Listening test on four RCA terminated interconnects

[Barry]

Listening tests on four phono-phono interconnects


Introduction

This report is a follow up to the cable listening session conducted by JJ of MAD at the end of October last year. I wrote up my experience of that session here:

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...?t=4358&page=4 (post 34).

JJ suggested that it would be a good idea if some of the cables tried at the London session were listened to in member’s own systems. Both John (Music Room Moderator) and Marco have done this, and now I have had the chance to listen to the cables in my system.


Modus Operandi

As I mentioned in the above report, I have up until now been very sceptical that cables can make much difference. As long as the cables are of reasonable quality, any difference heard is more of a comment on the equipment between which they connect. I was surprised to find that I could repeatably hear small differences at the London session, so now expected to hear similarly small differences at home.

This time, however, the tests would not be blind and I was afraid that preconceived prejudices might cloud the results, if not render them somewhat void. I was acutely aware that one of the contenders would be my own cable, so I particularly wanted to be as impartial as possible and give each cable a fair listening.

My system uses a glorious mixture of phono connectors, DIN connectors, XLRs and even ¼” jack plugs. (This menagerie will soon be joined by Camac connectors, but that’s another thread for the future.) Fortunately, the simplest, most practical and only place in which to interchange RCA phono terminated leads was between my CD player and the preamp.

The equipment used was a Sony CDP XB720E CD player feeding a Quad 44 (lightly modified) with the dedicated CD input card. Power amplifier was a heavily modified Quad 405, this feeding a pair of Quad 57 electrostatic loudspeakers. Connecting cable between the pre and power amp uses a 1m length of 3-core Neumann microphone cable. The speaker cables are QED79.

I should also add that I did not ‘burn-in’ these cables. Whilst I can understand the need to this with some electronics, I do not think it is necessary with something a simple as a cable. I do not know the amount of use the three guest cables have had, though I imagine they have been well used, and thus burnt in. My own cables have had only a few hours use (probably no more than ten hours).

I connected each cable in turn and played a few tracks making note of those aspects of the performance or presentation that struck me as being notable. This was done for three sessions, with the order of the cables being changed for each session. After the sessions, I collated my notes (some nine pages) and sought any consistency that would help identify a sonic characteristic or signature that the cable might have.


The Music

The listening sessions fell into three parts. For the first session I listened to each cable whilst playing four music tracks:

(1) ‘Son of a Preacher Man’ from Dusty in Memphis, Philips Mercury 063 297-2
Dusty Springfield has a most expressive voice and her phrasing is remarkable.

(2) ‘The Lark Ascending’ from Vaughan Williams ‘Fantasia on Greensleeves’, HMV 5 72162 2
A sublime piece for solo violin, and a good test of treble purity as the ‘lark ascends and hovers’.

(3) ‘The Chain’ from The Very Best of Fleetwood Mac, Warner 8122 73635
Good example of studio AOR. The initial kick drum is a good bass test, plenty of percussive detail and a good driving sound to assess PRaT.

(4) ‘Big Love’ from the above.
This is a live virtuoso guitar piece, involving two guitars. Good for assessing the portrayal of the acoustic and the audience applause is a useful to test resolution (does it sound like individual hand claps or rustling cellophane?).


Despite being advised by a member (who has done a lot more comparative listening sessions than I), that it is best not to use more than three or four music tracks, I felt that I had not fully got the measure of each cable. So I had a second session using the following:

(5) “Columba aspexit” by Hildegard of Bingen from Gothic Voices with Emma Kirkby, Hyperion CDA66039
Wonderfully atmospheric a capella singing, giving a good sense of space (depth and width), as well as testing the ability of the system to distinguish the individual singers.

(6) ‘Spring’ from Vivaldi: The Four Seasons, BIS CD275
This is the first of the four movements that go to make up this work. This version uses period instruments that do not have the dynamic capability of later instruments, so the player has to make up for this through increased virtuosity and subtlety.

(7) Bartok: Six Roumanian Dances, Andreas Schiff, Denon 38C37-7092
This is a good test for imaging. The piano should appear a little behind the plane of the speakers.

(8) Bruckner: Symphony 4, 3rd movement, Denon 38C37-7126
The Fourth symphony is a remarkable tour de force involving large orchestral forces. Good for dynamics, weight and detail.

(9) Bach: ‘Choral Prelude “Wachet Auf” ’, Denon C37-7004
Good test of sound-staging: hearing the space between the left hand and right hand organ notes and the bass pedal 4, 8 and 16 ft stops, and yet also hearing some of the cathedral acoustic.

(10) Beethoven: Symphony 3, 1st movement, DG 415 066-2
Used to hear the correct positioning of the musicians such as woodwind relative to the strings, as well as for the correct tonality of the strings.

(11) Chopin: Waltz in C sharp minor, Ensemble ENS118
Piano music is a good test of transient percussion. It is also a good test of the miking - just how is the piano orientated?


I then had a third session, this time using modern, well-produced jazz items - all coming from the Naim stable:

(12) Antonio Forcione: ‘Tears Of Joy’ from Tears of Joy
NAIMCD 087

(13) Daniel Mulhern: ‘Fallen Angel’ from Pigeon Coup
NAIMCD 096

(14) John van der Veer: ‘9/11’ from The Ark
NAIMCD 105

(15) Fred Simon: ‘Remember the River’ from Remember the River
NAIMCD 081

(16) Charlie Haden & Antonio Forcione: ‘Anna’ from Heartplay
NAIMCD 098

(17) Jason Carter: ‘From The North’ from The Helsinki Project
NAIMCD 102

(18) Nicolas Meier: ‘Vatan/Homeland’, from Yüz
NAIMCD 103

(19) Reuben Hoch: 'Ballad for Nori' from Of Recent Time
NAIMCD 088

(20) Paul Wertico: ‘Dining By Rail’ from Another Side
NAIMCD 093

(21) Laurence Hobgood Trio: ‘Prayer For The Enemy’ from Crazy
NAIMCD 084.

As expected in coming from the Naim label, all these recordings are good on PRaT and have plenty of detail. These are the type of recordings that might be played at hi-fi shows and demonstrations, so whilst superficially impressive, may not necessarily be the last word in tonal accuracy.


The Contenders

Four cables were used. They were:

(A) MAD ‘My Ox’
A 2m pair using (according to the label) 99.9997% pure copper Litz wire conductors. I do not know if the cable used was of a coaxial construction or a shielded twisted pair wired in semi-balanced mode. If the latter, there was no indication of directionality. They were used such that the wording on the label read in the direction from the CD player to the preamplifier. The overall cable assembly was covered in a yellow nylon braided sheath. The RCA phono plugs looked identical to the Cardas models and appeared to be rhodium-plated.

(B) MAD ‘My Baby’
A 1m pair, these cables look similar to and are fitted with the same plugs as ‘My Ox’. Covered in a green nylon braid, again of unknown construction and with no indication of directionality.

(C) Chord ‘Cobra 3’
These consist of 1m pair of cables using a very soft, flexible cable. Again no knowledge of the type of cable used, however having the legend ‘CHORD COBRA 3’ written down the length of the cable, the cables were always installed such that the wording read from left to right away from the source: the CD player. The cables are fitted with gold plated phono plugs of good quality.

(D) My own cables
Actually to describe them as ‘my own’ is a bit of a conceit as I simply used 1m lengths of a low-noise microphone cable fitted with gold plated Neutrix Pro-Fi RCA phono plugs. Details of their construction is described here:

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...?t=4358&page=6 (post 54).

Having a true coaxial construction they should not be directional.


The Results

Again, I must emphasise that all the following comments are mine, based on what I heard with my ears with my system. Furthermore the differences between the various cables were small but I could hear these changes and after much swapping of cables and note taking, a sonic signature could be ascribed to each of them.

Before discussing the results of the four contenders, I must mention that these cables replaced an existing set of cables of good quality but of unknown provenance. These were a set of twin parallel style coaxial cables having a ‘figure of eight’ cross-section. I can’t remember if they came with the CD player or were one of a set of cables supplied by Nakamichi for use with their cassette decks. To establish a base line with which to compare the results of the four cables, the originals could best be described as providing reasonably accurate tonality, though at times the treble could be a little hard or strident. Sound staging was only adequate, often with suppressed depth and, depending on the recording, mediocre separation between instruments. It was difficult with these cables to determine the physical orientation of the piano.


MAD ‘My Ox’ and MAD ‘My Baby’
I lump these two designs together, since perhaps not surprisingly, they have a similar sound. The most obvious comment noted being the incredible clarity displayed by the ‘My Ox’. At times this crystal clarity was simply jaw dropping; especially demonstrated by the Hildegard of Bingen track (5). With other recordings this exceptional clarity came at a heavy price: the overall sound would often err on the cool, if not cold side. The result was that, at times, the recordings could sound un-involving and at worse, sterile or ‘hi-fi’. This was ably demonstrated on the Vivaldi (6) and both Fleetwood Mac numbers (3 and 4).

There was, surprisingly, sometimes poor or inaccurate sound staging with these cables: the orientation of the piano was vague and the drum kit on the ‘The Chain’ (3) was too wide and ‘big’ – dwarfing the singer. The orientation and placing of the piano was often difficult to discern, for example on the Bartok (7), Chopin (11) and some of the Linn jazz trio pieces.

Tonal fidelity was however very good and realistic, applying to all instruments played: piano; strings; woodwind; drums and most importantly, the human voice. On the live tracks, audience applause could be heard as individual hand claps.

MAD’s ‘My Baby’ presented a better-balanced set of attributes. It was slightly warmer, with almost the same outstanding clarity of the ‘My Ox’, the quietly played triangle on Lark Ascending (2), was perhaps even clearer with these cables. On virtually every track the ‘My Baby’ cables presented a slightly warmer, or ‘softer’ tonal balance providing a less clinical presentation than that of the ‘My Ox’.

Stereo sound staging was of a similar order but better that of the ‘My Ox’: at times it was vague with poor depth, though I thought there was more ‘air’ around the musicians, as for example on the Dusty Springfield track (1). Overall I preferred the ‘My Baby’ to ‘My Ox’.

Neither cable would disgrace an audio system but they must be used with care – I suspect that they are heavily system dependent and clearly did not suit mine.


Chord ‘Cobra 3’
I found this cable to have a good balance of properties. Warmer than the MAD cables it has good clarity and sounded natural and allowed the percussive attack of piano notes to be clearly heard. However when things got busy as with either the Bruckner (8) or Fleetwood Mac’s ‘The Chain’ (3), the sound could descend into a harsh sounding muddle. The Vaughan Williams (2) heard through these cables was not quite so enjoyable. On ‘Big Love’ (4), the strings sounded slightly steely and a bit too loud.

The sound stage was wide with better than average depth, as demonstrated on the Dusty Springfield (1) track. On most of the jazz trio numbers on the Naim label, the positioning of the musicians was quite clear, precise and stable. The orientation of the piano was often vague however.

I suspect that these cables use a twisted pair with the overall shielding connected as for semi-balanced construction. As such they will be directional, ideally with the screen connected to the point of lowest potential. Assuming that this direction is the same as the direction of the lettering, one might assume that this should be from the CD player to the preamplifier. Most of the listening was done with the cable in this orientation. However since my CD player is double insulated, the potential of both the metal work and the ‘0 volt’ rail will be determined by the connection to the preamp. Because of this, I reversed the cables (the direction now being preamp to CD player) and thought they sounded slightly better as a result. Unfortunately time did not permit a repeat listening of all the tracks with the new cable orientation.


My Cables
These had good clarity, though not in the same league as that of the MAD cables. They had good discrimination; massed instruments being easy to follow (1 and 6); though on ‘The Chain’ (3), whilst there was better separation of the instruments when things got busy, the sound did become harder. Massed instruments on the Beethoven (10) were particularly clear and separate. Tonal fidelity seemed to be good; cymbal rim shots rang nicely with clear decay and cymbal crashes were the right side of being ‘splashy’. Tonal balance was generally warmer than the other cables; certainly piano and reeds sounded ‘softer’.

Sound staging was the best of the bunch: wide sound stage, reasonable depth with good location of the musicians. On the Bach (9), the position of the various pipes was easy to hear with a good sense of the acoustics of venue. This was especially true of the Hildegard of Bingen choral piece: not only could the four individual singers be heard and placed, but also again there was a good sense of acoustic. The orientation of the piano, where used, was easier to determine, though as I have said this does depend on the positioning and polar response of the microphones.


Conclusions

I’m not going to rank the cables in any absolute order since my findings have been made with my ears on my system. Reading the above, it will not be difficult to discover which cables better suited my system. All were better than my original cables by varying degrees, and for the most part the differences were small.

None of them would disgrace any audio system. Though as mentioned, I suspect that the benefits wrought by these cables will depend on the system, and need to be chosen with care to achieve synergy.


Acknowledgements

I should like to thank Tim (JJ) of MAD for the loan of the cables. Thanks are also due to John, Marco and Neil for their helpful comments.

Trust these findings are of interest and are found useful.


Regards

[John]

Great write up and very interesting results

[pwood]

This is why i joined AOS as the whole cables are cables debate on all other forums drove me nuts. If this was an AVforums post the thread would be dozens deep with folks trying to point out your hearing is defective.


I take it you are now tempted to try speaker cables as well

[Marco]

This is why i joined AOS as the whole cables are cables debate on all other forums drove me nuts. If this was an AVforums post the thread would be dozens deep with folks trying to point out your hearing is defective.

And, Paul, remember too that Barry was until very recently a cable sceptic himself, until his 'objectivist chip' was removed and suitably reprogrammed by the collective intelligentsia on AOS

Marco.

[DSJR]

I've given up now. The Mark Grants just sit there, doing their job of "not doing," if you see what I mean, and I have no urge to try boutique wires now, as you cannot polish a turd if you're unfortunate to have one in your audio system...

I find Van Damme wires highly acceptable, the twin-n-screen Pro-Patch is superb for low level signals such as tonearm to amp and their fig-8 screened cable seems very good for general interconnect work, where a well balanced performance comes before absolute (impossible to achieve) detail.

I remember at least two interconnect manufacturers used to use one tiny stranded conductor plus screen for their cheapest wire, then two of the same for the next one up, then a heavier gauge for their next, then three cores (two for + and one plus drain for - ) and so on. If they'd have stuck to a low capacitance single copper core with selected insulation, it would probably have beaten the lot - oh, Mark does just that

[Barry]

I've given up now. The Mark Grants just sit there, doing their job of "not doing," if you see what I mean, and I have no urge to try boutique wires now, as you cannot polish a turd if you're unfortunate to have one in your audio system...

I find Van Damme wires highly acceptable, the twin-n-screen Pro-Patch is superb for low level signals such as tonearm to amp and their fig-8 screened cable seems very good for general interconnect work, where a well balanced performance comes before absolute (impossible to achieve) detail.

I remember at least two interconnect manufacturers used to use one tiny stranded conductor plus screen for their cheapest wire, then two of the same for the next one up, then a heavier gauge for their next, then three cores (two for + and one plus drain for - ) and so on. If they'd have stuck to a low capacitance single copper core with selected insulation, it would probably have beaten the lot - oh, Mark does just that

The point of my report was that the cables you make yourself can often be better than 'boutique' cables. As long as good quality components are used and the interconnect is made with care, I see no reason whatsover in spending hundreds of pounds on more exotic fare.

My surprise was in having my extreme scepticism dented, by being able to repeatedly hear some (small) differences between various cables. Despite having my 'objectivist' chip removed and reprogrammed (as Marco has put it), I believe the most enormous amount of twaddle is still talked about cables. If they make that much difference, then to my mind there is something decidedly wrong with your system.

I make up balanced lead interconnects using the Van Damme twin screened cable and Neutrik XLRs. I see no reason to use anything more exotic than professional studio cable for this, or to use one of the RG series cables for unbalanced use.

Regards

[Jonboy]

The point of my report was that the cables you make yourself can often be better than 'boutique' cables. As long as good quality components are used and the interconnect is made with care, I see no reason whatsover in spending hundreds of pounds on more exotic fare.

I believe the most enormous amount of twaddle is still talked about cables. If they make that much difference, then to my mind there is something decidedly wrong with your system.


Regards

My findings are the same Barry and i'm using the same home made ones as you

[Effem]

If they make that much difference, then to my mind there is something decidedly wrong with your system.

Errrrrm, no. I'm afraid you really are evaluating cables from entirely the wrong starting point, hence a somewhat coloured judgement.

Let's begin by saying as categoric fact that "There is no such thing as a sooper dooper cable". To put that statement into context, we start at the bottom of the food chain with the cheap freebies that are given away in the box when you buy a component. It probably costs less than 5p to produce (I doubt any manufacturer would spend more) and it serves to connect A to B and no more just to get you going. If it sounds perffect to you then read no further. For that 5p then, you are certainly not going to get 7 x 9's copper purity, you are not going to get decent gauge wire, you are not going to get top quality connectors. It is highly flawed, it is grossly imperfect and that is the base line to start from.

Disconnect that cable, fit another higher priced "boutique" cable as you call it and lo and behold it may sound "better". No it doesn't. It sounds less flawed and less imperfect than the one you have just removed - the cheap freebie. You are not in fact "adding a better sound", you are taking out the defective sound with each cable swap away from the freebie.

Spend some more on another cable and some "better" sound may pour forth, but it may have an upper treble emphasis and a lack of deep bass (mention no names here, but can anyone recognise the brand?), but what you now have is a different set of flaws and imperfections in that cable to cope with. If you need to raise the treble definition and lower the bass sensitivity in your system then bingo, you have struck lucky because that particular set of flaws has been highly beneficial for you in YOUR system.

I have heard cables with superb top and bottom ends, but the midband is muddled and confused, because that's where the flaws and imperfections have been shifted to. All of them are flawed in some way or another, so the trick is to find that cable that has the benefits through it's flaws you can live with.

To sum up then, there is no amount of money you can spend that will buy you that elusive sooper dooper flawless and perfect cable because it simply does not exist.

If you can get your heads around what I have written above, then suddenly the subject of cables makes perfect sense

[Steve Toy]

Frank, you've just used cables as tone controls. Well done!

[DSJR]

Isn't that what all the audiophools do?????

I just found that the better boutique wires can either emphasise one region over another (Effem's sentiments exactly), OR, again as Effem says, they sound like the cheaper wires but a fair bit clearer, which I think is the ideal in many ways. It's when you have a range of cables that the "one region over another" thing kicks in.

I've not yet worked with the larger gauge Van Damme tour cable, but would hope it's at least as good as the smaller pro-patch one.

I can't remember who bought one of the ebay £13.50 cables recently. If you're reading this, any chance of a comment, or is it so bad in the scheme of things that it's not worth mentioning?