My friends, I was wrong, expensive cables matter a lot

[Shonver]

Thanks. In all seriousness, I found that video quite interesting. Particularly the part about capacitance in the cables and the effect that has, in effect using it as a 'tone control / equalizer' or as an amp destroyer (if I understood correctly)... Stuff I didn't know about.

You didn't miss anything. It is complete BS. The amount of capacitance in a cable does not have any significant effect in the audio band. So: no 'tone control / equalizer' effect is possible. Even if you did add extra capacitance externally and got the effect, it would be completely undesirable and could likely damage the amplifier. But no good cable possesses that amount of capacitance.

[d0dja]

The big dirty secret on cables is manufacturers talk a great deal about stuff that's complicated, sciencey-sounding and true... but irrelevant. Like capacitance in cables (vanishingly small compared to that in your crossover, also vanishingly small). And skin effect. It's a real thing, but only if you're building radars. What they don't do is publish proper lab tests. Proper measurements.

If a cable makes enough of a difference to have a "warm" signature then it makes enough difference to measure.

So why no measurements? Because they're is no DIN or IEC standard measurement for "% snake oil"?

 

[kamikazi]

Must say I couldn't listen to a word that was said in the video, I was just so fascinated about the studio setup that makes it look like there is torchlight shining out of his nostrils.

[d0dja]

Hmm. Couple of small coin batteries, LED light, inserted up the nose. Make an interesting effect.

[ernestank]

I have used many different interconnects and have even made some of my own. My experience is that all cables will give you music. BUT some cables will make the music detail disappear like a bad mp3 track and some will make the detail harsh and bright. This was found through many hours of blind testing on decent hifi equipment with friends. If you have a source that's bright, I would select an interconnect according to what I think sounds nice to me. Some friends would agree with my choice and others wouldn't.
Bottom line... if it sounds nice to you use it. Even if the cost is outrageous.

[Agaton Sax]

Hmm. Couple of small coin batteries, LED light, inserted up the nose. Make an interesting effect.

Madness.

Not the same but similar :So, they came up with the concept of "Charge Coupling". This is a DC bias inserted into the midpoint of two series capacitors. ... The resistor values are high, as the only action the battery is performing is to provide a charge to the capacitors, which will only require trickle current to maintain, once they're charged.

Who would do something so silly? Oh only JBL,the most no nonsense audio company in the world and promoted by their designer, Greg Timbers,possibly the most gifted and highly regarded loudspeaker designer in the last 40 years. Invented by one Ed Meitner. Maybe ask BJ about him?

Maybe we should quit double guessing and speculating and just listen?

[pwatts]

Madness.

Not the same but similar :So, they came up with the concept of "Charge Coupling". This is a DC bias inserted into the midpoint of two series capacitors. ... The resistor values are high, as the only action the battery is performing is to provide a charge to the capacitors, which will only require trickle current to maintain, once they're charged.

Who would do something so silly? Oh only JBL,the most no nonsense audio company in the world and promoted by their designer, Greg Timbers,possibly the most gifted and highly regarded loudspeaker designer in the last 40 years. Invented by one Ed Meitner. Maybe ask BJ about him?

Maybe we should quit double guessing and speculating and just listen?

This trick is relatively unknown but works well. Electrolytic coupling capacitors are a necessary evil in some applications, but their performance greatly improves when there is a DC bias across them (or deteriorates in its absence, whichever way you slice it). Explanation is a chemical process I once read up on but long forgot.

In circuits where there is a known bias that's implicitly covered, but when it's just acting as a DC block for _possible_ DC (such as the input of a preamp) where there is no guarantee of presence/level/polarity, all bets are off. Some folks throw money at it with larger film caps, others try a misguided attempt of bypassing with a small film cap and other opt for bipolar caps, which are just two back-to-back caps in one package.

A clever solution was to use separate back-to-back electrolytics and connect the midpoint via a large resistor to some voltage rail in the circuit. This provides a bias that improves the performance yet still is invisible to both sides of the cap.

[handsome]

I think the DC bias thing on electrolytic caps is to prevent deterioration. Electrolytic caps have aluminium electrodes or plates that are anodised on one side to form the dielectric (insulator). The other plate is also aluminium partly and a gel or liquid electrolyte (hence the name electrolytic) which slowly corrodes the anodised layer. When there is DC across the cap a small current will flow that ‘rebuilds’ basically anodises, the dielectric layer. With back to back electrolytics the outer cap has no DC voltage across it, so adding a DC bias to the mid point ensures that cap’s insulation does not eventually break down. This is completely different to putting a DC bias voltage on a cables (plastic based-its an insulator) dielectric - that creates an electric field which supposedly enhances something or the other....according to Audioquest at any rate.

Capacitance on speaker cables can be significant - some transistor amps become unstable with a certain amount of capacitance as part of their load. Kimber’s big woven cables were notorious for having higher than normal capacitance (they were designed to have low inductance) and upsetting certain amps.

[Renegade187]

great video.

I am in the market for a new set of interconnects and I see that his recommendation is one that is lower than 16 pf/ft which equates to 54 pf/m.
Is this correct because if one looks at the QED range a graphite RCA pf is 115 pf/m which is way out from the recommendation.

The reference 40 as an example drops to 63 pf/m and costs an arm and leg.  The argument is then contradicting itself because the reference 40 is around R3k for a set.....