3 things I learned from using MANY interconnect cables


At last, I am posting here for the first time! I got so much help from this forum and always felt a bit guilty about not contributing.

Over the past several years, I have used the following interconnect cables: Audioquest Golden Gate, Audioquest Columbia, Audioquest Sky, Monster Interlink 300 MkIII, Harmonic Technology Pro Silway (I have used both Mk I and Mk II), Silnote Morpheus, Anticables (the original version), Tara Labs RSC, Nordost Heimdall, Straightwire Crescendo, and Chord Anthem. They were all purchased used and I always had 2 or more pairs to compare at a given time although I didn’t have these cables all at once. Through the journey, I learned the following:

1. The price was NOT indicative of the sound quality unless you go very cheap (less than $100). I think this point is self-explanatory so I am not adding any elaboration.

2. Disconnecting and re-connecting the cables had a very positive impact on sound quality, which will affect any AB comparison. If you are comparing two pairs of cables that had comparable sound quality, the new cables will sound better because the connection would be fresh.

3. In my experience, the cables were NOT system dependent. This might raise some eye brows as it goes against the commonly held belief so I am going to explain a bit here.

All I am saying is that I have never seen a case where my preference order of two sets of interconnect cables got reversed when tested on two or more components (e.g. cable A was better than cable B on amp X but cable B was better on amp Y, etc). With any AB comparison I ever did, the better cable always won no matter what component I was testing them on.

Oh in case someone is curious, the best pair of interconnect cables I have ever used was Chord Anthem. It had a wider frequency range and a more natural tonality than others. And I would rather not add the qualification "but it was the best only in my system" because of the 3rd point I made above. Cheers!
johnson0134
Oh, it’s been discussed. It just hasn’t sunk it yet. 😳

Pop quiz later.
@ rnabokov

Sometimes, the pseudo-science on these forums is astounding ...

"It had a wider frequency range..." Really? What exactly do you mean by this? Did you measure it using appropriate technology? Is a wider(r) frequency range actually a good thing?


I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion just yet. Find below a quote from a comment made here by Bob Smith...

https://www.dagogo.com/audio-blast-schroeder-method-interconnect-placement/

And the most relevant part is below ( though reading the whole comment would help give you a better idea about the Schroeder Method, a exciting new idea in cable configurations that has many extremely happy users here on Audiogon....see that below....

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/doug-schroeder-method-double-ic ).....

Noteworthy in the above is the fact that the Capacitance doubles and the upper Cutoff Frequency (where above which the signal begins to be attenuated) almost doubles. So in the event that we “double-up” our audio cables, we actually extend their bandwidth – albeit we are talking in the region of radio frequencies so there is no real benefit there with respect to extending the fundamental audio bandwidth.

What IS significant though is the fact that all of the above leads to a potential reduction in reflected energy and/or standing waves within the cable, and that is because of two primary factors. By lowering the Character Impedance and consequently, raising the Cutoff Frequency, we “push” or force any potential reflections up to twice the frequency at which they would otherwise occur. That then leads to two other outcomes. First, higher frequencies find it more difficult to propagate down the length of any conductor due to the “skin effect,” and are therefore usually attenuated more with respect to those that occur at lower frequencies. As a result, lower magnitude levels of reflected energy translates into less interaction with the Source and Load circuits. That means less potential for the formation of any associated Phase Distortion artifacts as outlined above.

What is being talked about is the cable generated and cable specific noise that occurs in cables, and which can be reduced by simply expanding the bandwidth of the cable. And please note that it was this particular issue that pushed tele-communication companies to adopt fibre-optic networks ( the old wire networks were producing so much cable generated reflection that it was obscuring signal when under heavy load).

And btw it is this extended band-width that seems to the basis of the success of the Shroeder Method style cable ( and shameless plug...our own cables which have a very unusually broad bandwidth )

Hope I expressed that correctly/clearly.

@geoffkait

Johnny has 5 apples, Suzie has 3, how many apples does Bob have?

Summit your answer to win a cable comparison!

Happy Listening!