58 conductor is a 20 gauge wire.

Below is a chart of the various types of coaxial cable from the company where I bought mine:



 

Brian,

And what would be the benefit of that ?
(I don't say there isn't any - just checking ;)).

Peter

Ready to buy BNC cables/Adaptors so after all the links and wire what do I buy off EBay? Ready to sell my SilverSmith Palladium $4K cables for $1.5K on the 'Gon :)

You won't find that on eBay. Too cheap. Haha.
And for me not easy to find directly in/from the US (I already tried). But I'll send you an email with some hints.

Peter

Well, when I wrote the above it was just a hunch. So this afternoon I got some six dollar a piece, 3 foot, RG 58, el cheapo solid copper BNC cable and compared them to my 20 dollar a piece, 3 foot, RG-142 solid copper-silver plated, high temp L-Com cable and the difference is huge. Earlier in this thread there was a comment that the cheap ( I assume RG-58) bnc cable sounded a bit slow and may have some loss in dynamics, but in all other respects, particularly the tonal balance of the low, mid and high frequencies, they sound very good. I can now verify that that perfectly described the cheaper RG 58 cable. But, I would add that after hearing the RG-142, the RG -58's sound mushy or as Paul suggested "grey."

The solid copper silver plated conductor - no steel- of the L-Com Rg 142 cables have transformed my system. You could say that all frequencies seem infinitely more focused, so the decay of cymbals, drive of the base and and resonance of vocals are all more clearly focused or defined with the consequence that the harmonics emanating from them sound more real than ever before. In one sense you could say the sound seems more bright or fresh, but not in a fake or objectionable way. Rather, its like you just opened the door to the club and you are immediately overwhelmed by the sound. Maybe I'm crazy or just like bad sound, but for me, this is the most significant change for the better in my system since I got one of Bert's amps.

Well Brian, a hunch ?
I am 5 hours further now, and/but with your idea as my hunch, I come to the same. But not via any normal selection-search in there; therefore I first had to (again) visit the PDF you linked to. And, at first tried all sorts of cable types including connectors and possible adapters. Now it's easy to reach those five hours. Anyway, yours really looks the best.

However, apart from your RG241 (CC142B-[length]) I also ordered RG213 (CC213B-[length]; can be better for reasons but can also be worse for different reasons. So I am just going to try.

Ordering is somewhat more difficult from here because as well as from the US as from the UK distributor no automatic order can be put in (both for the same reason of shipping which can't be calculated (huh ?)) but I'll get there.

Thanks ...
Peter

Edit : http://www.l-com.com/multimedia/catalog_page/lcom_025-06_RG142_and_RG213_50_Ohm_Cable_Assemblies.pdf

I think its the same kind of intuitive hunch, or great good fortune, that pushed me to order XXHighend back in 2009. One must rely on such feelings when one has NO technical expertise.  :)

It will be interesting to hear how the RG 213 sounds being 13 gauge and stranded. However, if you find that the RG 142 cable sounds truly terrible don't be afraid to tell!

One other thing, the BNC/RCA adapter I ordered from L-Com and have been using has a nickel plated RCA center pin. Links to two other types of adapters I'm considering are below. One is plated in silver and the other gold.

http://rfsearch.rfindustries.com/ShowProduct.asp?classID=19&productID=3864

https://www.fastenal.com/web/products/details/0749410

Unfortunately the gold adapter only comes in packs of ten, though they appear to be of a much higher quality than the $1.25 ones that usually come up in a google search.

Hi Peter,
Maybe better RG-214?
http://www.kabel-kusch.de/Koaxkabel/RG214U/rg214u.htm

Or RG213 from here?
http://www.elektronica-shop.nl/contents/nl/d160.html

In researching these cables you need to be careful of the makeup off the live conductor.

RG 142 is copper coated steel
RG 213 is stranded copper
RG 214 is stranded silver coated copper
RG 223 is single strand silver coated copper

Radio spares UK have info on all these.

All these cables should sound different.

I can't help but be sceptical of BNC claims to date especially as an interconnect. I mean Nordost are over priced but they have developed their cables backed with research. Perhaps they need to try the BNC plug approach.

I did always run 75 ohm BNC from my CD transport to DAC for many years and it certainly was an improvement over RCA. Interestingly we did try running coax as interconnect but without the BNC plugs using RCA. These were coarse sounding compared to better quality conductor cables.

Quality of conductors is paramount in my book which definitely means steel should be avoided. Its primarily used to strengthen cables in harsh conditions and is a cheap conductor.

I am intrigued and may try the RG223. Has anyone compared 75 ohm to 50 ohm?

Me not so happy me thinks ... :swoon:

Robert, you must be correct with the RG142. Maybe no wonder why I couldn't find any better than the one from L-Com. But are we hoaxed ?
Below two screenshots - one of the cable (spool) itself as they sell it and one of the assembled cable. With the first we might think that there's no space for the "steel" word. But the second shows it can't be an accident. Together with the page from Brian and mine (yesterday) there's now 4 pages of them showing this.

And yes, as far as I can see RG142B/U is officially steel.
grr

PS: I showed the first screenshot as done in order to show that L-Com sure is "capable" of telling about (clad) steel.

Here is data sheet from RS

Data Sheet RS Stock No. 521-5386
Cable Coax RG142 FEP brown 25m
Cross Section:
Description:
Rated Temperature (o
C): -70 ~ 200
Rated Voltage (V):
Product Standard Certification:
Flammability Test:
Construction:
Conductor: Silver Plated Copper Clad Steel
Conductor Dia. (mm): 0.94±0.02
Insulation: PTFE
Insulation Dia. (mm): 3.0±0.1
Braid Shield 1: Silver Plated Copper
Conductor Dia. (mm): 0.12
Conductor Qty: 16x7
Coverage: >90%
Braid Shield 2: Silver Plated Copper
Conductor Dia. (mm): 0.12
Conductor Qty: 16x7
Pitch(mm):
Coverage: >88%
Jacket: FEP
Outer Dia. (mm): 5.0±0.15
Colour:
The color of the insulation: Nature
The jacket color: Brown
Marking(3times/m):
RS 5215386 Cable Coax RG142 FEP brown
Performance:
Electrical Characteristics:
Frequency Attenuation(dB/100M)
700MHz 35.1
900MHz 40.4
1000MHz 43.0
2000MHz 63.3
 
Specified value (max.) is not more than 108% of the nominal
value
Character Impedance: 50 ohm
Capacitance: 95.1pF/M
Velocity ratio(%) : 70%

Check this page:  http://nz.rs-online.com/web/p/coaxial-cable/5215386/

What is interesting is you don't get these specs on so called HiFi cables but we pay silly money for them based on our ears!!!!!

A quick post as I'm in the middle of running a workshop for a client...

I currently have some el cheapo BNC cables. I should receive some raw H+S K_02252_D cable (RG142) sometime next week, so will have to buy some BNC connectors and stick them on before using (not sure when I'll get around to doing this). BUT... I've also ordered some pre-assembled H+S K_03252_D BNC cables (RG223) which should arrive in a couple of weeks' time.

Will report findings when everything's in place.

Mani.

And this is suddenly the fun for me because it's full of specs. So for example - and we must LOOK at that ! - the coverage of the shield. This is NOT part of the "RG" spec (as fas ar I know) while for shure this matters for the shielding (like the >90% and >88% of the RS example).

Peter

Something else we could learn, and what I told about in beteen some lines some day somewhere - about over-rating :

If you dive into this, you will see that the e.g. 50 Ohm spec is not equal for all frequencies. That this is "50 Ohm" is not important (can be 75, can be 93, 110 etc.) but that it varies the east is. Now undoubtedly the higher the speed rating of the cable (like the 2GHz etc.) the less variance there will be in the audio band. Problem always is : the proper interpretation because once you're into the "over-rating" the specs won't show what we really want to know (audio band). So for many of such things it needs endless reading and comparing so in the end you can draw conclusions from other properties.

And like I said/implied earlier in the topic : it can get really difficult once you focus on high rate cables (like for video or communications) while you will be able to tell in advance that something like the adapter will never be able to do that, because the (RCA) adapter will never have been made for such application (but think video and you still have a chance). And really, letting run the high frequencies (which always will be there - think many MHz) into something which blocks it (the adaptor) will imply reflections again.

So keep in mind, never mind many of us will have many hours of "investigating" behind us by now, it is STILL only a start.

Peter

I tried to find something yesterday for randomly 50 and 75 Ohm, but ended up (falsely ?) at the RG142. So relative to that I rejected all the 75 Ohm and it now looks like a lost 5 hours yesterday (if that RG142 is no copper at all).

This cable (double shielded) is Roberts proposal and it seems to be the best choice.

http://www.l-com.com/coaxial-rg223-coaxial-cable-bnc-male-male-50-ft

Joachim

Well if the L-Com RG 142 is steel then steel sounds better than you would think! Very weird that they list steel as a center conductor component in many of their cables but not the 142. I'm giving them a call today. I'm also going to order some RG 223.

Hi Brian,

I do use an identical type cable to the RG142 with copper coated steel strands and the SQ is great. Let's see (hear) what the RG223 is emerging.

Joachim

Haha, I wanted to replace my order from yesterday with the RG223. But the order was shipped already. So I just sent them an email with a "what's up ?" and the clear suggestion that they send a couple of RG223 for free. So of course they are going to do that, or they will tell that it's copper in there indeed.
If you call them, let them look in their email and tell them that you're not the only one. Or wait a bit until I receive a reply.

---

Good morning there,
 
Yesterday I put in the order of which you see the details below. But now I have a question :
 
The RG142 cables I ordered, where explicitly ordered because in various datasheets L-Com "claims" that the core is Cu. Please see attached for two examples of that. However, RG142 officially is steel, plated with copper. So can you tell me please, did I order for cables which won't suit my need, or does L-Com make cables which don't meet the official RG142 spec ? The latter is fine with me; the former I wouldn't be too happy about.
N.b.: By now I would have replaced the RG142 by the RG223 (this is officially Cu for the core) hence your item numbers CC223B-10 (x2) and CC223B-15 (x2) but I see the order has been shipped already.
 
?
 
Best regards from Holland,

Hi Peter,

shipping costs are? 25$ ?

Joachim

Before i call, lets wait till the end of the day and see if they reply to you. Thanks for beating me to the punch!

Joachim, I don't know yet. We (from out part of the world) can not process the orders in full because the shipping costs can not be calculated (as how they do it). However, I could give my UPS account, and then nothing needs to be calculated and at some stage I will get the bill for it. But this will merely be something like $100 I'm afraid ...
Maybe they can ship by normal mail, but then it can take weeks ... (my shipment is due tomorrow).

Regards,
Peter

No news from L-Com yet.

Meanwhile I just finished a pair of 93 Ohm (RG62).
Now I'll grab a beer and will press Play. Uh-oh ...

I will try the Aircell-7 cable www.ssb.de/pdfs/6070_Aircell 7_en.pdf (http://www.ssb.de/pdfs/6070_Aircell 7_en.pdf), because it's build from OFC copper. The cable manufacturer is manufacturing the 50 Ohm connectors too.

Georg

Yo

So Georg, notice the actually better technical possibilities for stranded cable. Still, for audio this can work out quite differently than a single core cable. So let's see !

Peter

Hope 93 ohm will match the NOS1a ...

Georg

Brian,

No response from L-Com yet, and while it might run towards the end of their day, I'm about off as well (you know, dinner-happiness and such ;) ;)).

Peter

About 75 versus 50 ohm:
When I was checking for the adapters I found a lot of them that said they were usable for 50 and 75 ohm.
But if you look at the attached picture you can see a difference inside the plug which results in a gap between the inner insulation between the plug and the adapter when using 75 ohm wire. This will give a discontinuty in the impedance of the cable probably leading to the dreaded reflections.
But then maybe not?

An answer from L-Com after all :

Our CENTER CONDUCTOR: 18 AWG. SOLID SILVER COATED COPPER. I hope that helps define your purchase.

What does this mean ? My English is not 100%. Reads like silver coated with copper ? nah ...

It does but type in RG142 in google and check other sites all but one(Farnell's) say silver coated copper steel.

http://www.awcwire.com/productspec.aspx?id=rg142-coaxial-cable

http://www.pasternack.com/images/ProductPDF/RG142B-U.pdf

The wiring industry does have strict standards especially with commercial grades as opposed to HiFi grades. Anyway not being a pain the cost is not a major issue and perhaps steel is the ONE!!!!

Peter, "Solid silver plated copper" means that the solid copper is  plated with silver... Why the "silver plated" between the "solid" and the "copper"... A language anomaly I guess, but it sure can be confusing when not too easy with English...

Alain

But of course. And I know (now ;)) by heart.


I personally don't think so, but I also don't know all;
(Still) Thinking this is not voodoo but just "properties" you should be able to find that in the properties of the material BUT as how it is spec'd. And may be not all is spec'd what is important (for audio) or measurable in the first place. Still I don't see it much, but I also did not investigate "micro" differences. So for example, if you'd examine steel and copper of the exact same thickness for the core and ALSO compare an exact same insulation for the both (which is all about propagation speed of the cable as a whole), probably you will see a difference. But take a month to sort that out ...

Otherwise, I would say that the sheer fact that steel (metal) will contain (more) oxygen tnan copper, will deteriorate your steel cable after some time. I am not sure, but I think that copper only oxidises at the outside, while a metal will also do on the inside (and eats itself out). So this is quite another reason, and you won't find *that* in specs.

If I am wrong on this, please correct me. I am THE cable illeterate !

Peter

Gerard, I have been looking at that (same picture) too;
With ALL the 75 Ohm cables I ran into, I never saw the connector like that. Now don't ask me what's truth and what is not. But I would say there *has* to be a difference in the dielectricum in the connector. One notice : When the connectors actually look (dimensionally) the same (these days ?) then there won't be this gap as you suggest.

However :

By pure coincidence I reasoned out myself yesterday (prior to seeing your post about this) that possibly it is harmless (what ? well, the non-fit between connections). The reason for thinking this you will find in my next post, but the argument for it would be that it is about the CABLE and what happens after that is short-distance stuff. But really, don't ask me ...
So cable is terminated, and beyond that - like with the poor RCA connector - should be unimportant, as long as distances *after* (and before) the terminating connectors are limited (to ??).

Oh man, what few things we know (in the end) ...

Peter

So ... About my 93 Ohm cable experience ...

Let me describe it like this : the most bad-ass sound I ever experienced. And I don't think I was drugged.

I could start shouting like we often do, but I'll just keep it "quiet" with the above expression. Okay, I just made it bold. :)

Also : If I now see what a HUGE differences this all makes, then there must be a year ahead of us in improving by these means. But never mind that for now.

Haha, and now you still don't know the verdict eh ? Well, let me try to put it like this :

This has been the very first time for me that I felt in a great hurry. So just imagine : I put up some album, and into the second track of it I *had* to go to a next album. And a next. And so on, for the whole of the 4 hours or so. This - and this seems crucial - while I was DYING to listen to the remainder of each album. But all I did was hopping to the next to explore that, each time thinking : oh boy, what a super nice surprises will be waiting for me the next days and weeks.

Now you know my verdict. :yes:

What I did first was playing the last two tracks of the day before. Very first notice : oops, so clear ??
Then, again a strange thing I did : after 30 seconds I went out of the room, thinking that I'd better let run-in the lot for 20 minutes (this seems to be necessary with the NOS1(a).
When I came back, the last minute of that second track played, and all I thought was : did I play this yesterday ?

At the next album I tried to focus on that clearness, but I did not succeed much on that. In aftermath I merely thought : that clearness was not clearness as such, but stability. So, how a guitar string can sound super straight (when no vibrato is applied). A bit of a strange effect ...

But the whole bad-ass effect emerged from other albums and this was much more of a surprise;
Because I wanted to check the highs, I put on the most "square" music I can think of - Phutureprimitive (no, you won't like that, but it's super for "test signals"). Now, of course hard to explain, as usual, but all what's normally super pinpointed and sharp (and dangerous for good sound) turned into sheer roar and fundament and, well, BAD-ASS. The whole idea of such an album changes with it. It's like that originally it was made for a refined bringing across some luminous landscape whatever, while now it was putting the message to you the rough way. Tell the message in 1 minute instead of 60. Next, have digested that message and listen for the remainder of 59 minutes to the story about the message.
Okay, I'm nuts. But say (and I only think of this now, really) that I saved the story for tomorrow and next week, just because the subject seems so attractive. Quickly read on to the next summarisation of the next story. Not more.

Later I thought that this was by far the very best balance I ever received. It also was the first time that all was full of bass while no bass was too loud or overwhelming. I thought of double Windows 7 with quadruple Windows 8 sauce. All so well defined. Deep down earth included, but now only when deep down earth was in the story.
I forgot the album/track, but a first track of some album I play regurlarly, suddenly started out with sub-low roar I never heard before. At first I thought of a thunder-blast outside.
That kind of thing.

How ?
Of course I don't know. But I do know that I liked the 93 Ohm from the start - just for theories. So things like capacitance are way better and IIRC propagation speed the same.
But before you now all start to obtain 93 Ohm cables (RG62) ... there's quite some mistery around. Well, in my particular case;

First off, you won't be able to buy assembled cables for 93 Ohm. Nah, not true, but these things are so rare (these days) that possibly you won't be able to get "your length".

Next is, the RG62 is spec'd again with steel. Or at least that's what I ran into. But now mine ...
I can't be 100% sure, but with the bare eye it looks like copper throughout, and looking with a microscope doesn't change my mind really. However, hard to see because when you cut the core it will "squeeze" and the top will fold over the core itself (I hope you understand). Still, I hoped for it to begin with, because this is cable from the old days and possibly copper wasn't regarded so expensive and they just put it in. Also, the cable has no other purpose than communications and it could be the best ? Mind you, this WAS so, today not any more. OK, never mind.

The core is .63mm and the copper braid is "visually 100%" (this "visually" I see some times as official spec). One shield only.
The insulation is so stiff around the braid that it really needs skill to pull it off. Btw, this will not be the best for propagation speed.

The connectors should be official 93 Ohm, but I can't check that (anymore). This is btw the same with the cable; all stuff is written on it (including MIL spec blah), but only one single reference by Google, and the forum post concerned (2003) was about wireless. Yes, out of all.

Then, I had to use the 50 Ohm to-RCA adapters. Of course there's nothing available for 93 Ohm. But as "reasoned" in my previous post ... maybe harmless ? It should, or otherwise what's behind the connection (behinnd binding post in the device) is as harmful.

What explicitly came to my mind yesterday is that this sounds like warm piss. Yes, sorry for the expression, but I once in a time I adopted that for sound which is so fluent that it is easy to hear that nothing holds back. My thinking went even as far as envisioning some "accelerator" implied by the 90 Ohm to 50 Ohm boundary. Wishful thinking perhaps, and at this moment a bit beyond me, but I really wondered WHAT actually could imply all this current flowing. Notice though that at making passive current to voltage converters (I/V in DAC terms) the I/V resistor better be at the amp's end than at the source end. That too creates "current through the cable". Maybe this coincidentally does similar, with the 93 Ohm - 50 Ohm relation.
Notice that this happens at two ends (DAC and amp), so I really don't know ...

I made this cable 3.5 meters, and the 3m stranded 50 Ohm sounds like a fragile baby in comparison. And that in a situation of not one week ago when I called that the best balance ever. But baby balance is different from bad-ass balance.

Maybe this all goes too fast ?

I believe the above quote is missing two commas:SOLID, SILVER COATED, COPPER.

I think the person who answered your email just quoted the catalog page and probably doesn't know the answer to your email question..........

HOWEVER:


Thanks Joachim. Somehow I missed this post yesterday. Probably because I felt so embarrassed about saying how great STEEL cable sounds. Anyway, I again listened for three hours last night and there is just no comparison between my silver Darwin RCA's, my RG 58, and my RG 142's. The RG 142's are as Peter states about his RG 93's BADASS. As I said in Reply 161:


Peter, I'm waiting for your L-Com order to arrive to see what you think of the RG 142's!

Brian

Brian, I never even thought any more about your "bad" description !!

Fun ...

Quote from Wiki article on copper clad steel:

Here's the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper-clad_steel

Don't know if this helps explain.......

OK, not about SQ, but about L-Com. Or maybe SQ after all - later.
Look below. 13 AWG bare copper eh ...
Well, that's what I ordered, assuming it's a stranded cable like the RG213 spec tells. This as an opposite to the RG142 ordered from there too, with solid core and all the confusion so far.

I just opened the box and at first couldn't understand a f*ck of it. One nice light brown cable, thin, but not flexible at all, and one 1cm thick cable which ... no, I can't call that flexible. Then I read what's on the thick one (the thin one doesn't have an incription) and it says LG213. Huh ? I expected that for the thin cable.
But the below pic explains all. It is 13 AWG bare copper !

For AWG outsiders : The smaller the number, the larger the diameter. 13 AWG equals 1.83 mm !!
And for example AWG 19 equals 0.912 mm.

Now what I don't understand is that I spent 5 hours looking for that better cable than Brian found, found nothing anywhere, made a couple of mistakes - seemingly - and ended up with all this. A 0.912 mm solid core copper silver plated (as they say) and an 1.83 mm bare copper (expecting 7 tiny strands).

I didn't intend at all to try the new cables today already, after the 93 Ohm experience, but I now think I will !!

:scratching:

So, what does it read THERE eh ??

STRANDED
I suppose these guys don't know much what they are doing. Actually I really can't tell. The cable is thick enough to carry such a solid core, but maybe it is just not stiff enough to really have that. On the other hand, it is heavy and won't get straight from its being rolled up but this could be the insulation itself.


Yes, but it doesn't say solid.

I give up.

Okay, someone gave me the idea to find out with a magnet. Yeah, well, uhm ...

That 93 Ohm cable of mine contains metal ...
(not the shield)

Peter

Didn't you order RG223?

Joachim

Joachim ... No ... When you guys came up with that my order for the others was shipped already. But since that RG142 should be copper after all ... I think it's OK (if it is only true that it is copper).

But as it appears now, by RG62 (93 Ohm) is metal, plated with copper. But, 0.63mm core while the RG142 should be 0.91mm core (but copper, silver plated).

Who is not going to be crazy of this.
Still very worth while I think.

Regards,
Peter

Just got off the phone with L-Com product technical support. The guy swears that the RG 142 is silver coated copper, no steel. When I told him the industry standard is copper clad steel he said, "I'm looking at our technical specifications for the RG 142 bulk cable, and the center conductor is silver plated copper."

Do I believe him? Don't know.....

Just waiting to hear what Peter HEARS.....

I ordered what Peter told me to get and had it in 3 days. Had a listen last night and next to my SilverSmith Palladium cables it sounds like metal wire. No good.

For those who have the BNC cable what IC is it replacing?

So how does metal wire sound ?
(this is a serious question)

Metal wire sounds like the NOS1a is broken with a splash and thin sound. Just installing the connectors made me break out in hives as I know better. It could be copper strand solid core or steel or whatever you want to put in there it is not going to out run the SilverSmith cables. The big question for me is what IC is being replaced in the BNC users systems??? Also what SC's and AC cables??

I think the BNC kills the upgrade work :)

I have an extra set of Palladium I should send you Peter and then you will hear.

I am no measure anyway because I use 1$ stuff to begin with. Sorry ...

But as you will have read, the ones you obtained are night and day different from the (93 Ohm) I am using now. Or useD, because tonight a next set goes in.

It would be correct to describe the ones you obtained as thin in comparison. Well, I called it a "baby" compared to the bad-ass of the ones I have in now.
Be very careful of not other issues being the matter, like my trial with the "babies" and the PC being in that other mains (earth) ring. Now THAT was thin hence completely wrong.

Peter

Hi,

interesting.

I heard with Nordost Valhalla and Entreq RCA's before, and changed the NOS1a to poweramp connection only, nothing else.

The prices of the Palladium are appr. 15% above the Valhalla's.

Joachim

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue20/silversmithpalladium.htm

Hi Peter,
Im convinced that your 93 Ohm coax (RG62) is steel (based) cable so you are on steel already and you are happy camper :)
Perhaps it contains some more copper: 0.64mm galvanized, according to local cable manufacturer (and related to MIL-C-17 US spec).

Ok so what new ones to order now? I very much want to sell my IC for $20.00'wire.

George, I can't tell yet. 2 days really is not enough for me. But I think I can share one property already :
Possibly a tad too rough in the highs.

This is really hard to judge because what actually seems to happen is the taking out of too high mere hissing frequencies. So I talked about "white" earlier and this sort of does the opposite (not make it grey but takes it out). So there's actually more colour in the highs. More live-like as well.
Also, this is not very much noticeable in itself. What is though, is the less refined sound. So funny : my "bad-ass" description came from the FAT sound springing from somewhat higher frequencies now carrying fundament, and it did certainly not spring from rougher highs. Still I think it springs from there because today I would like to call it "bad-ass" because of merely that (rougher highs). Say less gorgious but more music.

Regards,
Peter

Joachim,

Sorry I am sure some where you have stated what BNC wire you got. Can you pleases repeat what you have that sounds so good and I will order it and report back.

Thanks,
Gary

Hi Gary,

The cable is identical to Brians RG142 ("Solid Silver-coated Copper Clad Steel Conductor"), see Reply #100 http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3026.msg32357#msg32357

Joachim

Joachim, "identical" or the very same (bought there). I mean, I don't recall that you bought those (there). What I do recall is that you had some laying around in a stowed away box.

So ?

And I say this for a reason. More tomorrow ...

Peter

Hi,

the cable is from H + S, type K_02232 T and is not in production anymore. From the datas we can see the construction.

The "D" in the table is for "double braid screen", the "K" for "high temperature", and that cables have a double screen always at H+S.

Joachim

... and the Strand-7 is for 7 stranded wires ...

I'd say.

Please don't compare cables this way, because all is different (in my view) and they thus will sound vastly different.
Of course I am in the process of learning myself !

Peter

Without a decent analyser for it, all is a bit guessing and about empirical exploration, but at least we know this is not about voodoo and snake oil. And if no differences could be heard because so poor anyway ... but the opposite is true.

So easy to say (by me) : "It is only about proper termination". Well, maybe it still is, but it can also be about how well the cable has been put together. But anyway, the "maybe" has become a "very maybe" for me, because there's just more going on.
And snake oil it is still not.

What possibly now starts to be a problem (as I see it) is that these cable manufacturers are not all of the same "production quality". I put that between quotes because I see a relation with specifications and to what more or lesser degree they are met. This "to begin with" because next is the production process itself. And, if we buy a random e.g. video cable why would it be the very best ? Your video will play all right, and whether the picture shown could be better because of a better production process ... we won't be able to see that.
But hear we do everything.

The above paragraph tells about how obtaining "one cable" from "one manufacturer" may not be able to tell us real merits. But of course we also can not obtain 10 the virtual same cables from 10 manufactures and try a bit.
So in my view the most worth while would be "judging" the manufacturer and how well he performs to specs, whether he possibly manufactures MIL (military) spec cables, how decent all looks for data, etc. And for example, that L-Com is not that.
Hey, maybe we start to see the difference with audio cable manufacturers now.

Anyway, outside of production quality it will also be about specs at least I myself don't know too much about (yet). So for example, and I don't know whether someone in here told about it or that I read it somewhere else, but any coating of a core (like silver coating upon copper) also acts as a dielectricum. Not that I say that it is specifically good (or bad) but it is one, and a cable with such coating will "be" different than one without it. All further specs should be the same but you can bet that manufacturers will be so easy on their job that a 50 Ohm cable with - and one without that coating may not have different specs on the cable sleeve while it should because otherwise the 50 Ohm impedance will be molested. (that extra dielectricum changes the impedance)

Also see next post.

In chronological sequence :

So I started out with my common 75 Ohm coax with (Neutrik) RCA connectors. Self-made and nothing special or it must be the ground-before-signal connectors. Btw, VJ (vrao) has the same.
Never noticed not explicitly judged a strange balance, although when I'd listen to Windows 7 today then for 100% sure the balance is totally wrong ( compared to Windows 8 ).
We will soon see that any (un)balance is about about the interlink ...

In came the random ("no examined spec") 50 Ohm cable.
Btw, Mani has the same, but he does not have the same BNC-RCA adapters. 2Glory (Gary) has the same too - possiby also the same adapters.
Balance seems better throughout. But careful, because is this the cable, or is this the properly terminated cable. Anyway the difference is enormous and I can hear that technically it is better. So think "better connection".
Could I live with this cable ? I think so. Would I go back to my original 75 Ohm cable ? Most probably not, but I need more days in order to possibly get disturbed.

[ mind the chronological sequence and the described judgements not taking into account next day's experiences ]

Waiting for other cables to arrive, I created a set of 93 OHm (RG62) cables from old networking stuff. The cable is not produced any more. Should be metal of some kind, copper coated.
Now THAT brings a change. OMG. How such a cable is ever able to do that - I really must learn a few things.
So this became the bad-ass cable. What I notice from it is possibly too rough highs, or IOW not very refined. But the bad-ass factor ... wow. I judge the balance as superb and not heard before like that.
Can I live with this cable ? The jury is still out. Most probably yes. But maybe not after longer listening. BUT : Could I go back to either the 50 Ohm or orginal 75 Ohm described above ? NO-WAY. So I twisted myself into a problem already.

Next in turn was the L-Com RG142 solid core copper - silver coated cable. 50 Ohm.
Brian (boleary) has that.
Well, don't ask me where differences can be implied because of different systems, but after 10 minutes someone said to me "don't cables need breaking in ?" and my response was : the hell with that, if it sounds this bad then it can only get worse. Out with those !!
Yes, really so. This is a cable with NO balance anywhere, and what it does it does totally wrong. Remember, in my system but with the notice that the amplifiers are fairly much the same as Brian's. So, strange.
Highs make you lave the room, and it is the first time that I noticed that interlinks too can imply standing waves. All buzzes and does and ... brrrrrrr
This cable, coincidentally or not, doesn't look right either. However, notice my remarks about the yes/no additional dielectricum which this cable has (as L-Com tells) by means of silver on copper. This could imply the way too thin cable, hence the sleeve which is maybe 1-1.2mm only (by eye) and which is of transparent material. But I say : most probably this is not a 50 Ohm cable at all and all is messed up (also having in mind that it's RG142 which it does not comply to (see earlier posts about this)).
So would I ... ... no, never.

Then there was the RG213 L-Com in my sleeve. At least that looks like "something". 50 Ohm again.
Nobody has it, as far as I know.
Whether this is official RG213 I did not investigate, but I think the AWG 13 (!) could be strange, plus that this seems very-multi stranded (like 100s). But I'd need to cut it to be sure.
Well, from this cable we can learn a few things (or at least I think I can). Balance is back and the most apparent is the again more refined highs, compared to the 93 Ohm cable. And what a relief compared to L-Com's RG142.
Could this one be in between the no-name 50 Ohm first BNC-tried-one and my self-made 93 Ohm ? That was what was on my mind. Later though I started to think that this was much more towards my original 75 Ohm (RCA) cable and that it didn't show anything really special.
At the end of the show we started to be annoyed. This cable just *has* something annoying, and it is in the highs. After careful listening I was sure to hear smear.
And this is how I don't like stranded cables. That is, I always envision that some of the signal goes right through the individual strands, and other parts hop over to adjacent strands and imply propagation (time) errors (the hopping over takes time).
So can I live with this cable ? No.

With my own knowledge that we're still at the beginning of this all, tonight my 93 Ohm will be back in. What I need to do is observe whether these highs are too rough to live with, or whether they are not rough at all and I am just not used to it.
In comparison the orginal no-name-BNC is a baby and that one won't make it any more, so if this 93 Ohm won't make it either I'd have to revert to my original 75 Ohm.
But I won't do that easily and instead I will be investigating cables with perceived similar properties, but just a small tad different to see whether I can squeeze out the more refined highs while the bad-ass-bass remains. This means again go-Google and find 93 Ohm cables to begin with.

Peter

Never a dull moment around here.  :) Last night my wife and I went to see Steve Gillette at the Lansdowne Folk Club. His biggest hit was Darcy Farrow recorded by Ian and Sylvia in 1965. Though near 70 years old his voice is still incredibly pleasing to listen to. The show was great and afterwards I had to hear several of his songs with my L-Com RG 142's. Sounded better in my listening room than live. My wife and I both agreed that the live sound was a bit muted compared to the sound of our "system." Probably the result of the guy operating the sound board at the live performance having too much wine, there were two empty bottles on a little table next to him.

Just possible that interconnects could be one of the more complex and least understood components in hifi. The i/c's I made up use thin high purity (.9999) silver wire that are cotton covered but really important (allegedly) is that they are drawn in a way that gives an extremely smooth exterior. All these factors (material type, purity, smooth exterior, plastics (i.e. absence of as much as possible) are alleged to make a big difference (but of course that could be marketing BS who knows?). Then add to that reflections and traditional electrical measurements (L,C&R). Things get complex. Previous listening I have done (and posted about) indicated that plastic coated conductors is a bad thing.

I tried 50 ohm coax (of dubious quality) with 50 ohm terminations and it did not sound good to my ears. So just out of interest I stripped the plastic coating from the exterior of the cable. That should not have affected the shunt capacitance in the calculation of 50 ohms impedance but I guess it is always possible it could. Anyway for what it is worth I thought it sounded a a bit smoother but the overall character of the sound was not much different. Well it was worth a try anyway.

Overall there seems to be a lot of "black art" out there in the hifi world of interconnects and not so much hard engineering fact.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses though.

Cheers

Paul

Ha ha from what I have seen there is more chance the "sound guy" is more likely to do a better job after a few drinks than when sober - i.e. either way they do not seem to know what they are doing.

Cheers

Paul

*edit*
I see it 2 Issues over here
1. the impedance of 50-100 ohms may not translate into the audio frequency band.
2. BNC 2 RCA adapter which is of questionable quality. Adding another joint into an already frail audio signal may cause additional issues such as micro arching.

So I'm still with the coaxial cable made by Peter!!which I find reasonably good.

VJ,


Yes. But notice that this is a temporary solution anyway. I mean, when this works for the better, it should only get better again by adjusting the output/input terminals of DAC/Amp.
We're still in stage #1.

Thank you for the feedback !
Peter

Intermediate results using the aircell-7 cable: I gave the cable 70 hours burn in connected to an old CD player using a sequence of different music pieces, pink noise and white noise in endless loop. So hopefully it was burned in.

The cable is partly for the better and partly not. I'm not shure yet if I will like it. Some impressions:

There is a wider sweetspot
There is a bigger room
Mid bass and lower bass are a lot better - drums and string bass benefit from it.
The high frequency area shines, is not agressive but snappy too if necessary (cymbals).

I'm not happy with the midrange yet. Female voices sound well but male voices got some hush tone.
The big band is not always an orchestra but sometimes a conglomeration of instruments.

What's next?

New positioning of the loudspeakers
Trying an Aircell-5 cable additionally which has got a solid OFC core  http://www.ssb.de/pdfs/Aircell_5.pdf (http://www.ssb.de/pdfs/Aircell_5.pdf)
Listen to the music  :)

It's a new and fresh experience and as Peter said it's only the beginning ...

Georg
   
 

Could you not record some piece(s) of music through the NOS, through a preamp.  Swap out the various different cables and A/B the sound differences that are recorded to at least hear the differences between the cables. Might save time.

brunok

Hi there Bruno,

For me, personally, that would not work anyway because for some situations it really needs listening longer (like many days) in order to find the anomalies (similarities hence not-neutral enough actually). Otherwise the differences are pretty clear right in seconds. So this is nothing like "hey, do I hear a difference perhaps ?". It is only that most often a "change" in itself seems to be for the better, while almost always it is for the worse in the longer term.

Otherwise I wondered through which cable I would listen to those recordings. Haha ...

Thanks !
Peter

Right. It took me 11 hours in a row (nah, with some sleep in between) to form the best cable possible. All the elements should be here somewhere next week (this will be a DIY) and then we'll see.

---

For fun we can compare a couple of propertes with the Aircell 5 cable, which also looks very good to me. First mentioned number is from the Aircell 5, second number is from my Blaxius cable (hey, I gave it a name already :)) :

Capacitance : 82pF/m - 52 pF/m.
Attenuation at 5 MHz : 2.07dB - 0.52dB.
Attenuation at 1.5GHz : 38.63dB - 18.1dB.
Propagation speed (% of light speed) : 82 - 85.
Impedance : 50 Ohm - 75 Ohm.
Physical properties : Known - Secret for now.

---

It was my goal to create a "true" impedance connection with a cable still "doable" and which with some DIY can connect up all the way to D/A converter and amplifier (just replace the output/input terminals). No adapters.
Also I wanted to be there myself in creating them, so nothing will be left to "wrong production" unless I mess up myself of course. So let's say that won't happen.

All together I just spent 175 euros for a set with all what's needed and which of course is outside the work to create them in well fashion. I think we can provide them for 225 - 250 euros at the desired length up to 4 meters = ~ 12ft (so 8 meters  = ~24ft in total). Longer is no problem - just somewhat more expensive.

Of course this makes no sense yet, and I am way premature. But it is nothing much very different from designing a D/A converter which also should work and be the best as long as you sort out all what's related and make the best of each of the elements so they match well.
But of course, if they sound poor after all, it's a no-go. And more of course, no way I am going to lie about it.

Something else : I also found true 75 Ohm BNC to RCA adapters (with say guarantee). I did not order those yet because they have to come from the US somewhere plus it won't be the best because of the extra two connections. Still I actually need to try those before I re-organize my outputs and inputs or otherwise I need to go back to the original situation in order to try the difference with the adapters. I say this (or want this) because it may not be for everybody to change the terminals in DAC and Amp and if it is not really necessary anyway ...
So that's an option too, but I need to try it.

Last thing : If this is not working out then I regard it a roller coaster and all what remains is "just try" cables like we did so far. So this is my sort of ultimate attempt.

Regards,
Peter

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/digital-audio/index.htm

 ;)

VJ - I know that site. But what to do with it / what are you referring to ?

Thanks,
Peter

Well …. if you know the site, you know the cable as well. (I thought it has similar properties to the Blaxius ?!!
 :whistle:

Haha, not that I can see anywhere.

Of course I can't hold back ...

Seems daft, but at reading through all these coax data I also ran into a description of how to assemble the connectors I use for the RG62 cable (93 Ohm). Then I saw I hadn't been doing it completely right (this is all how the impedance is maintained throughout the end (tip) of the connector).
And so I re-applied them in the now best way I could do it.

Well, my "Baddius" cable changed all over. Really so !
But side note : I also removed the cover of my NOS1a because I anticipated "euphonic" sound coming from it. And since this *is* a bit the character of the cable, I thought it could be for the better to counteract that somewhat. So I did this at the same time as I changed te cables, thus don't ask me which caused what for improvement.

At this moment I can't imagine that any "Blaxius" cable (see post from yesterday) is going to improve over the Bad-ass cable (which I now name Baddius) ...

Suddenly there is no single spur of highs being too rough. Totally the contrary. It is so soft and sound and nice and with a detail - unbelievable. All the necessary weight it still there but the whole character of the lot together changed. And merely : there's something going on now which was unexpected to begin with, but quite logical once you've heard it;

First off, it has become almost impossible to listen off-axis (not in the sweetspot I man). This time not because the best picture is received in the middle, but because outside of the middle I perceive phase problems;
What I get from this, is that all is now so super pinpointed and sharp boundaried, that no thing is going to work when not in that middle where all "phase" should be coherent. Mind you, FWIW because I have to make up something for this "fact".

There's now so crazy much highs that it starts to be dangerous. And I am not exaggerating. All remains without distortion and for all you hear you think "yeah, but how is it possible that we (I) perceive this as "in balance" while previously it did not disturb without all these highs.
What's also odd (to me) is that - if you hear this - you'd expect a too high dynamical sound, while totally the opposite is in order. This is not quite clear to me, but it could be a mind thing (brain processing).

It is also the very first time that I started to discover anomalies with my very self. Hard to explain, especially because I am new to this *and* it could be a whole new thing to begin with, but I can feel that I am limiting the bandwidth myself now. Some sort of inconcistency;
Last time I checked (ehm quite some years ago) all stopped for me above 12KHz. But say it is still that. What I "hear" now is some "cut off" somewhere, but this time not done by the system. It is me now. So, is the SPL of the highs is now so profound that I am the limiter myself ?
Do notice that I already talked about the system being the mere reference to the live drum kit we have here. So, system sounds better than the drum kit itself. Same thing perhaps ??

Then, what's all over noticable is the complete separation of everything. Of course, we already said earlier that all plays in its own space, but it's just more of that now. And, I guess we can not tell in advance when the limit of that is reached because we never know what the recording room mushed with that.

Violins sound better than ever before. But this is a bit dangerous because I still hear some euphonics and now I am not sure whether a violin just sounds like that, or that I must deal with some vibrations somewhere. And no, my NOS1a is not floating on water (any more). But I am tempted ...

With the notice that I seem to have reached a stage where ALL matters, no matter how minor :
I can 100% predict what is not going to play well because of a ready "too sharp" sound. And then I mean really.
Of course I had to run into a first one, but from there I can predict it and all I tried turned out to be 100% so. To you I can't give many examples because of you won't know it anyway, but one of them is Sgt Pepper. But, how to predict it ? well, because it is all which played abnormally in the highs previously (for its age I mean). And didn't I mention Sgt Pepper a 100 times before as an album which can go all directions. So don't ask me what they did to it, but the 10 or so more I could think of yesterday - all exactly the same. And mind you, this is not a matter of "oh, not the very best" but merely an "ouch, shut off !!".

Hey, try Led Zeppelin's Black Dog (no Remaster sh*t); This is full of "long cymbal" stuff. However, in the midst of the heavy guitar rock noises and further drumming. You know what ? I count a sheer 5 seconds of cymbal in the midst of all that noise. Try it and see what you get.

Then, when a vast change happened in my system, there's always A whole lotta Love (Led Zeppelin) on my list. And *this* brought me the biggest excitement;
I have talked many more times about this and how to get rid of that super heavy distortion on the big "slams" of whatever it is (this distortion never seemed intenional to me as long as I own the album, which is 40 years), and always an ever I try it to see whether I can finally hear what instrument is hit there. And yesterday I finally got rid of that distortion. Or almost perhaps, because it is still not clear what's been played there, but it now looks like to be a normal bass guitar. So mind you, this always came across as heavy oversteered recording sh*t, but today ? hey, today I can say the same but now from our analogue interlink ?
Yes, that is what I say. And once you heard how this now sounds you are "able" to hear throughout how this Led Zeppelin doesn't contain much of distortion overall and throughout. I also say this because once I had all so-called "much better" and reported that Led Zeppelin's recordings clearly showed analogue distortion. Man, what all can go wrong in our systems !

If I had to pin-point what really has been improved by a mile then I'd say the mid. This is all about the "so clear !" which was my very first notice with this 93 Ohm cable. This possibly also explains how stuff like Sgt Pepper hurts, because there's really not enough low frequency output to support that increased mid. And highs. Or something like that ...

Peter

Very weird. Peter, how you describe the "Baddius" is pretty much identical to how I perceive the L-Com RG 142's. As stated in my previous posts, it's  the clarity of the upper mid range, particularly male vocals, that has been so awesome here. Crazy since the 142's only lasted a minute in your system....

Okay, what ohm male bnc connector are you using for your 93 ohm cable? I've looked that cable up and found it from Pasternack with a 50 ohm connector. Just wondering. Here's a link:

http://www.pasternack.com/bnc-male-bnc-male-rg62au-cable-assembly-pe3081lf-p.aspx

Brian, that's the "danger" in my 93 Ohm setup ... I can't tell. All I can do is proceed with the old stuff and standards, which back at the time was 93 Ohm for network communications, for which I also obtained the connectors (this is over 20 years ago). I can't find 93 Ohm's today on the Net nor is there anything written on them. And they look (the dielectricum) the same as 50 Ohm, but since I never saw a picture of a 93 Ohm ...
And 75 Ohm sure is/looks different (those are under way to here).


Yes it is crazy, and it really made me scratch my head (because I 100% trust you so it *is* weird). The only real difference I can think of is the low end of the speaker which in my case goes a tad further. So maybe depending on how that is "tuned" in general (by the cable) - here it is totally lacking or something. It is just all wrong (here !).

Regards,
Peter


PS: Just thinking : I should also have brand new "93 Ohm" connectors somewhere and I recall they came in plastic bags. Maybe there's something written on those bags.

Experienced a very nice bump in SQ with using silver plated conductor on BNC/RCA adapters made by RF Industries. Without any loss in dynamics, the bit of glare/harshness that was present has vanished. Here's their specs:

http://rfsearch.rfindustries.com/drawings/RFB-1140.pdf

 You can find them for around $2.50 a piece with a minimum order of 10 at most sites. Cheapest I found if you just want to order 4 was here:

http://www.protelecomsupply.com/rf-industries-rca-m-bnc-f-adapter

I think this was mentioned earlier, but Brian, are you sure these adapters are 50 Ohms? I can't see this stated anywhere in the specs.

I'm almost tempted to buy some 75 Ohm BNC/RCA adapters just to hear how an impedance mismatch actually sounds, well-below RF. Are the 50 Ohm and 75 Ohm BNC dimensions identical, does anyone know?

Mani.

Hey Mani, they are listed on the RF Industries "50 ohm adapter" page here:http://www.rfcoaxconnectors.com/product-categories-adapters-BNC50.html

At least for RF an impedance mismatch is a bad thing. I read recently that an impedance mismatch between adapter and cable causes reflections inside the cable resulting in RF distortion. Can't find that article right now.

Hey,

My take :
If it's not specified it most probably will be 50 Ohm, *if* well manufacturerd at all. 75 Ohm is very very rare, or at least very had to prove it is that. I mean, many can be bought, but I don't believe a sh*t of it. So far I have found two, one of them being Van den Hul and I only "trust" that one because I can see them around the corner here if I want. But actually I don't believe that either (why ? because they too don't produce these themselves). So you need to dive into datasheets after first finding the manufacturer who 9 out of 10 times don't provide a datasheet for such "stupid" thingies. And why is that ? because no BCN-RCA connection is going to be good anyway.
Again, my take.

But no worries;
I went quiet, but this is because I am still waiting for my parts to arrive. And ... just found in my email that the parts ordered will be "late". So WTF and isn't it always the same (when I feel this can happen anyway).

So more later and going very strong (I think) ...
Peter

Finally ...

Now listen. :xx:

Great!!!! :pleasantry:
**This is a 75 Ohm connection. Do you have details about the future cable, 93 Ohms? The SQ is?**

I saw this coming and now?  :scratching:

..... it's time for an external PSU, and then the NOS1a goes back to the Netherland for the next revision "B"!?!

Joachim

This is an "all the way" 75 Ohm connection but with the normal input impedance at the amplifier's side (like 100K).

The amp's side should not be changed either because of then required very large valued capacitors, which is no good for audio anyway. On the other hand this is not even required because the reflections are (if all is right) 100% damped on the output side. Of course this is theory only because I lack the equipment to measure it, but the theory should be correct. So reflections do occur at the amp's side, back to the input, but there it doesn't reflect back again towards the output and no mixing of original signal and reflections of it occur.

Yes, nice.
Well, I can tell you, I have been reading for 3 days in a row (this is 24 hours) into all sorts of angles this can be approached from, and my conclusion of thst is : good that I am ignorant.
Ah, you already knew that. :yes:

I'll spare you the pages, but all "research" which has been done about this, all shows that nothing will matter. One sad thing : whatever university etc. did the reasearch, do not have access to the analysers needed, so all uses simulations. So, in electronics it is very common to use (SPICE etc.) simulation programs, and they should tell the truth. Btw, it is very well accepted that they indeed show the truth, a bit depending on the complexity of the "problem", with me next telling to you that the judgement of this is not easy because what can be varied in simulation programs easily, can not be varied easily in practice at all. So what happens is that the results of a simulation are taken for granted and next are implemented physically. After that ? well, all should be fine.

But we hear differences ...

In our case it is also fairly complicated to apply tests or simulations which take care of ALL there theoretically is. So for example, such research may observe the audio band and see no differences anywhere for any cable or shoe lace, like no significant roll off is implied by any material, thickness, dielectricum, impedance, capacitance/inductance - at reasonable audio lengths. Still, when we observe the targets of such cables (which is in the GHz range) it WILL be there where the sh*t happens - but now look for research that takes *that* into account. So strange thing : that research is not needed because cable specs (or connection specs) depict it in the first place, and no need to "check" that. So again, all what happens is that such cables may be observed for the audio band, and there no differences are shown. That is, assumed the test or simulation is correct in the first place.

I too can't tell what's really happening, and all I can say is with that research at hand it has to happen beyond the audio band. But *now* things get really tough because all now depends on the bandwidth of the amplifier. So, if for example, VJ's 50GHz cable would be for the better, then what to say about an amplifier with 200KHz of bandwitdh. Or the other way around : if we have a 1MHz bandwitdh amplifier, will it be better or worse when the cable rolls off heavily after 100KHz ?
And of course all also depends on how much high frequency noise springs from the source in the first place. So if it is not there (impossible I think) then how can cables matter, assumed all has been tested for the audio band where it doesn't matter a thing (they claim).

Nice hobby.
Peter

BUT

Since I am ignorant as hell indeed, I continued my own ideas about this (Joachim still winning the prize) and this is only about eliminating the reflections. Nothing more - nothing less. So no matter this theoretically only applies to RF (Radio Frequency) stuff and our "short lengths" of cable are not subject to reflections anyway (they SAY), I just sustained my before said theories of over-sizing (apply more than specs require). Act like 50GHz is required and apply it to 20KHz. Easy enough. OK, not so easy, because only when it looks feasable for everybody to apply it, it is useful in my view.

No read on, but read carefully ...

The cable I showed in the picture from yesterday was in for two days. I didn't tell about any judgement because it was not the final situation yet. Besides that, as you know I need 5 days at least.  But if I would have said something about it, it would have been this :

Yes, this cable sounds exacly like the properties I selected it for, with in addition it weighing "nothing" which I did not expect or saw in advance. So I will be crazy, but I hear how things look like.
The low frequencies become very rounded because of it and with that a deepness of it occurs. The mid is super clear. The highs are just enough rounded off that the examples I told you about like Sgt Pepper, just wanted to play again. Still not as optimal as I had those earlier on, but doable enough. This with the "trade off" of everything else sounding better. So, after these two days I was pretty sure this cable was going to stay. Not 100% yet, but no reasons to think otherwise day before yesterday. Maybe one thing ... dynamics seem to lack somewhat (but high frequency detail is crazy).
Mind you, this was only the (75 Ohm) cable. Still with stupid (50 Ohm) BNC to RCA connectors at both ends, with thus the wrong impedance of the connector and next the RCA which is "nothing" (but they say that they are ~ 43 Ohm).
So nothing else changed yet, and this was only because the parts were not available, were delivered wrongly and ... grrr ...
And oh, because of the crimping tool (60 euros anyway) was not according the spec too, at first I destroyed the last connector so that too held up for a day, but this was still about the cable only.
Anyway, I would have sold this cable for the 225 euros or whatever I said.

Bahblahblahblah

Then came yesterday, right after the pictures I took and when I put up a first album ...
No, I'll refrain from the real judments because I need more time in order to judge and tell you rightly, but this I sure will tell you :

I had new tweeters in.
No wait, the whole speaker is a different one.
Eh, come on, this can't be. Must have new amplifiers as well.
No shoot, the DAC must be another one.
Still can't be, and I must be in a newly treated room.

Won't tell more, *if* it is ever possible to tell more. Ah, can sell those cables for 20K now. :swoon:

So all what has changed is make the connections 75 Ohm at both sides (DAC and amplifier) plus I gave my NOS1a 75.38 Ohm output impledance (couldn't get closer to 75 Ohm unless I have the resistors produced for me).

I will unveil one thing, which was SO strange that it is beyond comprehension :
Maybe you know the Mannheim Steamroller. Besides more, they have a series of 8 "Fresh Air" albums and I play the #7 regularly. On there, there's a track of 1:19 and it is the introduction to a next track (or the lead out of the previous) and yesterday I heard something which was so totally obvious that I really have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER how I can have missed it all the time. So, this small track (but the end of the preceeding one and the start of the next one too) shows sheer "soft static" in a rythm going from the left to the right speaker. This was so damn real static that for the 3-4 minutes it lasted I have been observing it very very closely and explicitly because the only thing I could think of is that something went wrong with the software or DAC. It is on the rythm of the music, and when it occurs there is no music. I am STILL thinking that something went wrong, but it can't. It is just that music with the notice that once in the X tracks these guys apply such tricks.
But how in heaven's name is it possible that I never noticed it ? Mind you, it really looks dangerous and it can not be missed.
FYI : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannheim_Steamroller

So of course, this has always been in there, but at a level - or possibly level of smear that it was just something stupid which did not occur as dangerous at all. Stupid synth - period.

Then this, which tells me a few things and which you possibly can recognize too :

Firstly in some Massive Attack track (first album I think) there's the rinkling of "something". Say nice effect. With the cable alone (no other changes yet) this already became very apparent because so clear (crystal clear sound). With the changes from yesterday though it became freakenly real. But what ? well, easy, take a coffee cup and move the spoon on the inside from the one wall of the cup to the other. So "nice effect" ? man, no effect at all, Just take a coffee cup. Right. But what happens next is that our son grabs a cup from somewhere plus spoon, and does the very same as the music showed it. So what about reality.

Secondly, I was alone for several hours yesterday and it happened for a sheer 5 times that I thought someone was in the room. Mind you, this is allowed to happen once in a while, but not 5 times in a few hours. THEN something else is going on.

Lastly, and all still distant telling, I played a part of Tusk (Fleetwood Mac) because I know this is a special means of first digital recording and it doesn't always play too well. And if *now* Ciska here tells me "ohhh, sooo beautiful !" then again something is going on, because no Ciska ever tells about "beautiful". She is only about distortions. Get it ?

A final appetizer :
By no means I intend to be all positive. I just don't know that yet. But with this in mind ... NOS1 owners (USB version) all know about the impossibility to describe the sound. Well, above I gave you a sort of brief description about the cable without the further appliances. We also know that it is not too difficult for me to describe relative changes, were it about software, speaker or other tweaks like this cabling;
Yesterday, during 5.5 hours of continuous listening, I have been trying to judge the sound and how I would describe it. Like in "bass is now such and so". And you know what ? I have no clues (yet). This is very very odd, but has to be similar to us all (including myself) not being able to describe the sound of the NOS1(a). So relative to other situsations - maybe, but in absolute sense, no. So envision - I think I have super bass but now at trying to judge it I don't even know what to look for. It just won't happen. Maybe with very explicit concentration and at explicitly trying to stay out of the mood of the music.
And regarding that latter, after playing that 7th of Mannheim Steamroller I also played #1 and #2 all in a row. This tells something to myself because normally I would never ever play such similar kind of music during 3 hours of time. Each of them I regarded as the very best recording I ever played. And of course this is BS. Also it was already superceeded by Tusk later.

So ... all 'n all I can't begin telling you what all changed. But it is completely outrageous for 100% sure. After more listening I will try to describe it.

Regards,
Peter

Haha, I go away for a few days and meanwhile Peter manages to redefine 'hifi'. Hard to keep up.

Just to add to the mix...

My 2x 10m pair of 50 Ohm Huber+Suhner K_03252D (inner conductor: single strand, solid copper core coated in silver) cables arrived today. I've just installed them (still using 50 Ohm BNC-to-RCA adapters each end) and...

... well, the sound has totally changed from the 'cheap' 50 Ohm BNC cables I was using. I mean, totally transformed. My immediate impression is one of complete and utter smoothness. I have simply nothing to say about the MF and HF, both sounding totally believable - I'm not wanting of anything here (i.e. I have no desire to change anything).

The LF is nice but nowhere near as 'liquid', 'rounded' and utterly gorgeous as I heard at Paul's (Scroobius's) place. Maybe I'll never be able to achieve this is my room, but I haven't given up yet. For one thing, my bass drivers are still very young (I haven't been using the speakers much lately), and of course these cables are brand new.

But I'm happy to throw them out and give Peter's latest ideas a go. At least I now have a good reference with which to compare.

Mani.

I'll try to do a few things in real time, or I will forget them.

So, The Friends or Mr Cairo (Jon & Vangelis). I talked about this one before because too lightweight since "digital". But, in itself already solved by the NOS1a (reported about that as well). Now ?

It gives me the creaps and shivers, because THE example about crystal clearness. And how beautiful a voice can be.

But what I really wanted to say about it :
In "The State of Indepence", somewhere from off half way, there's irregularly a very very high frequency kind of bell ringing. Well, it took me 6 times or so of hearing it before I knew it came from this track. This is an on/off bell like a doorbell can do it, but at higher frequency. I never ever heard it before. At that sixth time I really walked to the door to see whether someone was there.
A bit problematic in this case : this is such a live sound that it gives the perception of not coming from the speaker - somehow.

Anyway, this is the first album playing and at the 2nd track of it I again hear "someone in the room".
This is impossible to be a coincidence.
Obviously it will be related to that I know the track (for say life) but that I never heard that sound.

And another thing I can definitely say now :

All freqencies (I think) now extend to, ehm, where they belong. A bit though to explain in gereral terms, but it can be compared with a cross over working or not. But clear example for the low frequencies : A deeper drum shows the frequency changing when it dies out (gets higher). And this is real live truth.
So I already noticed this as a clear difference the past two days, but in the "Mr Cairo" track itself there's a kettle drum under way (no matter it probably is a (sampled) synth sound) and there I heard it too. So that's why I am saying it now.

Edit : I forgot : This (bass) will be the same thing as it not being so able to notice it for the better or the worse (as I expressed it earlier). It just blends in.
And this counts for everything I'd say ...

So here's a nice one for the highs :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPbhMHVNnnI
You don't really need to watch this, but this "By the time I got to Phoenix" from Isaac Hayes shows perfectly well how the highs are full of vibrance (from Hot Buttered Soul, MSFL). So :

What I clearly hear from it is something like a two-stroke fairly fragile hit on the top of a smaller ride cymbal. This fragility is the new thing and it makes everything sing. However :

The reason why I looked up this video is because I could not imagine any two-stroke whatever, so it was my thinking that this would show on a YouTube from it. Additionally it is very hard to perceive this from the speaker with my ear in it. So it could be room reflections or left/right difference (and then right would be first to my perception).
Well, go to 4:15 in that video and look. Alll looks normal to me.

Still this is the difference with this cable. So I didn't tell about it yet, but it is the highs which makes it all so, eh, real ?

Now I don't have sound on this "YouTube" PC so I can't tell whether here a normal stick is used and whether it sounds like a normal ride cymbal - and whether on the album version something else is used. But on the album is merely sounds like a metal brush and certainly not a stick.
The slow hitting on that cymbal is there right from the start with the notice that every few beats it changes sound.

And on the vibrant phenomenon :

I just received a "beautful !" again from Tom Petty's "Learning to fly". Tom Petty isn't that bad to begin with, but all sings and does ...

There's just more "frequency" in all.

Another example which could give you the creeps : Chris Isaak - Wicked World - Wicked World (track). Not only the super clear guitar but also that voice. And a thumbed bass.
Together with the highs this is now a holographic track from here to eternity.

If I had to say something, this shows that we just lost 90% of distortion.

:swoon:

Oh, another thing I tend to forget ... about vibrant again ...

So, an hour of classical now;

Copper. Wow.
But to really test it, try harpsichord (klavecimbel in Dutch).
At some level, here, tweeter killer ! But ohhh.

Done for today.

Peter

Well ...

Yesterday was the fourth day with these cables. What I am going to say I could just as well have said after day one :

I can't find anything going wrong.

What I mean by this is that there's nothing jumping out anywhere for nastyness. So I think we can all recognize that we own tracks with for example a concert flute (you might think pro-rock but also light classical) and a bit depending how the instrument is being played, some notes may jump out. It is not only that you may perceive it like that (play seems to blow harder on one note than the other) but it can also be "painful" so to speak, especially when you play louder.
Personally this does not bother me because at some stage it becomes part of your set and you get used to it. As if it is the room doing it and it is appreciated as a natural thing.
Side note : The concert flute example is different from a piano with jumping out notes (keys), because that should be all over even anyway and this is what I "tune" for. So if the piano is wrong, something is not right. But such a flute is harder to get right *IF* you "know" that it is wrong in the first place.

If the above is not clear, then too bad.
But if you can recognize this (still very hard because it goes unconsciously) then you won't know what will be happening to you when suddenly all of this has vanished. It is -somehow- an explicit thing which comes to you, while previously you did not even know it existed. Very very strange.

So at some stage, it starts to occur to you that all those little jump outs here and there (but for various instruments this can happen if not all of them) are not there any more. Don't ask me how this contributes to the nice sound to begin with, or how it might contribute to all being music as such, but the sheer fact that this kind of distortion is not there is reason enough to judge the whole system as the most top of the bill imaginable. So think about my first response about this with that little list, which ended with "the room has been treated" (similar). The WHOLE perception is totally different and to my feeling such a drastic change can only happen when your same system has been moved to another room. And a very expensively treated one.

By now the few who have tried this kind of connection say very similar in the realm of "drastic change". So for me the same with actually any of the cables I tried (this is the 5th for me). So now it is our task to judge and express it in such way that it can be brought across as absolute merit.
Very difficult I think. But a "nothing goes wrong" could be an important part of it.

Peter

Another aspect I noticed, is one I can't deal with well and maybe that too tells something;

Somehow it has become impossible to predict how a track (/album) sounds for the highs, related to how it previously sounded. So a general summarization first : After a couple of tracks you are dead sure that the highs have 12dB or whatever more output, while another album goes the other way around.

Previously it was so (for me) that when a more fresh sound has been introduced, you could hear that throughout in everything. That obviously did not bother me and it was only that I now could predict that album XYZ would sound too fresh. And of course, with a more dull sound I could predict that albums ABC would sound too dull.

Now *this* does not happen anymore and I don't know why. Of course I can think of some distortion flaviour which makes (made) all more fresh, but if that were to be the case than this same distortion would also make a more fresh album more dull. Understand ? No of course. But this follows from the one album being super more fresh (fresh is the wrong word - so think more cymbal and such) while the other album went exactly the other way and has become super silky. And this (is also creepy) while I cannot "see" how the silky will be wrong, while for 10 years I am used to the album with splashing cymbals. So was it wrong all this time ?? And that in ALL the very various situations I have been playing with ?
If the answer to that is Yes than I'm at rest.

I told about that semi-static of Mannheim Steamroller. If you don't know this "static" then it is hard to explain, but anyway envision this kind of semi static to go along with the digital volume level. Note : real static does not do that and is always at full blast). So, say 90dBSPL of music which changes into 90dBSPL of white-ish noise (it's browner than real white). Your heart will stop beating if you hear that suddenly, especially if you know you are responsilble yourself for the software doing it. So, THAT bad, and I never ever even noticed it before. Right. Now that cymbal thing of the sikly album. This is coincidentally a test track for me and at some stage the cymbal hit will occur. In the music concerned it is the loudest thing. Never came across as strange to me. But now ? Now it has almost gone. Disappears in that music somewhere. So this too is freakingly unbelievable because what actually happens. Is it wrong now ? was it wrong previously in all these varying situations ?

Still NOTHING sounds wrong so far and I can tell you that in any other sequence of 5 days of listening I would have found a 100 things wrong by now. But always appreciated as "acceptable !". I mean, who cares if 8 seconds in a 12 minute track a concert flute jumps out. But I do care if it jumps out 40 seconds while I know it can also be 8 seconds. So with 40 it's a "reject !".
Thus again, of these kind of things there could be an 80 after 4 days (yep, that's 100 in 5) and now I am at zero.

Last one for now :

It is the most clear to me that all what is square - but now I mean really square - comes out in I don't know how many more dB. Think hitting on a precussion pipe. Or a not too high pitched bell. This is also how the clarity emerges (I'm sure). So this comes with such a power together with all staying OK that this gives you the creeps already.

About that harpsichord ...
When I was writing about it day before yesterday such an album was playing, but it was actually too scary to not pay attention and have the finger close the Stop button. So this really sounds like tweeter frying sound and it comes at a level ... you don't want to know. Of course Joachim is going to tell us the frequency a harpsichord reaches but I think it will be very high (over 100 KHz ?). Not that we will be able to process that (it's just Redbook) but to me it looks like there's much more headroom for the audible higher frequencies. Something like normall roll off can be 20 dB easily (within music I mean !) while now it's at -0dB.

But seriously, if I hear this through loudspeakers I think it is abnormal that they can take this without a spur of distortion that I can notice.
Too bad I never heard a harpsichord live.

... This brings me to something I almost forgot :
The difference between soft and loud has become larger than I may like. Here too I don't know how it really works, but all indications are there that it is about the same sort of thing. So no harpsichord was playing like (perception) 120dBSPL while the normal level is at 90dBPL. Also, it *is* not 120dBSPL but because of all the highs you perceive it like that. So of course my 120 is just a sort of guess and also virtual, but the difference with normal would be 30dB in this example. So, play a violin followed by a harpsichord and all was OK. Now there's a (virtual) 30dB difference and the harpsichord is way way WAY louder than the violin. Is this normally so ? I don't know. But here again Joachim will come up with one of his charts (it has already been there, I know).
So what's changed, as it seems, is that such a difference between instruments is now shown, while before it did not so much. With this too, easy to think it is the recording and/or mixing etc. and we will perceive it as normal because we are used to it. And now this happens and we are not used to it and it can even be uncomfortable; I like to play loud but under way it shouldn't become too loud because of such an instrument jumping in at real levels.
And I have said it before : we must be glad that no cymbal shows at 110dB through loudspeakers while the piano plays at 90dB. So notice, both are reality levels and I play the piano on that level easily. But what if the cymbal starts to play at 110 ? then the fun is over and the piano has to soften ... which I won't like.

Peter

Harpsichord on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71x4MSlpGUk

Joachim

***The frequency is depended of the length of the soundboard and is well above 10KHz. I found this info in a book from Neville Fletcher.
See table 11.10 on page 344.

http://books.google.de/books?id=9CRSRYQlRLkC&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=frequency+of+a+harpsichord&source=bl&ots=RqbdiL1kfl&sig=ltO1pJBOK7V0uAe4rkS3QGtdtgc&hl=de&sa=X&ei=1dAzVOqmNKGfygPvlIH4Cg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=frequency%20of%20a%20harpsichord&f=false
***

Hi Peter,

we are reading a lot of "mouth-watering" reports of the phnatastic SQ, but no details about the cable in use? It's a secret?

Hey, we're getting nervous!

Joachim

P.S. By the end of the week a RG 223 (double shielded, silver coated solid copper wire) will a arrive. (will test it against a "7 stranded"  copper coated steel wire cable)

Hi Joachim,

Since you did not reply to this frequency question (at first), I started looking myself yesterday and found it not easy at all to come up with something. Same with you I guess.
But since you found something which - like my findings - seems to come up with something ... I won't believe that. But I can't judge because I can't see (anywhere) how they measured hence what equipment was used for it. What I also saw was all the old stuff about this, like that book you referred to (1976 that one, I think). My point is :

If you measure this in normal fahsion, you will measure a square frequency (square waveform) to possibly "over 10 KHz" which looks like a sine (see later). But if that is so (square), it will be "over 30 KHz" in reality.
Think like rinkling keys (car keys etc.); these are listed more often, just as the example how a very square sound actually implies a very high frequency (I don't know, but way above 20KHz). So the point here is, if a square sound is to remain that, it requires the sine frequency first to do it. Think 3rd harmonic for any base square.

Example :
If we have a sampling rate of 44100, which is limited for frequency to half of that (22050Hz) and we capure an 8HKz square wave with that sampling rate, it becomes a 100% pure sine because the 3rd harmonic (24KHz) can not be sampled with 44100 sampling rate.
So you see ? I too found "data" about the harpsichord, and then it was listed that the soundcard used (somewhere long ago) sampled at 48000. In that case any sine frequency will not show above 22050Hz to begin with, but might it have been a square at e.g. 12000Hz then 12000Hz will have shown, while it should have been 36000Hz.

In the end it is "simply" about the (odd) harmonics (always sines, because nothing else exists and squares are built from sines too).

Thanks,
Peter

Hi Peter, hi Joachim,

in contrast to the piano - where the hammer is damping the vibrations of the strings - the basic wave and harmonics at the harpsichord can move freely. Addionally the strings are - depending on construction - picked sharply.

Georg

Hi Peter. I'm not sure I understand this quote. Did you  put 75 ohm bnc connectors on both ends of the cable and put 75 ohm bnc connectors on both the DAC and the Amps? Also, did you consider trying 50 ohm connectors and cable? Just wondering.

So I survided day 5.
And officially this is enough.
I would even say that some breaking in has been in order, so it even got better.

At this moment I am as far as not being able to "see" anything else but "live instruments" playing in front of me, no matter how hard I try to find faults. All what remains (for me) is the interpretation of how the recording itself may interfere with that idea. So example :

Maybe it is 4 years ago only that I started to recognize something like a real hi-hat coming from the speakers. So of course it was there before, but it started to be loud enough to recognize it as a hi-hat being played. Of course this improved and improved over time.
Now ? well, when say a piano plays at reality levels (90 dBSPL) the hi-hat is as loud as a live one at the same distance. This in itself is creepy. But now careful and this is what I mean :

At the same time (same track I mean) a normal cymbal is *not* at its normal level (ehm, luckily ?). But then I have been at concerts where the drum kit was not amplified, except for the hi-hat. And, after the drummer had slammed around for 30 minutes, he managed to slam the hi-hat's microphone out of the way and it was me myself putting it back into position because nothing of it coud be heard anymore. This, while it's a crucial part of the drum kit.

So what I'm saying is that these kind of aspects will be known at recording-making, and I guess the hi-hat will be amplified more than the other parts. Same for instruments amongst eachother - undoubtedly.
Anyway, at this moment this seems the only aspect left for perceiving the real thing. Still scary enough.

Peter

Brian, Yes.
Plus the NOS1(a) needs a change for output impedance.


Yes, but this won't work because no generally appliable 50 Ohm output/input terminals exist (like as a replacement in your NOS1). 75 Ohm comes in all kind of forms.
Besides that, 75 Ohm performs better (hard to explain, but take today's all high bandwidth (coax / video) as the example - they are all in 75 Ohm and not in 50 Ohm).

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

I suppose that we could ask to have BNC connectors instead of RCA and have an adaptor (BNC to RCA) at the other end for the amplification ?

Alain

Yes, it is a secret (for now) and I told so from the start (with this cable).

The reason is strange : I don't want you to get into these cables if you can't do it well anyway. But merely - and that is the "for now" - I am all over NOT confident this will work out the same for everyone.

So Yes, I am (by now) shouting all over the place because what else to do (for me the truth is the truth) but because this is and remains about (eliminated) reflections which is largely related to cable length, I am just not able to tell whether this is now all the way right for everyone, or that it coincidentally works out for me (at my ~3m15).

Please remember what I said : We can make the cable for 225-250 euros (which by now turned into 250 because of the (physically hard) work), which already is not a "funny amount" any more. This is excluding the work people themselves HAVE to do because otherwise there's no prediction of the result at all. What I am saying is this (and everybody should read carefully) :

Because of a "step by step" more motivation - which includes the incrementing reporting about it - I ended up with "molesting" my own NOS1a in order to do it the best way. So mind you, things had to (have to) be changed and if it wouldn't have worked out, somebody here puts all back. A few lost hours and that is all.
Same for the modification at the power amps - which will be in your own hands in the first place.

Now, if you yourself make these interlinks, it will also cost you close to that money. This is because you don't have the required tools for them, which I bought just the same because it was (is) for the better cause. So say I don't care much. But if you (all) would apply what we did over here and the result is poor, then you won't like it.
And what about the NOS1(a) ?

So regarding the latter I might have an idea that can work in more easy fashion (without shipping it AGAIN back and forth), but please ... what if it doesn't work out for YOU.
~200 euros down the drain, another 100 for NOS1(a) adjustments and still without shipping. And why ?

Because over here it works out.

And so this time I tell you this is not enough.
It first must be proven to generally work out but at this moment I am not sure how to do that. Sure, if someone like you tells me "I will try it !" then I will be happy to help, but only after you know it may fail. And you know that now. :)

So you have the above costs in mind ? Add another 100 plus whatever sort of shipping to change it back if it does not work out.

Understand now ?

It all sneaked in and although it is your own fault Joachim (haha), I realized too late the possible consequences and maybe I should have gone along, but in total silence.
How in the world I can stay silent (like how all is now) is another matter. :swoon:

So at this moment this is the idea :

Mani has two NOS1a's and accidentally his second came in two weeks ago (was it's turn) and Mani is going to try. So all will be applied for him, just like I have it myself. The difference ? his interlinks will be 10 meters.
Mani, unlike me, is also used to the more expensive interlinks. So he will be able to judge whether it is all and 100% "for sure" for the better. And that at this very different length.
If he says "OK !" then that's a start. But only that, because now his amplifiers are the same as mine.
Mani is in a convenient position because of his two NOS1a's. So he can compare. Also accidentally he can have two parallel inputs at the amp (speaker). So he *really* can compare.

If anyone has the better eureka idea now ... please feel free ...

Hey Alain ... No.
Maybe you skipped a 100 posts ?
:) :)
Peter

Sorry, I may not have explained myself correctly.

I read that you have modified a NOS1a to have BNC connectors and I suppose that if you were to do this to someone's NOS1a, it would either take the place of the RCA or the XLR outputs ?

If this is right, the cable would be BNC at each end. But I don't see myself asking to have my power amplifier modified at its input to have BNC connectors... This is why I was asking.

Alain

Hey Alain,


Although I did not see coming that you would not ask your amp manufacturer etc., I understood. But without that it won't work.
Then it's a hit and miss like a few of us did so far, and possibly you can end up with better (SQ) than what you have now.

Clear ?

Peter

Mmmm :( I don't imagine someone at Spectral saying "no problem" ... They really have their own way about fiddling with their components...

I will have to ask questions around...

Alain

Hi,
I am live near Peter. I already have good results with 1$ coax cables plus cheap bnc-rca adapters. I would like to volunteer to get my nos1a changed. If that is a good suggestion. (Remark: would like to have the nos1a terminals lower, now they conflict with the usb port.)

But I use separate amplifiers (Jadis JA30). I could ask my shop to change the terminals if needed. They did a replacement of the rca to new rca terminals some years ago. Or I stick to the bnc-rca adapter for now. Not sure if replacing of these terminals at the amplifiers are mandatory?
regards, Arjan

Hi Peter,

that's a good idea for us "No Orelo MKII " owners and Mani is requested to be the pioneer.

We would like to know if there is a the difference of the SQ between his present 50 Ohm Huber+Suhner K_03252D (inner conductor: single strand, solid copper core coated in silver) cable and your new cable.

Thank you in advance Mani for your kind help.

Joachim

Hey Joachim, I'm also interested in your impression of the RG 223 solid, silver coated, copper cable you ordered. It appears that the conductor of the RG 223 is smaller than the RG 142, solid, silver coated, copper I've been listening to. Everything good Peter has said about his latest cable could just as well be written about my 1m+ (3 foot) RG 142 cable with silver plated bnc/rca adapter. Very strange Peter had such a bad experience with the RG 142. Maybe the length had something to do with it? Anyway, am looking forward to your impression of the RG 223. One more thing, here's a link to a military spec RG 142 with solid, silver coated, copper (no steel) conductor:
http://www.cablesondemand.com/category/CORG142/product/CO-142BNCX200/URvars/Items/Library/InfoManage/CO-142BNCX200.htm

Brian

Yes, and that is (thus) exactly the danger. But at least that wasn't done right. And so YMMV.
With that 75 Ohm "Blaxius" at least all has been done to make it as right as possible and then still (length ?).

Peter

Hi Brian,

you are right, both types seems to be identical, except the core is 0,05mm smaller at the RG223.

I will report and hopefully the SQ will be lifted again.

Joachim

P.S.

Here in Germany is a reputated audio cable manuf. "HMS Electronic" ( http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/hms/hms.html ), and the mastermind Strassner wrote some critiques about electrical cables in general, but in German only.
His biggest concern are the "RF" immissions into the cable, because every cable is an antenna. (sample: a PVC coated wire is attached to most radios as an antenna)

Thank you Arjan, that is very kind of you. Btw, *this* is a job you can wait for (small hour).
Whether it will work out with your USB cable is something else because the output terminals can't be at the bottom for the "a" version. Notice though that you were the very first to receive the NOS1a (second one sent out though) and that right after that we started to ask people "where do you want which output terminals ?".
So they can be in the whole of the top row, but also in the left most bottom position seen from the back. So/but for example, when you'd use the two left most (top and bottom) seen from the back, the mains cable might be in the way.
All depending on how thick you guys manage to have your USB and/or mains cable.

Do notice that this "Blaxius" is just over 10mm thick.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Let us make an appointment! Shall we PM for that?

Small remark on bnc connectors. Yesterday I got an high pitching sound. Came out that the bnc connection was not properly connected anymore. They seems to be a bit easy to disconnect. Would tnc, if possible, be a better alternative? I would try tnc if I got a hold of tnc-rca adapters. But they seems to be rare. Or just some glue on the connector?

regards, Arjan

Hey Arjan, I've had that happen too. If the connection is the least bit loose, or not entirely "twisted in", its lights out for HF static.

Hi,

I'm using this adapters and the connection is "dead certain" ( in German "bombenfest")

Joachim

http://www.lindy.co.uk/bnc-female-to-phono-male-adapter-3-pack-p5734 for GB and

http://www.lindy-usa.com/bnc-female-to-phono-male-adapter-3-pack-35536.html in the US

Thanks Joachim, will have a look at these!

Arjan

OK ...


Almost all of the others (dozens exist) are better from the "tight" connection point of view. Think for example F-connector (this is for satelite cable - 75 Ohm) where the connection is screwed. F to RCA exists.

If your BNC connection gets loose automatically then something is wrong. However, I can imagine that if you put (twisted) tension on a stiff cable that you can disconnect it by means of you twisting the cabe, holding that at a meter distance. In other words, don't put that tension on it. And do notice that the connectors bajonet ring must twist when putting it on and not the cable itself. Ehm, if that ring can twist. But understand ? If the tension is there anyway, cause it to be 180 degrees in the good direction so it will auto-twist itself ON insteds of off.
Bit difficult to explain.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

The cables are a bit to long, so somewhat twisted. Although the bajonet can twist (in relation to the cable) the connection to the rca adapter is more loose. So twisting the cable loosen the connection. I am aware of that now! Ordered some adapters as Joachim suggested, maybe that will make the connection more tight on the amplifier side.

regards, Arjan

The one time I had a loose connection was when I was A-B'ing my RCA and BNC interconnects. The bnc/rca adapter become loose from repeatedly pulling it out of the amp and I didn't notice. I've never had it happen "automatically."

What's in a title.
So up to the Saturday morning blah blah (if I can do otherwise at all) ...

So a few days back I reported about Ciska "being able to" express about "so beautiful !". I left out the few times more she said that because two times was enough. But apparently something "switched" in her and it looks like another audiophile has been born. Mind you, this is about somone who by now has been listening to something like 21900 hours of my music, assumed each day 3 hours on average and no vacations etc. So a few hours less it will be. :wacko:

Yesterday something was changed in the system again, and at listening to some track she suddenly tells me "hey, I can imagine track XYZ to sound such and so now". So I said "oh, and since when can YOU do this ??".

At that moment we were listening to Rare Earth's Get Ready which is played each 4-5 months since I finally found it on CD (two years or so ago). This is from 1969 and one of the "key stones" from my younger years. It is a kind of a tough album to play, or better, that 20 minute "Get Ready" track. It is from that era, say the beginning of (Pro-)Rock and the recording means were a kind of special (say 1967 - 1972). I *know* that from that era the best recordings emerged (my view of course) but it now depends very much on the performance of the system. Can sound more poor and hollow, can sound too light and dynamical. And everything in between. If things work well you'll "hear" the messages, often present in ProRock (btw, I don't call this Rare Earth specifically ProRock, but it has some properties of it). Those "messages" are only brought across when you can see the intension of the singer, or when you envision the band on a podium doing the performance. All at ease, just representing their era and what all happens around them. That kind of thing.

Yesterday it worked like never before. All fit and all in proper balance. Besides that, a "today's very well done recording".
This is how Ciska now was urged to hear back one of these tracks we played a couple of days back with that message "I can envision now ...". So huh ?
It got worse, because it became a subject in itself and we talked about it somewhat (like I found another pal) and in the end there was a "yea, but that Wicked Game from Chris Isaak is really tear drawing, you know". Okay, I must have missed that this other day. Only the "so beautiful" I noticed. Hmm ...

In advance of this we talked about "more analogue" with my more or less tough explanation what that would be. Actually I said "more analogue but with all the highs sustained from 'digital'". If I would have said this 5 years ago it would have been more clear, but at today's standards the borders are vague to begin with. So, hard to make clear.

And so Wicked Game was put up again;
For me it did what I expected of it, but in 2 fold or maybe 3. There was no ultimate super crystal clear guitar as the first to notice, and there was no super clear beautiful voice as the second. I said "at least the guy is not gay anymore" and you know what ?? after playing this one this few days ago, the next one I put up was George Michael. So go figure how our mind works, because no way I appreciated Chris Isaak as gay. Still it must have been in my mind, and yesterday my expression was "not gay any more !" ?? So I *did* know.

But next there was *her* expression, and while my "more analogue" in advance didn't come across really, she made a "gay he was never, but now it is more NATURAL".
Oh.

The change is so big compared to few days back that I would say the whole recording shifted down an octave. I am serious.
But now I must tell you about the one "minus" I found with this cable fairly much right form the start. Mind you, as how it was before yesterday ...

You can say there's a kind of "bells" in them as a general character. High frequency "belling" which we better call ringing. At least that is what I can think of, were it (all) about reflections. But notice : there is no way that I judge this ringing as something I can't live with, ALTHOUGH it would be my foremost deep down negative if I hear such a thing throughout tracks and albums. Mere point here is : this expresses in rock only (that I noticed) but it also has a sheer upside : singing. And, this is clearly the "vrbrance" I talked about. So wonder oh wonder, day before yesterday I tried Foreigner and Boston and that kind of soft rock bands, which so far never really worked out. Now they play as intended : full with harmonics and this "singing" throughout from the distortion guitars and full sound. So it works, but can be overkill once you only listen to this kind of music because it wil start to be apparent to you that there's a flavor. Still, the only thing on my mind was about what YOU would think about this, might I prepare such a set of interlinks for you. So say a bit scary, but for me I think it would be okay; 99% of music I play will not show it anyway *and* you must be able to recognize it in the first place. But, you could be better at that then me, so still a bit scary.

Hoping that you're still with me and didn't die of the blahblah, now up to yesterday's change ...

---

See below picture. See or know how totally illegal it is what has been done there; have an interlink that acts as a coil, implying inductance. IL-LE-GAL.
Still I did it out of curiosity, plus I maybe didn't know how to put this 7 meters too long cable otherwise easily. So this is Mani's cable at ~10m40 while my own is 3m15. You can see it in the back ground. Thus, 7 meters of coil there.

This interesting part of this could be that inductance and capacitance are linearly related. With the emphasis on me now knowing exactly how all works out, this should tell something like : when the inductance gets higher because of this coil format, the capacitance will be lower. Okayyy, it could even be that the net result of the inductance is lower because of this format, and if that is so then the capacitance is higher. Or something quite else may happen.
What I sure know though is that both capacitance and inductance of such a cable should be as low as possible. This now can never be achieved because whatever is done to achieve the lower capacitance will higher the inductance. And the other way around. One thing I (thus) do not know, and this is whether this applies "within the cable('s properties)" only, and whether external influences may disobey this rule. In this case the cable itself being a coil could be such an external influence and who knows now both capacitance and inductance lowered (if you'd (could) add the both values of them).

Point is, this setup changes the sound drastically AGAIN.
:swoon:

Of course this has been a few hours listening only so any final judgement is a few days away as always, but this ringing is not be there any more. What came in place of that is "more grey" but with my emphasis that grey is relative and all what happens (I think) is that the false harmonic "bells" disappeared and probably no Foreigner will work again. So no false vibrance and "singing". This seems also how a Chris Isaak's voice shifts down an octave.

The whole perception is also one of more laid back. This is a bit of a strange form of it because it isn't much about flat or farther away, but merely about "ease". And I am fairly sure it is this which makes me say "more analoge". Someone else makes that "more natural".
The least what it does is once again give all more body but I am not sure yet what the real cause is. So, if an octave from Chris Isaak is remove at the upper side, the lower side which does not need to change a bit gets more profound automatically. So, more body. The Get Ready is not "smashing dynamical" at all. We explicitly observed the now infinitely possible loudness. Notice that this is about 20 minutes of hitting a snare drum on the same beat and when that too dynamically renedered at some stage you'll get crazy of it.

I also played "Who do we think we are" from Deep Purple which I always play when things drastically changed; The cymbals in there seem to be of "DSP'd" quality hence abnormally good for Rock. I listened to it yesterday and I tried to observe where the so much more laid back of it was for the better or worse. And well, whatever I tried I could not see where it was wrong, no matter so different. All was there and more profouind than ever before, but all so super silky that it seems impossible that it has been in there all the time. And yes, what is the most apparent to ME and relative to the past 6 days with my own cable, is that extra layer of ringing not being there. Al so normal ...
Some say natural.
:swoon::swoon:

The danger I could see at this moment is that I can run into a perceived lack of power because that is how it feels initially. Not because of the lack of slam (no way) but because of a possible lack of dynamics. But then I have been used to crazy dynamics for a long time, and all what happens with these changes for the better is that it gradually gets less and less. This is not about high frequency detail, but somewhere in the (higher ?) mid that makes a snare drum hurt from realism as how it was before - or jut not enough because too much rounded as how it is now. This is why again more days will be needed to judge this from various types of music. So that not only Get Ready works from now on.

So ... Nice story perhaps, but what actually happened ?
I put a cable in coil form and one should never do that. But I also used a 10m40 cable instead of 3m15. What does actually which ?
A longer cable, theoretically, is never for the better. This is now not about a too high capacitance and too much HF roll off, but about the longer the worse the reflections. Still I feel it went the other way around unless the ringing is now rolled off because the high frequencies are somewhat. Thus what I try to tell is that the highest frequencies causing the mere "bell" sound are actually reflections after all, but now those frequencies are rolled off to some extend because the length of the able itself. Notice that this should be about 30 meters for one "ring" (echo). So amp reflects back to DAC which reflects back towards amp and is played through the speaker. And that assumed one time of reflection. In my 3m15 case it would be about 9 meters. Or, because it is shorter a next reflection comes through before being rolled off too much.
All hard to say and still assumed reflections do this in the first place. So what about the filter which is time domain oriented ? I mean, it just as well can be so that this more false high frequencies can now finally be heard well. Thus nothing about reflections. And *now* all what happens is that the longer cable may roll off *that*.

What the coil thing does can be tested. Just un-coil it. So I guess I will do that today. Will be a bit messy in the room but with one more audiophile present there's more who cares less.

Peter

PS:

What I did not tell, but what was in my mind as "the" subject this morning, was this :

*If* this coil thing does something and it does it for the better, we will be totally lost for the next 6 months because we may find ourselves trying various windings of this coil. And then not to speak about the total length which makes the variations infinite to begin with. But outside that we can have smaller and larger windings, two "sets" of them or even three and all should do something else.
Mine is put flat on the floor, but putting it upright will imply other resulting properties. Let it float ...

So just saying ... we better hope that "un-coiling" this gives a better result or otherwise we addicts will all get crazy.

Peter

Hi,

funny, this coil was in my "arrangement" since the beginning, and I always considered this as a disadvantage.

Refer voices.

The song "Roxanne" by George Michael is from somewhere else now.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Songs-Last-Century-George-Michael/dp/B00003CK6Z/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1413033738&sr=1-1&keywords=george+michael+songs+from+the+last+century

Joachim

Joachim, "from somewhere else" ?

or "as never heard it before" - amazing voice and bass.

Joachim

P.S. How long did you hear with the coiled cable? The change of the SQ came just after the connection between the DAC and amps?

Edit: between both alternatives of my "mini (un)coiled" 4m cables I hear no substantial differences. ***Perfectly recoiled***

Yes. And easily audible.


Notice that there will be a difference between your "lousy" coil and a more neat one (mine ;)).

Now they are all over the place. Easy difference *again* ...
And for the better. :yes:

Peter

So "NO COIL" is an advantage. Right?

****
Hi Peter,
no answer is an answer. 
I have interpretation problems with "they are all over the place" , because it was your intention to uncoil the cable for a comparision.

You still have Mani's 10m cables. Do you have the possibility to test the "old Orelo MKII" loop. (DAC 33 Ohm RCA, your 75Ohm cable and the old RCA connection at your active speakers, with and without coiled cables)

I think we, with "normal" speakers", have to look for other cables. I will try a 50 Ohm BNC cable with a solid copper wire, double shielded, and the dielectric mat'l is PE foam. The length is ???? due to open test results with "coiled" cables.

The dia of the cable is 10,2mm. A German manuf. is selling such a cable for €100,00 per 25m.

Or do you have another proposal for us "outsiders" :grin:

Joachim
****

Hey Joachim,

Sorry for my vague answers, but I didn't have much time. Or did not *want* to spend much time, because my listening time is precious and this is always in the evening couple of hours.


All over in/through the room I meant. So "un-coiled".


Technically yes of course, but practically is something else. And it will be "guessing" again, which is precisely what we should NOT do;
All these things work (or work not) for technical reasons, and this one now works (and es expected, once I learned a few things - finally :swoon:).


Yes. But actually the other way around : No "coil" should ever be there in any electrical cable.


The only thing I should be able to do with usefulness is try whether all is quite OK as well with a not-adjused output impedance of the NOS1(a). If that is the case then you (and others) can replace the output terminals of the NOS1(a) an input terminals of the amp, which terminals we provide together with the cable.

Oh sh******************t ... I just thought of a way how the output impedance adjustment of the NOS1(a) can be avoided !!
Ha !
So *that* I will try out here.

Regards,
Peter

All right. Back to the listening to Mani's 10m40 ...

I dare say that this is the best one so far. But this is a bit dangerous because :

1. In normal fashion (meaning all straight on the floor and no coil forming) it exhibits the same as my 3m15 except for :
2. I could not detect any of that ringing.

Ad 2.
This is the dangerous part because it may have depended on what I played yesterday and I did not play all the same as I did before. However, once you know what to listen for I should have heard it, but I did not.

The cable for Mani was constructed just a little bit different for the crimping of the centre pin than mine, and Mani's technically is the better one.

Regarding this latter you may not believe it, but without the proper tools this can not be done in well fashion. So for fun : When we put networking cables together of this kind (which we did for many many kilometers in the past) then virtually we would use a hammer when needed, and when the data was OK it just was. Done. And it always was.
This is how audio is different because we can not technically see it is the very best. So for (digital of course) networking data there's a huge margin for where it will still operate (at 100%) while varying this margin for audio will make a difference, because all does (the digital data sure WILL look different at varying this margin, while of course we audio addicts know that everything which looks different also sounds different)
And oh, those tools take you down for 310 euros - crazy - and they ONLY apply to this cable and connector.

Anyway, now with this 10 meters (spec is something like 130 meters at 3GB IIRC) I could not hear any downsides compared to my 3m15 and thus actually the other way around. And a new one for me : I played a couple of tracks from Blade Runner (Vangelis) and there are very pure and very loud bells in there, at on estimate 10KHz. With very loud I mean that again it looks like being able to fry a tweeter, and this while none of this was ever heard previously by me (but I never played this with any of the BNC cables). Here you can feel that something is going on which previously just was not possible for whatever (filtering) reason.

What I did to observe the ringing explicitly, was playing that Isaac Hayes again (OK, few minutes only). Now it suddenly is totally clear that there's a brush-like device with - I'd say" small balls at the end of it. Not sure whether this formally exists, but I sure have one in the kitchen drawer for stirring. So envision that at first (my cable) I had to go to the speaker with a "what's up ?" while now this was not necessary and you can hear it from a mile distance. So that improvement - again.

For Mani : If you can supersede this with any interlink of any $ then let me know because I tend to bet a "sure not".
But do not "coil it up" because that for 100% sure makes a difference and I don't think it is for the better. It can be applied as a tweak though (one winding, two windings, etc.).

Lastly, and then I should be finished with this, it is clear to me that the lower end - or "slam" end is all what this is about were it for balance. I think the sub-low frequencies improve from it too, but most of it happens somewhat more upwards. So when the most slam or firm bass happens, this is not happening in the woofers here. As usual difficult to explain, but it's a fullness that could be explained by the same "means" how something gets so crystal clear for the higher (real mid) frequencies. Something like "way less distorted" (or undistorted) what makes a wave more firm/steady. So with the sub low frequencies we can test this easily by means of feeling the woofer and how for example Windows 8 does a way better job on this than Windows 7 (in Windows 8 you feel what you hear) and it is my estimate that the same can go on for any frequency, that now making the ONE frequency intended way louder (the fed energy is not spread to other (thus false) frequencies).

May it tell something, in all this time I never ever felt the slightest urge to adjust the F-M curve settings of the speaker. Before I sure did, depending on what played, and this *today* is an indication that things were not right to begin with and you will not be able to find the 100% best anyway. An optimum yes, but the 100% no. This follows from (my) logic.
And FYI : There is no single way that any DSP changed setting will be able to "create" what such a cable does because it is about different "properties". So you can add bass but you can't prevent the spread to other frequencies because for the DSP this is just "music data" and it doesn't know about it. Btw, we don't either and any THD (or FFT) analyser won't be able to tell reliably also. This is because all is about the impedance relation from front to end, and the analyser itself is different than our amps and things will behave differently because of that.
And again FYI : A proper impedance analyser costs $$$$$ but a test fixation for e.g. 75 Ohm costs 4000 already (and then I would still doubt the results for real merit).

I'd like to call the improvement "infinite" but don't ask me whether a 20K interlink would do the same. So please remember, this is the first time I went into cables so I don't have the real experience.
But also to remember : I am not able to differentiate with the real instruments any more and I don't need my own drumming recording for it - suddenly. I think I know how that now can be, but this post is long enough already.

Summarized, *I* now feel confident that this can work for everyone, because I think I proved that the length is unrelated (reflections are properly damped anyway). But let's wait until Mani has a judgement. He will have all on Tuesday, but it will last until next weekend before he is there to apply the "amp" adjustments.

The Topic can be closed now. ;)
Peter

Hey Peter, thanks for this (your last post especially). I can't wait to compare my current H+S 50 Ohm BNC cable with yours. I'm actually very happy with my current cable, so it should be interesting. As you mentioned, I won't be around when my (second) NOS1a with BNC connectors and the cables arrive, so I won't be able to try things until next weekend. But I'll report my findings here as soon as I possibly can.

Mani.

In the mood for tweaking?

Get those cables off the floor. All cables. There's charge and vibrations there. Empty toilet closet rolls will do. Anyone's got those so there's no excuse!

Regards, Coen

I read in some place here that the adapters won´t be a good idea with the BNC cable. As there are probably some people that don´t want or can´t change the XLR inputs in the amps and the outputs in the dac I wonder if these impedance transformers would be of some help.

http://www.neutrik.com/en/accessories/aes-ebu-impedance-transformers/ (http://www.neutrik.com/en/accessories/aes-ebu-impedance-transformers/)

Regards,
Juan

Hi Juan,

Quite interesting :) The fact that all is "locked" on each side would make the connection more robust than a BNC to RCA adapter...

Regards,

Alain

Hi Juan,

I've used Adaptors like these for digital connection from a source to a D/A converter, but I would be extremely hesitant to use any kind of coupling transformer on the pristine analog outputs of the NOS1. I was using an electronic crossover with very high grade Jensen transformers on the inputs and it definitely took the life out of the sound of the NOS1.
BTW, I am currently running standard BNC to XLR with the 50 ohm cables on my low frequency amps and like what I'm hearing.
I have modified the inputs on my midrange/tweeter amps with 50ohm BNC inputs but still connecting my 50ohm BNC cable using 50ohm BNC to RCA Adaptors on the NOS1a outputs and it has been truly transformative to the sound quality compared to the balanced cabling I was using.

Todd

Todd and all,


A few years ago (during the development of the first NOS1) I tried to use those too for galvanic isolation (still have them in the drawer here - costed 130 euros pp IIRC). You already don't want to see the measurement results with them in. Really.
I don't know about the Neutriks, but I sure have been looking at them for you. But if the principle is the same (literally transfomer based) then almost sure it's a No.

Regards,
Peter

These Neutriks are said to be "passive"... Does it change anything (or not) ?

Alain

Hi Alain,

No, doesn't change a thing. But it (also) depends on how it works and I - without really knowing all about it - wouldn't trust "impedance conversion" as such anyway. I have been looking into that earlier, and although stuff exists at the mere chip level (OpAmps), I saw nothing that got me excited. I gave up on it (sometimes I need to do other things as well) with those Neutriks also in mind. And about that one more thing :

As you can see in the "specs" of them, it is easily told that it can convert to 110 Ohm impedance of XLR.
Eh, what ?
I think it is good to know that, like with RCA, there is nothing in "XLR" that makes it 110 Ohm. That is, if I am correct on this, but others may know better.
But if I am correct on this, it also means that such a Neutrik is just an adapter but probably an expensive one (I did not look). Also, for the XLR guys, this won't be making a balanced signal of it. Or ...

Now I suddenly recall what I obtained my Jensen's for - it was exactly for that, but the other way around of what we want. So these turn a Singled Ended (RCA) signal into balanced, route the balanced signal to the other end and there you can make it SE again with such a same transformer. And this did not work out (way poor measurement figures). I also recall that I dug them up last week to see whether they could be used (for you) to what we want : have the SE coax as the transport means of the signal, and turn that into balanced at the (amp's) end of it. But the connections are not suitable for this because "the other way around".

I really wish I could measre this by means as needed, because this guessing leads to nowhere. And if someone finally has a good reference (could be me at this moment) then what ? keep on trying other solutions until one seems to work out the same BUT easily applicable to everybody ? Quite undoable (time, $$).

Peter

Peter,

I understand what you mean. My concern is that while I use a preamp, it would mean that I need 2 pairs of cables and I really am not sure I want to go through the process of having my components fit with BNC connections... Not that I don't understand the benefits, but... And I am not sure why...

Alain

Hey Alain,

With the notice that you should be sleeping at this time and that the danger exists you will never get some sleep any more for this night :

I thought you dared to get rid of the pre-amp long ago my now ?
Apparently not.

Using the preamp does not make sense in this realm (of the BNC cable) although it should be able to improve just the same. But why go through the effort if you can do half of it anyway, the other half being destructive behind your back ? Thus :

a. Using the preamp is for the worse (and if too much digital attenuation is needed get another power amp :swoon:);
b. Output impedance of the preamp will be 600 Ohm or so, and thus this (75 Ohm) does not apply there;
c. Meanwhile nothing really matches between preamp and poweramp, but this is another (new) story (but read : what prevents the reflections in that connection ?).

I tend to say : Do it all (meaning ditch the preamp to begin with) or do nothing. But this is not really different from me "forbidding" to use a preamp. Between quotes of course, but you know ...

Sweet dreams ! (ahum)
Peter

Peter,

do you use Neutrik BNCs with your Van Damme cable?

KR

Matt

Irrc the AUDIO spec for XLR is 2x600 ohms, but this is not related to HF reflections, but to standardizing the interface while supporting long length of cable while minimizing capacitive loss of the audio signal. I would guess that no other spec than geometry and durability will be relevant for this application. Otoh all connectors will off course exhibit an impedance yet not by design (with audio in mind).

Like Ethernet, USB also has a balanced signal (stated as 90 ohms impedance) so I guess a 110 ohm balanced standard will be feasible too with different geometry and dielectric, at least for the cable. Give the lousy connectors of the aforementioned two I guess it is not considered very relevant for proper termination. Ok, the 40/100 Gig ETN connector is looking sturdy though.

regards, Coen

Hey Matt,

Am I using a Van Damme cable ?

Peter

Peter,

if you deny that it is a VD 278-475-000 I will apologize.

KR

Matt

Haha, no need to apologize at any time. And of course I just was teasing (not only today). So :secret:.
But smart or good of you to do this with so few data.

Now you can answer everybody's questions. :yes:

Oh, the answer was Yes. And no you know which of those too. Haha.

Best regards,
Peter

Haha, Peter,

do not overestimate my capabilities. But after publishing the specs it was an easy task.
And the Neutriks are the NBLC75BVZ17.

BTW, I like your approach: You discover sonic advantages with the BNCs and change immediately your NOS1a for the better.

ATB

Matt

I replaced the regular RCA input connectors in the Orelinos with the 75Ω BNC connectors that Peter provided me. (Oh, and if Peter ever tells you that anything is a "no job", don't believe him.)

My (second) NOS1a came back with 75Ω output connectors installed (and a beautiful "75 B" inscription on its front faceplate). In the box was also a 10m pair of Peter's 'Blaxius' cables.

I've had everything set up since Saturday evening (I've hopefully crawled under my floorboards for the very last time), and here are my thoughts (sorry for the bullet points - I don't really like them, but it's just more efficient doing things this way):

Immediate Impressions

•   ultra, ultra-smooth
•   the whole sound-stage is now placed well behind the speakers
­   - cymbals generally waaay back in room (but still totally crystal clear)
­   - voices 1-2m behind speakers
•   perception of slightly compressed dynamics (compared to before)
•   nothing jumping out independently into room (in front of MF/HF horn), and absolutely nothing annoying – I could imagine listening at high SPLs to virtually anything, without any listening fatigue
•   loads of deep bass :soundsgood:... at long last!

On further listening

•   this is NOT a hazy, soft, woolly sound at all – there’s incredible detail
­   - easy to distinguish between different types of cymbals
­   - I'm hearing nuances I've never noticed before
•   beautiful balance to sound (maybe a little bottom-heavy, but this will be easy to adjust if I decide I want to)
•   double bass now resonates beautifully (maybe not quite as much as at Paul’s place with his Orelino speakers, but a quantum leap over the ‘paper-bass’ sound I've had with the Orelos up until now)
 
I'm really, really enjoying the sound I have right now (looking forward to the next listening session is always a good sign, and one that I've not had for a while). And more importantly, I'm totally, absolutely convinced the system is now more musically satisfying than before.

A MASSIVE thank you to Peter. Man, where would we be without you?

More to follow (I'm sure)...

Mani.

[Edit: My (second) NOS1a, which I'll refer to as '75 B' from here on in, has had the 'Nick/Paul mods' applied to it by Paul, namely; a bunch of Black Gate caps, and a Dexa USB clock with independent PS. The Dexa really shouldn't make any difference to a NOS1a, but I cannot comment on the effect, if any, that the BG caps might be having on the sound.]

Hey Mani,


I recall a particular person living very close to your wife, who once made a remark towards two other guys living at more distance from your wife about "Bert's nomenclature". Has to be a UK thing ?
:yes:


and


Yes. This is what I noticed myself, though a bit difficult to judge because I could only listen briefly to your 75B taking it cold out of its box;
I found the bass to be more than impressive - up to possibly a bit over. So I said "possibly" and I too can't really say it is because of the BG's. The Dexa shouldn't be of influence (but who knows) with the notice that you refer to the "USB Clock" (this might be not clear to everyone).

And Mani ...


... please keep in mind that it only took me a lot of time (and some $$$ as well - that not much dfferent from others including yourself) but that without Joachim the whole subject would not have been here.
But then of course I gracefully accept your thanks because it was something I could see working and *had* to make something out of it; almost more scaring than exciting because of the whole new subject (for me).
Possibly it has been more a subject of "see ? cables are a hoax" and now I can only hope that "tomorrow" nothing has changed your mind. And/but might you encounter an off-day, that happens here too - totally not sure why or how. Will be okay the next day. So just "announcing" it.

On behalf of more than me, thank you for the feedback !
Peter

Allow me to show the below picture. This is most certainly not to get everybody's attention and motivate to yet upgrade AGAIN, but this one if officially there so it has a "right" to be shown;

Like I told earlier in this topic, it is nice that we got this far with it all, but I seriously don't know how to apply it to people in a consistent fashion. So before it is asked again : it needs the appliance in the NOS1 (that part seems doable for you out there but is to be tested by me) but it also needs the BNC connectors at the amp's end. This is way more tough for almost eberybody. Without the latter it is "guessing" while in the mean time you (or we !!) adjusted your NOS1(a) maybe without reason. So it all "fell over" me and I don't know how to continue really. This is rare (:yes:) and I don't know how to deal with myself. Like this post (or picture) maybe better shouldn't be there. But it *is* about vast progress if you ask me, so ... grrrr ...

Peter

Hi Mani,

Glad to hear that you like your new "Blaxius" cables. But you while you were installing yours I was also doing the same to my system. So I now (as of yesterday) have "Blaxius" in my setup. Everything should be the same as yours and Peters except that I have not yet received the resistors to increase the output impedance of my NOS1a to 75ohm - that will happen later in the week (hopefully). Anyway not withstanding that "Blaxius" in my system is very very impressive indeed and hugely better than the other coax interconnects I tried recently. The sound is very detailed with excellent imaging and dynamics.

However. the interesting thing is that the difference between "Blaxius" and my previous specially made up interconnects (the ones that were installed here when you cam for a listen Mani - see my previous posts) is not as big as I was expecting. With Blaxius the sound is cleaner more dynamic and a bit less "fat" in the mid range. Of course increasing the output impedance of NOS1a may make another big change but somehow I doubt that (but I hope it does of course). If I was to put it on a scale of 1 to 10 I would say my interconnects were at 8.5 and Blaxius are at 10. Now for me that has to be surprising because the construction and materials of Blaxius and my i/c's is so totally different. So all in all it is a surprise that the quality of the sound really is quite similar between the two i/c's. The character of the two is very similar (i.e. neutral).

So could it be that the difference in sound between our systems was actually down to the interconnects? my previous interconnects are special I have heard them against many many others (mostly at the shop of a hi fi dealer friends) and nothing came close. So it really is saying something that "Blaxius" is better. But I am still really surprised at how close they are.

When I heard Peters system over in Holland I did feel that his interconnects at the time were holding it back I would love to hear it again with Blaxius - but maybe I know what it sounds like anyway!

Anyway at the end of the day I am sitting here listening to my system wondering how on earth would it be possible to improve on this quality of sound reproduction.

By the way it took a few hours for the sound to settle down with the new Blaxius as there was a slight rough edge to start with but it seems to have settled down beautifully and quickly within only a few hours use.

Anyway Kudos to Peter another stonking success!!!

Cheers

Paul
 

Just to point out that many of the Blackgate's will have been removed by Ciska during the upgrade to NOS1a. Particularly those around the DAC power supply have all been removed - and it is those that made the really big difference to the bass pre upgrade. So what is left I would not expect to make a huge difference to the bass really. Maybe there is only thing better than a BG and that is no BG. !!

Cheers

Paul

Paul, teaser !  :) :)

Small remark after some deliberation over here :
No BG's have been removed from Mani's NOS1. (Nick's the same). Yours though went differently because we never really tried (especially the ones which should be moved) and Ciska gave you the ones in your hand which would be "left over" with the message (and I think it was me who told you that in advance) : you can re-assemble them yourself of course, if you want. Two things :

For Nick we left them in because he wouldn't care about "no-sight" and for Mani we left them in because otherwise we would be destructive and Mani would need to call you in again. And for your situation ? we just thought it wouldn't fit - but didn't try either.

Long story, but maybe necessary to convince Mani (and you) that nothing changed there (except for the "no sight" if you remove the cover).

Regards,
Peter

Peter, you just beat me to it. This is what I had just typed:


Having taken a quick peek inside my 75B, I think the Blackgates are still there. I counted at least 5 large red Blackgates...

Mani.

MMmm interesting.

 :scratching:

Another night on with the new "Blaxius" interconnects and wow are they good. They seem to be significantly better tonight than the first night. That may in part be down to some tweaks I made to get the PC noise back down to the minimum again. To be honest I have been preoccupied with my new Orelino's and had somewhat neglected the PC setup following a rebuild prior to the Orelino's arrival.

Listening now the very tiniest details are easily and effortlessly presented. The dynamic, tone and timbre of instruments is so lifelike it really is jaw dropping. Symbols are incredibly realistic. I have never heard anything like this from any system anywhere before.

The gap has grown significantly between my old interconnects and the "Blaxius" - good as they were my old i/c's cannot match up to this now.

And I have not received the resistors to increase the Zout of the NOS1a. Presumably they are in some postman's bag wondering around a country lane lost somewhere.

The only slightly odd thing is the sound sitting in the "sweet spot" between the speakers - there are some phase like effects just moving the head slightly. I just wonder if it is necessary to get the speakers exactly positioned now to get best effects - I will get the lasers out and see how accurately I can set them up. But hey that is a trivial observation this sound quality is simply stunning.

Cheers

Paul

Hi Brian,

after a "break in" time of appr. 10 days the SQ improved a "hell" and the sound is really amazing, much better than with the H + S cable. Voices, mids and basses (kick drums) are great.

Since Mani and Paul are on "Cloud 9" with Peters Blaxius BNC cable I have ordered a pair for a comparison.

Joachim

Hi Paul,

since I'm using a laptop (battery removed) the "sweet spot listening position" is not mandatory anymore/again and I'm sitting in my prefered "off axis" sofa, AND the SQ is much better than with my PC. It is another/higher league.

Joachim

Thanks Joachim, very much appreciate this. Now, of course, I 'm hoping to hear your impression of the "silver coated copper" versus the Blaxius, though based on Peter, Paul and Mani's impressions, I'm pretty sure I know what it will be. Still, will be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Brian

Hi Joachim, hi Brian. For my part, I'd say I'm on Cloud 9 about my '75B' NOS1a, and not the Blaxius cables... not yet, at least.

You see, I was seriously impressed with my RG223 H+S cables - I mean, simply the best cables I'd ever heard, 'by a country mile'. Since receiving the 75B, I've only used it with the Blaxius cables because of the 75B's 75 Ohm output (the Blaxius are 75 Ohms, the H+S 50 Ohms).

BUT... when crawling under my floorboards installing the Blaxius cables, I left the RG223 H+S cables in place. My intention was to compare them with the Blaxius cables once the latter (and the 75B) had had a few days to settle down. But I may bring the comparison forward. But I can guess right now that the H+S will sound brighter and more lively, and the Blaxius smoother and more laid back. But we'll see...

Mani.

I never told it I think, but there's nothing of the kind going on with the "Blaxius". The other ones Yes. In fact I found it quite annoying this "beaming". So I mostly listen from the kitchen (as you know, always grabbing beers) and kitchen-work comes along with walking in there. So this was always "catching the beam" when walking through the middle of the speaker path so to speak. For me this was even more annoying because it always put my attention to the necessity to listen from the mid-point hence SQ would be worse outside of that. So I was actually more standing in that middle and listening than grabbing beers. Not good.

Remember Paul, you need quite some toeing out in the first place and regarding your speaker distance and listening distance this won't be so easy I think. So on-axis listening is not allowed (says personal me).

Peter

Mani, can you help us here ...

I completely forgot to respond to this, but when I read it I right way thought "is Mani judging this as positive or what ?".
So are you ?

I mean, I don't think I would. And your "laid back" from your last post makes me think about that again.

Let's try to focus on this 1-2m behind the speakers. I don't think you even have this space behind the speakers, so what's up ?
You might respond with a "huh ?" but in that case I "claim" that no sound is going to spring from any position outside the room's walls, unless DSP is in order. However, strange reflections may incur for it ? I am not sure.

Otherwise I myself said something about "laid back but not" in this topic somewhere, and then meaning something like "you actually can't tell". I forgot. I now don't recognize it any more (while listening not explicitly for this and "looking for it" I did not (just forgot about it). So maybe I got used to it - I don't know.

Something else is that "something might be going on" in a very different area, which I maybe wanted to start talking about today, but anyway can be related to your perception. So I now mentioned it in brief ahead of another post to come (but maybe not today).

Regards,
Peter

Hey Peter, just a very quick reply as I need to leave in the next 10 mins or so...


Yes, actually. One of my criticisms of my old Swing horns and (to a much lesser extent) my current Orelo horns has been that there seems a slight disconnect between the horn and the bass. The MF/HF seem to be pushed forward well into the room, and the LF much further back. But right now, everything seems 'together'.


You're right, my speakers are (necessarily) quite close to the rear wall. But my feeling is that there's so much 'real' detail now that the soundstage seems to have deepened. Cymbals especially seem to come from way back.

But in case it's important, my initial thoughts were based on the F-M curves totally flat (i.e. 1, 1, 3; all green). I've since switched to H=2 (i.e. 1, 1, 2). This has re-balanced the sound somewhat and has brought the MF/HF slightly forward.

All in all, I think it's just a matter of frequency balance in my case. Remember, my bass gain is set to -25.0dB. I've tried decreasing the gain to -25.5dB (and all settings in between), but feel that the sound becomes overly thin as a result (even with a 0.1dB change!).

Gotta go, but happy to share more later...

Mani.



[/quote]

OK, all understood.
Thank you Mani.
Peter

I used to get this with the previous interconnect but not quite so marked (more detail now!) anyway as you say I probably need to straighten the speakers somewhat but that brings other problems ..............

anyway it is not a significant problem but I will try is more beer!! that may help.

Hi,

some loudspeaker manuf. (Ascendo with their System M5-S) are adjusting the position of their speakers very accurate in dependence to the  "sweet spot" of the listening position.
They are measurering the distance from the left speaker plane  to the left ear, and from the right speaker to the ................ .

The sweet spot is (with the adjusted placement of the speakers) the only perfect listening position in that room. The signal from the left speaker is a "mirror image" of the signal from the right speaker at that place (with a pink noise signal).
 At other positions we hear different "signals" due to other/different running times to our ears.

The possible “off axis“ listening position is not the best place for serious listening sessions, but might be a good location for „easy listening“ during „studies“ on an iPad or in books, newspapers.

And, as Peter wrote, when we are listening to very loud music (from the room) outside on a veranda with the present configuration, the sound seems to be LIVE.

Joachim

Hi Joachim - good point and sounds great, that is what I had in mind to do with my "laser" but the problem in my room is the reflected sounds from the side walls are only 4-8ms behind the main incident sound. And what is worse is that it is different left / right. That means my poor brain is totally confused (not unusual that!) as to what it is listening to. So maybe when I go to the trouble of getting the speakers perfectly lined up (and get a head brace to keep my head in the perfect position ha ha) I need to treat the room for reflections - I will see how much enthusiasm I can muster.

Cheers

Paul

Thanks Mani. I assume the center conductor of your H & S cable is the solid silver-coated copper version. Given the change in the NOS1a-75b version of the NOS1, would it be possible for you to compare your H & S cable using your "standard" NOS1a DAC to your Blaxius cable using the 75b version of the NOS1a? Hope that's not too much trouble!

Brian

:scratching::scratching::scratching:

Haha...

Well, I had the NOS1a/H+S hooked up to the Orelos for a few weeks before the 75B/Blaxius came back and am quite familiar with the sound. The only difference now would be the BNC connectors on the Orelos. Assuming the BNC connectors in the Orelos aren't making a massive difference, I can already give you a take on the difference in sound between the two setups: it's as I described it earlier in this thread. Let me know if you need any more details though.

What I really need to do is compare the H+S and Blaxius cables, both using the 75B. This might give some insights into whether Peter's 'reflections' hypothesis is true or not.

Mani.

Edit: Yes, my H+S cables are the 'expensive' solid silver-coated copper version; model K_03252D.

 

Okay, thanks guys. Sorry if I'm being a PITA!

I compared my H+S cables to the Blaxius cables using my 75B, and...

Well, as I expected, the H+S cables do indeed sound a little brighter. But I'm not sure this is down to extra or extended HF. Rather, I think it's because of less LF (especially ultra-LF) energy. They also seem to give instruments and voices a slight edge, which makes them appear sharper and more focused. Overall, I prefer the Blaxius cables. They have that magic quality of smoothness along with detail... just like real life. Is this down to fewer cable reflections? Maybe.

But I don't want to give the impression that I think I'm at the end of my 'hifi journey'. I'm not. It's obvious to me that although my system is now making some beautiful noises it wouldn't fool anyone into thinking it's the real thing. I think I've still got some more work to do on the electrics, the PC, and of course the bloody USB cable issue that seems to be haunting us still. But I'm really happy with the Orelo speakers and the 75B... and totally stoked that I can use 10m Blaxius interconnects (without any loss in quality), keeping my listening room free from the usual hifi clutter.

So a massive thanks to Joachim for broaching this subject in the first place, and for Peter for taking things forward to their natural conclusion.

Mani.

Thanks Mani for taking the time to do this and for giving us your impressions.

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3038.msg32807#msg32807

[/quote]

Hello Joachim

Not sure but why are you not using XLR Cables?
Is there any thread here explaining why BNC would be superior to even XLR? = NO

Speaking of XLR and Cables.... maybe people do not used them with their Phasure setup here not often.

Regards, Michael
[/quote]

Hi Michael,

there was a discussion in the German audio press about the preference of  XLR or RCA connections  appr. 5 to 10 years ago and the opinion was a "draw" between both.

I made a comparison between a XLR Nordost SPM and a RCA Nordost Valkyria and the difference was insignificant to my ears at that time and so I stuck to cables with RCA connectors.

Joachim

Joachim, am wondering what your impression of Peter's cable, the Blaxius, has been compared to your RG 223? Did you upgrade to the "75b"version of the NOS1a? I received a RG 223 cable yesterday and "out of the box" it sounded as good as my RG 142. Am letting it burn in a few days before any serious listening. Thanks

Brian

Hi Brian,

the RG 142  has a "stranded core" and the RG 223 has a "single core" wire and in my opinion the difference shouldn't be high.

Peters Blaxius is still "on the road" because the Finnish transportation is slowly sometimes/most of the time.

It is not my intention to upgrade the NOS1 (to a 75B) in the near future, because the poweramp cannot be modified with/to a 75Ohm inlet socket, AND the SQ is really great at the moment.

Joachim

Very, very wise Joachim.

(Sometimes I wonder whether I'm just going around in circles - sure, even small things change the sound, but I can't always say it's for the better. Once I reach the point where I can say "the SQ is really great", I will make further changes only with great consideration. Not quite there yet, but I have a feeling I will be soon with some ideas I have.)

Mani.

This is why I keep asking you guys about your cable impressions. Adding the bnc cable to my system revolutionized the sound. I had no idea how much upper mid and higher frequencies I was loosing with my prior solid core silver RCA cable. The sound here, for my modest system, is so good now I'm having a hard time imagining that the NOS1a upgrade will be a significant change. However, the consensus here is so clear that the "a" upgrade is significantly better that I'll be sending my dac to Peter relatively soon. Now, being a bit of a PITA I'm trying to gauge whether I should include the "75b" in the upgrade. Thanks for your patience, especially you Peter.  :)

As I said in other posts, I use, like others I guess, XLR cables because my amps have only that type of connection. I wonder if I could connect a BNC cable with a XLR/BNC adapter or even a XLR/RCA and RCA/BNC adapter. Would it be possible? What would be the best way to use a BNC cable if I have only XLR connections in my amps?

Juan

Hey Juan here's a bundh of bnc/xlr adapters: http://www.fullcompass.com/category/BNC-To-XLR-Adapters.html

Right now I'm using a bnc/rca adapter and it's worked well.

I doubt if you can draw a general conclusion like this. Isn't the fact if a amplifier is differential or single ended an importent parameter in the equation?

It could work out differently for different topologies.

So I will try out for myself anyway  :yes:

Regards,
Stanley

Hey Guys,

I thought I would pipe in since I was using all XLR cabling, but I am now using BNC coax between my NOS1a and my MID/Tweeter amp.(balanced cabling is still being used from the crossover to the two bass amps covering 260hz on down)

Even with BNC to RCA Adaptors at the NOS1a and XLR to RCA plus BNC to RCA Adaptors at the amp input, the sound was clearly better using the 50ohm BNC cable.

And by better I mean much greater detail, better timbre, with a deeper and more accurate sound stage.(smoother and more natural but with much more information) This is readily apparent in the realism and dynamics of cymbals and violins but also in male & female vocals)

Putting the balanced cabling back in is like draping a curtain between me and the speakers. I'm simply amazed that you don't know what your missing until you've heard something more resolving and then try to go back.

The only thing I'm missing is the gain I had with the balanced outs of the NOS1a which doesn't allow me to listen to some of my classical music at full scale.

I will be trying the 75ohm RG11 cabling soon with proper 75ohm BNC connections at the NOS1a and my mid/high amp. I will also probably modify the input sensitivity of the amp to recover the lost gain going to single-ended input.

Hope this gives some of you with XLR some frame of reference.

Todd

Hi Brian, thanks for the link. I still have some doubts because some days ago I put a post asking about the Neutrik adapters and transformers and it is not clear if they will work, the problem is that the RCA connector has an impedance of 75 Ohm, same as the coaxial cable, so with an adapter is ok, but the XLR connector is 110 Ohm and I´m not sure if it needs an adapter or a impedance transformer.

Impedance transformer: http://www.neutrik.com/en/accessories/aes-ebu-impedance-transformers/ (http://www.neutrik.com/en/accessories/aes-ebu-impedance-transformers/)

Adapter: http://www.neutrik.com/en/accessories/circular-adapters/na2fbnc (http://www.neutrik.com/en/accessories/circular-adapters/na2fbnc)

I appreciate some help on this regard because I´d really would like to test the BNC cable.

On the other hand if it works and I like the BNC cable more than the interconnects that I use now, what to do? I could send the NOS1a again to Peter to adapt the BNC connectors or perhaps make it here with a technician, but what happens with my XLR amps? That´s what at the end I´d like to know, is it possible to adapt a XLR amp to BNC?




Todd, thanks for the information. So you are going to modify the NOS1a with BNC connectors but, besides your modification of the input sensitivity in your amps, what kind of connector you are going to use, XLR/RCA and RCA/BNC? is this combination of adapters the best way to do it?

Regards,
Juan

Hi Juan,

In my case since my amps are self-built Hypex NCores, I can replace the current XLR inputs with BNC. I will, however, do that after listening with just the NOS1a converted to BNC, so I can report back what kind of difference I heard between using Adaptors at the amplifier inputs and with them converted to BNC. For those with amps that can't be modified, I should be able to let you know if it made any difference or not.

I will add one small observation, with the balanced connection on the NCores, I can barely hear the noise floor with my ear right up to the tweeter. With the single-ended input I definitely can hear in slight hint of power line noise(probably a 60Hz harmonic) with my ear up to the tweeter. So I will have to look at all my mains connections and try to eliminate that.

Todd

All, but mainly Juan I think,

Some times you are all quite fast with everything or maybe "very eager". So it's almost impossible to answer upon specifics, thus now maybe more generally :

Balanced (XLR) has no termination and certainly not 110 Ohm (I think I said that before). However, digital "links" will exist for XLR and that's why the "to 110 Ohm" converters will exist ("digital" is often 110 Ohm). Otherwise such transformers should be avoided.
And FYI : XLR/balanced is officially 600 Ohm.

Next, in my view all power amps can be adjusted from balanced (in) to single ended, although not by guarantee. Just ask your manufacturer and he will tell (I know, the "just" is a bit on the easy side ;)). But usually it is about connecting one of the hot leads to ground and done. And when you are that far you will also see how you can change the XLR connector to RCA. Ehm, BNC because that is the same (procedure).
Next - although I did not sort it out - I am fairly sure we can provide BCN to XLR means in a way which comes down to almost the same as you replacing the XLR connector in your amp. So now you won't need to do that but you will have an additional connector (same like with the BNC to RCA connector which NO-NODY complains about because ... they don't know better anyway. Nice eh ?)

Sending back your NOS1a's AGAIN ? NO. I already won't allow that because by now we all might be fed up with sending out our D/A converters.

Despite the above, it is not necessary because you can do it yourselves with the means we will provide (along with the cable). One thing : that means has to be tested thoroughly over here which will happen very soon (it needed a well burned-in NOS1 who's owner wants the impedance update in the first place and such a NOS1 is here right now).

What is and remains is the amp side and when that is not provided with the 75 Ohm termination I can't tell what will happen. So ... those who ordered the cable will be able to try with their BNC to RCA converters and it *still* will (?) be for the better (here it was when I tried myself). IOW you will get the whole set anyway, and you can try what you like, beginning with the cable only (and to-RCA converters of your own).
This now of course was about those with RCA inputs to their amps. The XLR inputs was dealt with above.

Lastly, we all should not be too much "obsessed". I know, we inherently all are because of our hobby, and true, it will matter a lot. However, if you listen to Brian (boleary) and see that one can also think "why the heck would I want it better again" then this is good for your heart and mood and maybe more. Maybe it is better to think a bit about my own "obsession" which
a. likes you to have this "upgrade" but
b. has a nightnare hard time to get it right without actually knowing. Really so !
If you read a bit through the combinations in this post then you see it is not so easy.

Best regards,
Peter

I was super impressed with the B75's when I first installed them. There was an incredible amount of detail and very impressive. Since then I increased the output impedance of the NOS1a to 75ohm (within approx. .1 to .2 ohm) and I do not think that has made much difference compared with the difference the B75's made.

However, over the last couple of weeks it has become clear that the B75's have a hard edge to the sound that really started to drive me crazy. So on Monday I ordered some BNC male to RCA female adapters and just now with the adapters in place I put my old RCA interconnects in.

How could I have got it so wrong? - these RCA's are far superior. They have a smooth and relaxing sound - very natural sounding. What it seems to me is that the B75's initially impress with what seems to be more detail - but from what I am hearing now that detail is hash added to the sound. So come the weekend I shall be putting back the RCA sockets in NOS1a and speakers and returning to my trusty interconnects that are so much better than everything I have tried them against.

Actually this is a huge relief because I was really starting to get worried about the sound of my system.

Also what this proves to me again (as has happened more than once over the last few years) is that interconnects are absolutely fundamental (Nick loves that word!!) to quality of sound in a system. My experiments with coax are over for the foreseeable future.

Cheers

Paul

Hi Paul,

the highs?

Joachim

Edit: What is "hash" in audio terms?

Copy from Stereophile:

hash A very coarse texturing of the sound, characterized by a sharp-edged, spiky roughness. Caused by severe distortion with strong transient content, as from a grossly mistracking phono cartridge.

Paul,

No *single way* that happens here.

Peter

Hi Peter, thanks, that´s ok I´ll wait until you have that cable ready and we´ll see if I´m able to adapt it to my amps.


Yes you are right, sometimes, or better said always, we are eager to try different things to improve the sound. As you said that´s part of the game and maybe I should stay quieter but...then it would not be so fun. Wisdom is in the equilibrium, so I have to split the time between anxiety and calm or in other words between looking for and listening (music).

To make things more interesting now appear opinions in the opposite direction (Paul), so yes, it is time to wait and see what others think.

Regards,
Juan

Juan


Yes that's it!! but subtle

Peter - I guess its always possible that I could have done something wrong but I really don't know what. It is a pretty simple mod really. Great care was taken with crimping etc.

Just out of interested did you find that changing the output impedance of NOS1a made any significant difference? compared with the coax etc?

Maybe a trip to see Mani is in order - we can make comparisons!!

Paul

Hi,
 

These are AES/EBU to SPDIF (75 ohm) impedance transformers naturally intended for the digital RF signal and as such completely unsuitable for audio frequencies. AF transformers are on their turn quite unusefull for RF and proper RF termination for that matter.

You could to the one or two adapter trick at the end of the BNC cable, but it is spanning the horse behind the carriage as we say here. The whole idea of transmitting a signal over two wires in opposite polarity is to minimise the interference with outside magnetic fields (that will be common to both signals). If you use only one conductor of the pair this is all lost. Anyway if you only have a balanced input on the amp there's no other way.
The only way to make the BNC cable work as intended (no rf reflections) in this case you will have to terminate the line with its rated impedance before or in the adapterplug. The plugs and circuitry thereafter have never been designed for rf so this is a lost cause anyway (if it matters at all).

Regards, Coen

Hey Paul,


Regarding the latter - I can imagine. But I also can imagine that there's a 90% chance it wasn't done right. And what you get from that is what someone reported before : like a half-loose connector. Call it "shrill" sound. But too hard to debug of course.


I can't tell; I could say "yes, huge difference" but do notice that I did all together. Thus, change amp's terminals, change NOS1a's terminals and change NOS1a output impedance.
This, compared to usual output impedance with RCA terminals at both ends plus BNC to RCA adapters. So what to say ... I can't really tell.


That is what you think which right away is the danger. If that where so I would have answered your email about this right away, and when I did try answer it a week later I still did not send it because all too difficult. Then I saw you did it yourself and now ... well, sorry !

Anyway I am pretty sure that you didn't remove the internal XLR wiring and even if you did it still ain't right. But I did for myself and Mani has that the same.

And yet again I "need" to point out that you have these Bybees in, BUT, Mani has those too. Thus anyway, where you yourself are the first to "admit" that they make a huge difference, what to do next ? I keep on saying : such tweaks are not allowed in the first place. And with this as a base we both don't know what the combination will do. However, this said, disregard it for now (but keep it in mind) because Mani has them just the same.

What I have been thinking of merely is this :
There will be no way for you to listen off-axis. So you know I told you not to listen on-axis, but *I* know this is moot because of your speaker distance combined with your listening distance which is too far. The only escape would be to listen more near by and then sufficient toeing out will do it (OK, what I envision needed). Now *here*'s a difference with Mani, because remember the reason for the height of the MKII's ... You just are not able to listen on-axis, a normal lazy seat assumed.

Otherwise :
What you should notice from the application as a whole (I mean well executed) is that very clear loud bells are all over while non of them existed before. Yesterday I again noticed it and thought to write this to you as an "if that does not happen something clearly is amiss". I can not tell if you notice(d) this (you can though), but this is a sort of prerequisite to detect that not something else is wrong. When you do notice this (all over, though a bit depending on whether the bells are played in the first place - but try general Vangelis) *and* are hurt by the mere harsh highs etc., then I'd say thay you capture too much of the enormously more highs output (this really is the marker point). So on-axis listening implies over 6dB more of the highest frequencies. Keep this in mind. This could be nice in itself, but now it is good to know that on-axis listening also implies a sharp cancelling dip which could be annoying (this is at ~17KHz but can imply on-off behaviour (combing) which acoustically leaks back into the lower regions (sort of IMD(istortion)).

Difficult ...
Peter

I do, but maybe not for much longer. I don't like what they've done to the sound. I think they are compressing it and making it grayer.

My LF Bybees have been in for a while now. My MF and HF Bybees only for a couple of weeks. I remember Paul saying that they take quite a while to burn-in, so I'll keep them in for longer and see what happens. But at some point I will definitely take them all out (the LF will be a PITA) to see what affect they've been having.

Mani.

Paul, you're welcome of course. (We can liaise via PM to sort this out.)

Cheers, Mani.

Impatience is NOT a virtue I should have waited!!! Ah well.


I followed the manufacturers crimping notes very carefully - if I crimp exactly to their recommendations shouldn't it be OK? or is there more to be considered?

whoops  :blush1: I shoulda realised it is parallel with the RCA wiring. Duuurgh.

I have toed the speakers out and in fact just now they are not toed in at all. They sound better - more even. I can easily move closer to the speakers maybe for critical listening but they sound just great listening from "too far away".

And if the Bybees have to come out well so be it!! But first I have to get the rest of it right  :(

Paul

Mani, Paul,

Because of possible language problems or the expectations from "how I am" I need to emphasize : I do not know how the Bybees work out. So I am NOT saying that they will be for the worse (so forget a bit about my "not allowed" now please). What I do say though that it is so sad that we now can not compare from the distance and reason out what could be going on. So all I can really say is that they are prone to "do" something which looks like illegal to me, or otherwise someone must tell how they exactly work.

I say it again, those sugar cubes ... just mechanical stuff ... super gag. But just that. I could not stand them for that reason and no normal judgement was possible any more for me. That is how I took them out, and not all that much for bad sound (OK, I got crazy of them but never mind that which could be personal). They just took me out of control.
Bybees ? :scratching:

Peter


PS: Paul, you still have them (my sugar cubes). Put them under your NOS1a and tell about your judgement TODAY.
Why ? all is relative. The last time (year ago ?) you told that you forgot about them and that they were still under your NOS1. Whether so or not, change. The way you will be telling about them will tell me (or us) something and I am pretty confident that you will not have the same judgement as before. I don't know where the eye-opener will be, but I guess there will be one.

OK Paul.
Still this one :


I find this hard to believe and this is where I got stuck in my email. *If* you really (really !) did that, you also spent 300+ euros on the tools needed.

I know, we (almost) all can make connectors on cables. I myself have done thousands (networking stuff). Still, now I wanted to do it 100% right and *I* got quite crazy of it. Of course this does not tell anything about you(r capalities on this) but let's say that when you really want to make the connector at 75 Ohm you really must work on the 1/10th of a mm and not doing so destroys the "dielectricum" never mind you don't see anything of that while working on the cable and and connector. Say I am "precise".

See below picture;
This was after 3 hours of practicing the day before and that in itself was after I made the ones for myself. What the picture shows is "Mani's cables" because with each "cut" I was not satisfied (so you can count them). I think that was 2.5 hours or so after the other 3 the day before and a few more for my own, earlier. And remember what I told : Mani's seem to sound better which could be because of their length but I *also* know how I did my own. And this was not for the better I can tell you. Point out what ? then I should have made pictures of all the failures.
But please, me struggeling tells nothing. Only that I did and at least try very hard to comply to all what's to comply to.

Peter

Edit, PS:
I see the picture now myself again. As you can see almost all looks the same (for cut length etc.), so it is not really about that rough level. It is about that indeed 1/10th of a millimeter and how the NOT correct tools make you struggle. I forgot my now by I spent 160 or so on them. This, wile it needs the 300+ an of course I refused (still do). So with the proper tools it is easy (I reckon) but I already thought I bought the right tools; so that is something else to consider.

This is not about being "not toed in at all" as such. It is about the angle; and no way you can avoid the on-axis beaming at the speaker distance plus 6 meters listening distance (as I recall). You only get there when you toe them OUT and this wont work either.
Apparently this is a difficult subject.

A very rough rule (not to follow precisely but to give you the idea) :
Look in the horn and you will see the driver (say light grey). Now be in the listening seat and from each of the horns you are not allowed to see more than half of the driver.
So tell me what you see ...

Hey Peter, what can I say? Thanks so much for insisting on getting it right before sending my Blaxius cables out to me. Definitely a beer or two on me the next time we meet up, OK?

Cheers, Mani.

Nice story eh ? If I now only listen to myself for once ...

10. Adjust all impedances and use Blaxius.
... play a few weeks ...
11. Try Custom Filter.

B....

haha

Oh help; sometimes I don't know anymore what ever *can* be next. But now this;
From the very first note I heard a crazy wide sound stage that being done by the higher frequencies. For Joachim : I didn't try it, but the Seagull will fly as never before.

For Mani : If you think you lack a bit of dynamics, then the proper filter selection could be the culprit. But then I don't know whether you followed my "nice advice" to use Arc Prediction again (see quote).

I love this for other reasons : the trust that I actually was on the right track with the Custom Filter stuff (say I was quite sad because it seemed a dead end while it has so much (theoretical) potential).

So for the few with the cable, just for fun try the difference between the two (Arc Prediction and Custom). You won't know what you will be hearing, SO huge is the difference. There was difference alright but not like this.

From all what I played yesterday there's now this actually strange "super snap" of which I thought at first that it had to be the albums I played. A bit difficult to interpret in the midst of that also "Seagull" like changes. Say hard to determine where your interest/focus has to go because ALL changed. But then I heard a first track with a quite alone playing snare drum and now suddenly all came together for that instrument. Say that with Arc Prediction it sounded OK all over, but you can feel that you think it's okay because "luckily" the dynamics are not too high. So, add a bit of that and it could be too lean and nastyness creaps in. Now ? oh boy, so much highs are added *again* while totally nothing is nasty that I could find from these first 4 hours.

Now I wonder how Mani and Paul were using their cable. So of course the above text will come across a bit strange if the Custom Filter was used already.

Peter

Hey Peter, yes I've been using Arc Prediction for the last 4-6 weeks. But not really because of your advice - I came to this conclusion on my own beforehand. I'm not at home right now but will try Custom over the weekend.

Mani.

So Mani is using AP and so indeed am I. As Mani mentioned in a previous post I was at his place on Monday. Unfortunately we were not able to try out my (attempt at) B75 cables or my other RCA interconnects which I had hoped to. That was because Mani has his "B75 NOS1a" in the cellar and it really was not reasonably possible to move it all upstairs.

Anyway we had an extensive listen to Mani's B75 set up as I wanted to assess whether it would be worth me pursuing B75 for my system. My impressions at the end of the listening session were that it would not be worth the effort. I just do not hear any difference compared with my RCA's. But of course it is not a rigorous test at all - but it does seem to me that if there was such a big difference I would have heard it.

So when I returned home I put the RCA sockets back in the Orelino's and NOS1a and returned to using my previous interconnects. I sat back and listened and I just cannot put into words just how good my system sounds now. It is crazy but I just do not remember it sounding this good before. There is nothing I can think of that I have done that would have improved the sound - I just removed the BNC sockets and put the RCA's back in.

Oh there is just one thing I had a short dalliance with Blackgates in the output board regulators etc. - and it was short lived because the Silmic's sound much much better. So the Silmics are back in and they will be staying. I have to say the BG's sounded better before in my old system but anyway I am not going to stray from the "true path" again.

Last night I sat listening to some excellently recorded Jazz. I can still hear the sound of the double bass it was just amazing. Piano well it just sounded real. Imaging is superb with proper 3D behind the speakers effects and it stretches outside the width of the speakers. But all of that is probably because I fire the Orelino's straight down the room now and for sure there are some reflections now that there were not before. But hey who cares it sounds amazing.

So B75's are on the back burner for me now - the sound quality I am getting is just sublime. I have to say (and Mani will not mind me saying this because he has heard my system) that the sound quality in my room is substantially better than Mani gets. I played some albums with deep bass at Mani's and at mine. I have to say the bass in my room is much better. I would have to say that the sound I get is better through the whole frequency range, more dynamic and smoother.

It has to be the room but the point is that I do not see B75 making any substantial difference (or would it? the thought of the sound being better than it is now is just crazy!). Anyway after all that I shall indeed play with the other filter tonight. It did not work for me last time but that was before Orelino's.

Cheers

Paul

 

Well Paul, that would be all the worlds upside down. Of course you can try it, if you only heard me say that what *I* perceive is 100% related to the "Blaxius" and proper impedance.

To keep track of all is not easy anyway, like I testify in my previous post about myself ...

Regards,
Peter

The effect of the BNC cable notwithstanding, I had kind of the same experience. That is SQ seems to improve over time, almost suddenly. I did not change anything to my system, but I am sure it sounded like never-heard-before good on my system yesterday night.

regards, Coen

I have just tried the Custom filter again. I say again because I tried it some time ago before I got the Orelino's. My memory is hazy but it did not stay in use for very long, so I cannot have been very impressed with it at the time. But now it is a very different story. There are sounds coming from all over - the sound stage is just amazing. Bass seems even better. But the acid test is dense strings and what better test is there than to play the Lyndsay's as they deserve the very best sound quality. Strings are a big improvement smooth (but not "smoothed over") they just sound superbly silky smooth.

Obviously I cannot comment on "proper impedance" in relation to what I hear now but what I do know is what I hear and I honestly cannot imagine how this sound quality could be improved upon. But there again I would have said that last night!! and we have said it in the past and here we are!!

I have to say that listening at Mani's (B75) on Monday and listening here now (RCA) I am not convinced that B75 here would be any better. That is my honest appraisal. Otherwise I would have been blown away with what I heard at Mani's on material I know very well.

I really really would like to be wrong though - there again I do not know if I can take another big improvement in sound quality. After all I have now run out of superlatives!!

Now where is that Elvis Costello?

Cheers

Paul

Given Joachim and Mani's reports on their RG 223 coax (solid copper, silver coated center conductor)I ordered a pair too from Pasternak here in the US. The sound is very "nice and polite,"  no HF hash and a big detailed soundstage, but it doesn't come close to the sound of "real music in the room" that I get with the L-Com RG 142 (solid copper, silver coated center conductor). The L-Com cable is quite remarkable regarding  realism and musicality: pretty much everything I play sounds like a live performance. Last night Amad Jamal, Rossiter Road, came to life as soon as I swapped the 223 out for the 142. Listened to the entire album which I rarely do. Compared to the 223's the 142's provide about 25% more information in every frequency range.

Joachim or Mani you should ask to borrow Peters L-Com RG 142's, the ones he listened too for a few minutes and thought they could never sound good, let them burn in for no less than a hundred hours, and compare them to your 223's. Let me know if I've lost my mind.

Perhaps one reason why the 142's sound so good here is that I am using W7. Given my experience with W8-- HF's are just too much and out of control--I cannot imagine the the 142's would sound very good on W8. Maybe this weekend I'll give it a try. Lastly, I also ordered some military spec, solid copper, silver-coated center conductor, RG 142's from Amphenal. They sound very similar to the L-Comm cable but they lack the realism of the L-Com's.

Ahaaa ...

Now it is only too bad that W7 is nowhere for me compared to W8 and all you actually say is that W8 is too good and shows too much of other anomalies around. At least that is my experience.

I have two pairs of the 142's, one of 3 meters and one of 4 meters (IIRC) and I don't think I will be using them ...

Peter

 After my above post this morning I went for my 6 mile jog along the Shuylkill (American Indian name--no one really knows how to say it) River. As I ran, it occurred to me that I really shouldn't be offering your equipment for others to borrow! By your reply I see you didn't take offence.  Thanks! :)

Hi Brian,

thank you for the hint.

At first I will play with Peters "Blaxius", which didn't arrive until today.

Another item:

The BNC/RCA adapter from Lindy has the best performance, a nice analogue sound with a "wall of sound" stage. I tried a chromated 50Ohm adapter and the SQ got harsh and the sound stage fell apart.

Please see:
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3026.msg32635#msg32635

Joachim

Actually, Schuylkill, and (as Peter may recognize) Dutch, meaning "hidden" or "skulking" creek.  Pronounced (around here, I don't know about the Netherlands) as "SKOOL-kill."  Or sometimes "SKOOL-kull."

Ehm, no. After two days of playing with the Custom Filter I again started to recognize a too much of the same (sound) but especially I noticed the more "machine". So in the middle of an album a switched back to Arc Prediction and all was well again. It grabbed me right away.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter, how are you doing in the search for some solution for the ones with only XLR connections in the amp to use a BNC cable?

Regards,
Juan

Check, but no creek is involved by the word itself. In current spelling it is 'schuilkel': a synonym for a shelter.

Regards, Coen

From Wikipedia:
As a body of water, a kill is a creek. The word comes from the Middle Dutch kille, meaning "riverbed" or "water channel".[citation needed]

The term is used in areas of Dutch influence in the Delaware and Hudson Valleys and other areas of the former New Netherland colony of Dutch America to describe a strait, river, or arm of the sea. Examples are Kill Van Kull and Arthur Kill, both separating Staten Island, New York from New Jersey, Dutch Kills and English Kills off Newtown Creek, Bronx Kill between the Bronx and Randalls Island, and used as a composite name, Wallkill River in New York and New Jersey and the Schuylkill River in Pennsylvania. Fresh Kills is the primary waterway that leads to the former Fresh Kills landfill which serviced the city of New York in the second half of the 20th Century and was once the largest landfill in the world.[1]

In Delaware, there exists a Murderkill River. "Kill" also shows up in many location names such as the Catskill Mountains, the city of Peekskill and the town of Fishkill, New York. A reference to 'kil' can be found in Dutch geographical names, e.g. Dordtsche Kil, Sluiskil (in the Terneuzen municipality), or Kil van Hurwenen.

Whoa! My bad. I just assumed such a crazy spelling had to be an Indian word. Thanks for the deep analysis, learn something new every day.

I stand corrected by the omnipotent Wikipedia. I guess there once was a mister Schuyl since they tend to be named after persons (discoverer? Proprietor?).

Regards, Coen

I'll give the Lindy a try but am wondering about the adapter you tried that was harsh. Was it plated with nickel, silver or both? Most are just nickel plated. The ones I've been using have silver plated contact with a nickel plated body. They have no harshness and provide a "wall of sound" too.

http://www.rfcoaxconnectors.com/product-categories-adapters-BNC50.html

Hi Brian,

the adapters are nickel plated only. With voices (Caroline Henderson) the difference comes immediatly.

Joachim

Hey Brian, I'm not going to try any new cables from here on in. I'm done with this game.

I wouldn't refer to the Blaxius cables as a revelation in my system, but it occurred to me recently that since they've been in that I've been just sitting back and listening to way more music than I normally do (when I'm at home that is). There's just nothing out of place. Nothing shouting for attention. Just the music. I don't know how to describe it other than totally non-fatiguing, and yet still totally full of detail.

I suspect the sound that I have with the Blaxius cables would come across as pretty ordinary - nothing spectacular - to most people. But I dunno... I'm starting to think that this is how music really does sound without any 'sound enhancing' distortions - cable reflections, vibrations and perhaps room effects too. It's not the sound I've been after all these years. There's no artificial sparkle up top or room-shaking bass down below. What you get is something way more authentic instead. (Kind of reminds me of the difference between my ex-girl friends and the woman I finally married. In all the areas that really matter - not the superficial glamour but the deep and authentic character - there's simply no competition.)

Mani.

Thank you Mani ...

All right. Luckily I can still have those Oh Sh*t moments.
So about walls of sound ...

I reported a few times more (maybe 2) that the presentation of the sound (music) can be such that it is impossible to determine the depth. By sort of accident I now have that again, and this is one to stay.
So Joachim, this time I have it so explicit that I now (and finally) liked to play the Seagull again. :wtf:
(and yes, when I take a step back like from that sort of 3D sound I tend not to listen to such thing as the Seagull any more because I will be disappointed)

I can't call this a wall of sound, but maybe this is not really the case in your situation as well, Joachim. But still, I (we ?) can't tell. A wall of sound comes across as "massive" to me, and possibly still from some sort of plane. But I have been thinking about the possible causes of this, and it looks comfortable to think we both experience the same thing.

So now maybe as a sort of :teasing: for others :
At the very first notes from what I played yesterday (say for now with my new "mod") was that sound was so way outside of the speakers - I never experienced it like that. All Q sound so to speak. Think like me being at 10 meters from the speakers, while sound from left and right sprung from around 4 meters distance in front of the speakers and then from all from the sides (walls). Looks like impossible, but still so.
Of course, when you envision this, it already becomes more easy to see how no real plane of the sound can be detected, no matter how hard you try. Sound is from that 4 meters distance from the speakers to begin with, while at the same time the real source is still the speakers.
But don't apply too much math to this, because even at this 10 meters distance it was hard to tell where the sound came from, when you're, say, twist yourself more than 90 degrees from normal listening position *and* at some side (so not in the middle at all) and then you wouldn't know whether sound was from the left, right, front or back. Only twisting yourself to another angle would detect where the speakers really are.

Crazy.

What I did to achieve this is actually illegal. That is, officially not right but in a damn difficult area of electronics with by now my question to what degree schoolbooks are correct. For you it would be more acceptable because it is actually about our BNC cable again and how "you" keep on thinking that friggling around with this will always lead to some result for the better. And as we have seen by now, this is so (and quite easy to achieve), but to what degree it is perfect is something else and ... what I just did should not be perfect.
And I changed from perfect to almost illegal.

Still assumed that Joachim is able to encourage for the same wild difference (in the Wall of Sound department), then we must think about what this tin layer or nickel or gold plated etc. etc. really does. So I actually see more and more explicits about this (about the BNC to RCA adapter) and you can bet that I a. believe in the wild differences but b. they should be utilized once we understand. And a "hey it is gold plated" makes no sense to me for merits. Nothing does of course (maybe later) but that these things matter - yes.
So, finally, what is it what I did ?

I moved the "by law" output impedance resistor from as close as possible to the gain stage, to 18cm away from it. In theoretical effect we now deal with that 18cm of cable capacitance and it could inluence the output stage in bad manner. And maybe it does, so now we're up to "and do we care ?".

If you next see me saying "and don't you dare to make a next one even 1mm shorter or longer" then you can see how at least I see this as an infinite tweaking possibility. I mean, *if* this would be about reflections now occurring in that piece of cable, then they are for the better (as perceived by me) and they will for 100% sure depend on the (exact) length. Remember my *if* because again I can't tell (requires special analysers). And "if not" then the length is not (or hardly) important either but then it becomes hard to tell what makes this crazy change.
But think again about some silver/gold/nickel whatever connector/adapter and it is easy to see *that* such changes are possible anyway.

You know, when you see Joachim write such things, you may easily think "oh well - he sure will have managed to change something for the better". But now there's number two (me) - possibly in quadruple - and you just won't be able to imagine what a super crazy change actually "nothing" makes.

So I had this before and back then I came up with the Seagull example because of it. However, when I later "softened" the sound, the effect went away and I wasn't very sad because the net result was better (say less sharp, less "too dynamic").
This now (too dynamic) is all out of the way, but again it (3D) can work. You can also hear what makes it happen and this is the very special highs. As usual this is not easy to explain, but think they got more white as in where cymbals tend to go physically smaller. More resolution in it (and when too much the cymbals all end up in 10cm cymbals). A large part of this is done by the Blaxius cable but now this resolution itself becomes more profound or something. You just "see" how in fact all (the more squary) is positioned somewhere and when this smears ever so little it meshes up more in the the middle.
When I had this working previously (early Seagull times) it also worked, but there the whole spectrum received the "dynamics" and it wasn't the nicest in the end.

---

Right. Although you did not see it really, this should be the final result of my attempts to create something with the Blaxius cable that you can apply yourself. Or maybe not, but then go to an electronics shop with someone being able to hold a soldering iron with very small tip and the harder part of it can be done there in a minute or three (seriously) and you give the guy 10$. The remaining parts can be done by anyone who owns a soldering iron and uses it now and then, but if you're in that shop anyway ... That part will take possibly 30 minutes by that guy. You yourself may need maybe 75 minutes, including taking some breath in advance.

This is still only the NOS1a part and whether the amplifier part also needs to be done depends a bit on whether you are super satisfied without it and can phycologically overcome the BNC to RCA connector, which thus *also* can matter a lot. In any event all material will be provided for those who order(red) the cable, so you can go all directions.

How to go from BNC to XLR I did not work out yet.

Peter

Hi Peter,

you invested a hell of time in your  explanation, great writing.

Make it short, because my room is not as  big as yours and my seagull can’t fly ……… .

The definition for „Wall of Sound“ I used see:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound. (The intent was to create a dense aesthetic that came across well on AM radio and jukeboxes popular in the era.)

With the nickel plated adapter or some other cables there is „nothing“ (no air) between the  instruments, it seems, that these instruments are recorded in separate chambers, not connected with each other. There is no cohesion in the soundstage as you hear it in concert halls. So, there is nothing special what I hear, and we know, every room sounds different. (see the differences between Pauls and Manis SQ's. Paul is in heaven and Mani is struggleing to get the same result)

Joachim

Hmm Joachim, I can try a few of those examples to see whether that brings something extra in order to learn what you are referring to. I might have one example myself which is super extraordinary and which at some stage started to work : Rock you baby from Gare du Nord (from the double (blue coloured) album). So I didn't know about this explicit approach but this could be an example of it.

Peter

Hi Peter,

the link for a “wall of sound“ is not a good sample.

Let’s explain it  in other words. In a concert hall the sound of all instruments are arriving our ears in a „mixture“ . The „ sound waves“ of each instrument and the reflextions of the walls are interacting with each other and the „final result“ is what you hear at the listening place.

The more accurate definition is, I think „ambience“  =  from Stereophile: ambience (pronounced "ambee-ints") The aurally perceived impression of an acoustical space, such as the performing hall in which a recording was made. 

Beg your pardon for my misinterpretation/confusion.

Joachim

Hey Joachim,

I'm getting more and more under the impression that you referred to the "wall of sound" in a negative sense. Is this correct ?
(I ask this because I though you found it positive and now I am not sure)

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

The "Wall of Sound" term describes a recording technique from Phil Spector I was not aware of, and I have no record in mind with this procedure.

The SQ with a  "concert hall sound" = "ambience"  is preferred.


Joachim

So ? I understand that you don't like the wall of sound etc., but only after finding the WikiPedia description ?
If this is correct, what did you intend to say here then ?

Peter

Heeey Peter,

the sound what I hear is perfect, but not the definition I wrote.

When you accept that the definition of "wall of sound" is identical to "concert hall sound" and "ambience" then we are speaking the same language

When I have to judge the SQ as per the "wall of sound" definition acc. to WikiPedia, then I have to listen to one of this recordings, and I have not one in mind. The sound of the samples at WikiPedia do not meet my preferences/taste, but this were different times.


Joachim