• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Can someone recommend 1 foot long RCA cables that are FLEXIBLE?

Seismic Audio SAPRCA1 (2 pr. pack) $16.19 with free shipping, on Amazon. Dirt cheap, and flexible, IMO.
Bright red with gold connectors, in pic. 1 foot long. Red only.

Darker red pair with silver connectors are 6" between connectors. Sold by Schiit for $24 pr. Also flexable. Advantage if being separate, I think helps flexibility.
1603129753844137953341809835976.jpg
 
Last edited:
E-Stat said:
Several years ago, I was made aware of a "scientific test" for comparing interconnects. And it is single blind! Follow the link below and scroll down to the section about interconnects:

http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/54-cables-white-paper

Take a high level source like a CD player and connect Y-adapters to the outputs. Then connect Cable A to one end of each Y and Cable B to the other end. Lastly, plug the other end of the cables into different inputs on you preamp. That enables you to play the source and *compare* Cable A to Cable B merely by switching inputs. Sounds reasonable, right? What could possibly be wrong with this blind test?

I have a capacitance meter and tested values as I put together the "test apparatus". Here is cable A by itself which measures 59 pF:

cableB.jpg


Here is Cable B by itself which measures 544 pF:
cableA.jpg


Let's start connecting them. Here is Cable A now with one end of the y-adapter attached. The combined value is now 88 pF:

yadapter.jpg


Now, lets connect Cable B to the other end of the y-adapter and continue to measure Cable A. Wanna guess the result? 597 pF!!!!!

cableA+B.jpg


What did we just learn? The common ground in the y-adapter has forced the metrics of both cables to be combined. While the objective is to compare Cable A vs Cable B, what we actually end up doing is comparing Cable A+Cable B+y-adapter at one input to Cable A+Cable B+y-adapter at the other input. It forces both to be the same.

Why would anyone expect to hear any difference between 597 pF vs 597 pF? Not only is there no comparison, the connection chain has been dumbed down by the summing effects for either input as well. Read the conclusion of the test:

"After doing this test, you will discover that all the hype surrounding interconnects is just that. The fact is that all well-designed interconnects sound identical."

Smug ignorance is not a great combination. ;)
Click to expand...

The real question with any of these measurements, is, is it audible? All the wonderful specs in the world don't mean anything without a good blind test to prove they make a difference.
Old Guy8 said:
Seismic Audio SAPRCA1 (2 pr. pack) $17 on Amazon. Dirt cheap, and flexible, IMO.
Bright red with gold connectors, in pic.

Darker red pair with silver connectors are 6" between connectors. Sold by Schiit for $24 pr. Also flexable.
View attachment 2011820
Click to expand...

Schiit sells short cables. But they're just reselling for Snake Oil Sound (A GREAT name, BTW!) I was looking at those last night.

At some point, I just need to buy cables and be done with it.
 
E-Stat said:
Several years ago, I was made aware of a "scientific test" for comparing interconnects. And it is single blind! Follow the link below and scroll down to the section about interconnects:

http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/54-cables-white-paper

Take a high level source like a CD player and connect Y-adapters to the outputs. Then connect Cable A to one end of each Y and Cable B to the other end. Lastly, plug the other end of the cables into different inputs on you preamp. That enables you to play the source and *compare* Cable A to Cable B merely by switching inputs. Sounds reasonable, right? What could possibly be wrong with this blind test?

I have a capacitance meter and tested values as I put together the "test apparatus". Here is cable A by itself which measures 59 pF:

Here is Cable B by itself which measures 544 pF:

Let's start connecting them. Here is Cable A now with one end of the y-adapter attached. The combined value is now 88 pF:

Now, lets connect Cable B to the other end of the y-adapter and continue to measure Cable A. Wanna guess the result? 597 pF!!!!!

What did we just learn? The common ground in the y-adapter has forced the metrics of both cables to be combined. While the objective is to compare Cable A vs Cable B, what we actually end up doing is comparing Cable A+Cable B+y-adapter at one input to Cable A+Cable B+y-adapter at the other input. It forces both to be the same.

Why would anyone expect to hear any difference between 597 pF vs 597 pF? Not only is there no comparison, the connection chain has been dumbed down by the summing effects for either input as well. Read the conclusion of the test:

"After doing this test, you will discover that all the hype surrounding interconnects is just that. The fact is that all well-designed interconnects sound identical."

Smug ignorance is not a great combination. ;)
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that the people who demand blind testing have no idea what it takes to actually do blind, level-matched testing because. They demand blind tests for anyone to comment on anything, but they have no idea what is required because they've never done any of the things they demand at all. Blind, level-matched testing cables, speakers, amps -- none of it is easy to do correctly, and there is no point at all in doing it incorrectly (as your example shows).

Those who demand blind test have a fraction of the personal experience of everyone else because they are convinced everything sounds the same (so they have no motivation to change equipment and rarely do), even when they do change components, their "science" won't allow them to make a sound quality judgement. They have almost no experience because their "science" prevents them from actually experiencing anything, and then they preach, as experts, to people with 100 times or 1000 times the experience they have.
 
The Shocker said:
The real question with any of these measurements, is, is it audible?
Click to expand...
I'm among many who hear differences.

It's not that high levels of L or C inherently affect the cable per se. What those characteristics do is interact with the electronics at either end.

Bogus tests like these are counterproductive to having a better understanding of what's really involved.
 
peterp1 said:
The funny thing is that the people who demand blind testing have no idea what it takes to actually do blind, level-matched testing because. They demand blind tests for anyone to comment on anything, but they have no idea what is required because they've never done any of the things they demand at all. Blind, level-matched testing cables, speakers, amps -- none of it is easy to do correctly, and there is no point at all in doing it incorrectly (as your example shows).

Those who demand blind test have a fraction of the personal experience of everyone else because they are convinced everything sounds the same (so they have no motivation to change equipment and rarely do), even when they do change components, their "science" won't allow them to make a sound quality judgement. They have almost no experience because their "science" prevents them from actually experiencing anything, and then they preach, as experts, to people with 100 times or 1000 times the experience they have.
Click to expand...

Blind testing is VERY VERY important. If a cable manufacturer wants to charge hundreds of dollars for a cable and exorbitant claims about its quality and sonic superiority, then THEY should be the ones to set up a proper blind test and let people hear the difference.

It doesn't matter how hard setting up a blind test it. It's still important.

There's a great story I read somewhere, where I believe Audioquest was demoing some cables at an audiophile convention and trying to show much better their cables sounded. One astute person noticed that when using the generic cables, the CD was on track 1, index 1. When the Audioquest cables were swapped out, the CD was playing Track 1, Index 2. So, the guy asked them if they would demo the cables on a CD he brought with him. They obviously refused.

There's a lot to be said for a good quality cable that's built well. Build quality is important, and can affect sound by removing interference. It's up to the consumer to decide how much they're willing to spend for build quality and wire gauge.

But when you get into cryogenically frozen cables, and 99.999% Oxygen Free Copper, or pure silver cables and people claiming that a cable, either interconnect or speaker, somehow magically opened up the soundstage or tightened up the low end, then we need to proof, through either measurements or blind testing.

It's 2020. Stuff can be measured now pretty easily. Even if you don't blind test, you could show a frequency response graph for your cable vs a generic.
 
The Shocker said:
... then we need to proof, through either measurements or blind testing.
Click to expand...
Why?

The Shocker said:
Even if you don't blind test, you could show a frequency response graph for your cable vs a generic.
Click to expand...
Click the following link to a previous post where Gene Czerwinski (of Cerwin-Vega fame) discovered how much a short speaker cable affected spectral analysis. Cabling becomes an interdependent part of audio systems.

https://audiokarma.org/forums/index...e-on-speaker-wire.906002/page-3#post-13586871
 
The Shocker said:
Blind testing is VERY VERY important. If a cable manufacturer wants to charge hundreds of dollars for a cable and exorbitant claims about its quality and sonic superiority, then THEY should be the ones to set up a proper blind test and let people hear the difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is important, ESPECIALLY for comparing cables. That's not the point -- the point is that proper blind testing is often difficult or impossible to do.

The Shocker said:
It doesn't matter how hard setting up a blind test it. It's still important.
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of "easy", it's a matter of not being practically possible in many, many cases. How do you hot cut RCA's, how do you hot cut speakers and simultaneously level-match to account for differing efficiencies, how do you hot cut amplifiers safely, how do you hot cut speaker wires? Comparing RCA's, as E-stat's example shows, is almost impossible unless you have somebody behind the curtain manually switching out cables, which makes it clunky/slow to switch back and forth even if you go through the hassle of setting that up.

I do blind testing every time I can with it a "proper" test -- which is almost never. I encourage everyone to do blind tests any chance they get -- but it's almost always logistically impossible (certainly for non-pros, often even for pros, which is why you so seldom see them done).

Which blind tests have you done personally? How did you set them up?

I'm for blind testing, it's just not possible (nor is blind the "be all end all" in my experience). For any cable changes, I would definitely strongly encourage blind testing for sure -- but it just isn't possible or pragmatic 99% of the time.
 
Last edited:
peterp1 said:
Yes, it is important, ESPECIALLY for comparing cables. That's not the point -- the point is that proper blind testing is often difficult or impossible to do.



It isn't a matter of "easy", it's a matter of not being practically possible in many, many cases. How do you hot cut RCA's, how do you hot cut speakers and simultaneously level-match to account for differing efficiencies, how do you hot cut amplifiers safely, how do you hot cut speaker wires? Comparing RCA's, as E-stat's example shows, is almost impossible unless you have somebody behind the curtain manually switching out cables, which makes it clunky/slow to switch back and forth even if you go through the hassle of setting that up.

I do blind testing every time I can do it a proper test -- which is almost never. I encourage everyone to do blind tests any chance they get -- but it's frequently logistically impossible.

Which blind tests have you done personally? How did you set them up?

I'm for blind testing, it's just not possible (nor is blind the "be all end all" in my experience). For any cable changes, I would definitely strongly encourage blind testing for sure -- but it just isn't possible or pragmatic 99% of the time.
Click to expand...

Well, one test I did for interconnects was to feed the Line Out audio out of my DAC to my computer and capture 5 2 minute clips at CD quality. Then Ioad them into Foobar2000 + ABX comparator plugin and compare away.

They also make ABX switchboxes that I have seen for sale. I don't feel the need to go that far.

But, I'm not really worried about ABXing cables. You get to a point with cables where you are paying for build quality and looks after a certain price point. If you think you can hear a difference, then by all means, spend the money. I'm not here to tell you how to spend your money. Just like you shouldn't look down on me because I don't subscribe to your cable worldview.

Really ABX testing is necessary when testing things that make outlandish claims.

Years ago, on headfi.org, a company named Synergistic Research made a product called the HOT (Headphone Optimized Transducer). You plugged it in-line between the headphone and the amp you were using. It cost a few hundred dollars. A number of head-fi users swore that it made a huge difference in the sound quality they were getting out of their headphones. Well, one member took the thing apart, found out it was just a pass-thru device with some sand sprinkled and glued inside. Then he measured the device and posted results that showed the thing made NO difference in sound quality. Synergistic research attempted to get the guy banned and the thread pulled. Legal action was threatened. But, in the end, the product was pulled off the market.

Thread, for the curious: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/some-hot-science-from-synergistic-research.741043/

This is the stuff that needs blind testing.

The way I look at it is the level of claim you're making. If you say your cables are low impedence, well shielded and flexible to maximize your component's performance, that's one thing. But if you claim that something specific will happen, such as "improved soundstage" or "tighter low end" or "more clarity and detail," or "you've never heard vocals like this," that requires a level of proof that your claims are true.
 
I've never done a blind test with any of my equipment/cables. Don't have the ability, nor the inclination. I do swap things back and forth though (often several times) and listen for the differences, using a cut I'm very familiar with. I let my ears be the judge as to which I prefer.

As to IC's (again, if you can solder), it would be fairly easy and relatively inexpensive to buy a few lengths of different types (coax, microphone, etc.) and some connectors and see if you can hear a difference. Of course the system itself also comes into play. With my garage system (Sansui 5000A and Norman Model 8 speakers) I hear no difference at all between the coax and the Mogami, and only a slight improvement with either of those compared to Monster type. I doubt that I would hear much (if any) difference between the coax and Mogami on the main system either (B&K amp/KEF 104/2 speakers). However, with the office system (recapped Sansui AU-919 and Ascend Acoustic Sierra 2 speakers) I can clearly hear the differences in all 3 cables. That Raal tweeter is very revealing.

One more however with the office system is that without the DAC in play, I could not hear a difference between the coax and Mogami, and not as much with the Monster.
 
Old Guy8 said:
Seismic Audio SAPRCA1 (2 pr. pack) $16.19 with free shipping, on Amazon. Dirt cheap, and flexible, IMO.
Bright red with gold connectors, in pic. 1 foot long. Red only.

Darker red pair with silver connectors are 6" between connectors. Sold by Schiit for $24 pr. Also flexable. Advantage if being separate, I think helps flexibility.
View attachment 2011820
Click to expand...

One of these just arrived from Amazon today. Very thick and EXTREMELY flexible.
 
Mogami W2965 terminated by Switchcraft 3502AAU. Very soft and only 17pf capacitance per foot so no HF is really affected. Can be used for Phono too
 
The Shocker said:
Years ago, on headfi.org, a company named Synergistic Research made a product called the HOT (Headphone Optimized Transducer). You plugged it in-line between the headphone and the amp you were using. It cost a few hundred dollars. A number of head-fi users swore that it made a huge difference in the sound quality they were getting out of their headphones. Well, one member took the thing apart, found out it was just a pass-thru device with some sand sprinkled and glued inside. Then he measured the device and posted results that showed the thing made NO difference in sound quality. Synergistic research attempted to get the guy banned and the thread pulled. Legal action was threatened. But, in the end, the product was pulled off the market.

Thread, for the curious: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/some-hot-science-from-synergistic-research.741043/

This is the stuff that needs blind testing.

The way I look at it is the level of claim you're making. If you say your cables are low impedence, well shielded and flexible to maximize your component's performance, that's one thing. But if you claim that something specific will happen, such as "improved soundstage" or "tighter low end" or "more clarity and detail," or "you've never heard vocals like this," that requires a level of proof that your claims are true.
Click to expand...
Synergistic Research is ( in my opinion) the worst of the snakey oil audio product manufacturers. Their products list reads like something that should be in the back of a comic book. They have a vinyl record optimizer that costs$350. Here’s a description from their web page:

Prior to listening, touch the bottom of the Optimizer to the CD or record of your choice for 1-2 seconds and the Optimizer, specially designed with Albat Holographic Technology, will enhance the sound of your source disk in terms of dynamics, naturalness, spaciousness, precision and fine resolution. The optimization remains active for about 6 hours.

LOL - out loud! I feel sorry for the people who fall for this.
 
El Rubio said:
Synergistic Research is ( in my opinion) the worst of the snakey oil audio product manufacturers. Their products list reads like something that should be in the back of a comic book. They have a vinyl record optimizer that costs$350. Here’s a description from their web page:


Prior to listening, touch the bottom of the Optimizer to the CD or record of your choice for 1-2 seconds and the Optimizer, specially designed with Albat Holographic Technology, will enhance the sound of your source disk in terms of dynamics, naturalness, spaciousness, precision and fine resolution. The optimization remains active for about 6 hours.

LOL - out loud! I feel sorry for the people who fall for this.
Click to expand...

Sad part is, you'll find plenty of posts on the Internet talking about how well their products work and how they're worth the money. Companies like Synergistic Research is why blind testing is important.

Moon Audio is another one.

And audiophiles don't help the issue. I remember watching a review in Inner Fidelity about the Philips Fidelio X1 headphones. The reviewer complained that the included 3.5mm cable had high resistance. But did he test the headphones with a low resistance cable and report what the difference was? Nope. I've seen lots of reviews of cables that complain about high resistance, but don't explain how high resistance affects the sound, or even better, measure the headphone/speaker output and post some data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom