Cables with BNC Connectors/Adapters Are Generating A Superoir SQ

[PeterSt]

Of course this is theory only

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.

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

[PeterSt]

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.

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

[manisandher]

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.

[PeterSt]

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.

[PeterSt]

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 ...

[PeterSt]

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.

[PeterSt]

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.

[PeterSt]

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.

[PeterSt]

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

[PeterSt]

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

[PeterSt]

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.

[PeterSt]

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

[christoffe]

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
***

[christoffe]

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)

[PeterSt]

***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.

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