A Plea For High-End Audio Manufacturer Honesty and Transparency

[microstrip]

Balanced line connections have standards unlike RCA cables. The first one to know is AES48, in which we find out that ground is ignored. The second is a low impedance aspect, where the device driving the cable can have its output expressed in dBm, which refers to the VU level when driving 600 Ohms, so its an expression of milliWatts.

The result is that balanced line cables from 70 years ago can work in a manner that is completely neutral. That is literally what ushered in the Golden Age (as Harry Pearson described it) of high fidelity (that and the introduction of the Westerex 3D cutter head). I've often wondered why audiophiles don't want interconnect cables to be inexpensive and completely neutral (such that you don't have an expensive cable turning into a white elephant in your living room). I've not sorted out if they don't know about the standards and the resulting benefits or just don't care.

When the standards are not being supported its pretty well the Wild West, which seems to be how most of high end audio handles balanced line.

Well, your post raises a tricky question. Your preamplfiers and amplifiers had balanced and SE cables, so we can use both types of input and outputs and compare them. Which brand and type of SE cable did you find to sound closer to the XLR links in your electronics?

 

[Atmasphere]

Well, your post raises a tricky question. Your preamplfiers and amplifiers had balanced and SE cables, so we can use both types of input and outputs and compare them. Which brand and type of SE cable did you find to sound closer to the XLR links in your electronics?

I've tried to really stay away from single-ended connections in my main system. After hearing what a garden variety balanced cable (when properly supported) could do to a single-ended cable (seems to me at the time it was a Kimber or Esoteric) there really wasn't any going back.

 

[PeterA]

I've tried to really stay away from single-ended connections in my main system. After hearing what a garden variety balanced cable (when properly supported) could do to a single-ended cable (seems to me at the time it was a Kimber or Esoteric) there really wasn't any going back.

Why offer the choice and not just provide balanced connections, and give the wires to your customers for free as the ones most suitable for your gear as a kind of official endorsement from the manufacturer?

 

[Atmasphere]

Why offer the choice and not just provide balanced connections, and give the wires to your customers for free as the ones most suitable for your gear as a kind of official endorsement from the manufacturer?

At the phono input we do not offer a choice as phono cartridges are balanced sources. If there's any place in the system the cable has to get it right, that's the place. The Auxiliary inputs are balanced only too. We set up the monitor loops as single-ended connections, mostly out of tradition, since most consumer recording setups like a tape deck were single-ended. The output of the preamp is balanced only. Single-ended connections can be added optionally.

The amps have to deal with the situation that not everyone who has bought them also has a balanced preamp. Since the input of the amps is a differential circuit with a high value of CMRR (Common Mode Rejection Ratio) the gain, noise and distortion difference between the RCA and XLR inputs is thus slight. But the difference in quality is otherwise easy to hear.

Any balanced cable will work between our preamps and amps.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Any balanced cable will work between our preamps and amps.

Tried CAT6 yet?

 

[Atmasphere]

Tried CAT6 yet?

No. AFAIK CAT6 is a digital cable connection.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

No. AFAIK CAT6 is a digital cable connection.

Nope. It is a highly-specified quad twisted-pair cable with great consistency and applicability. Look up AES72-2019.

 

[microstrip]

No. AFAIK CAT6 is a digital cable connection.

In fact LAN quad twisted cables can easily be used to build XLR cables. If wanted we can put in parallel up to four pairs. Audioquest CAT700 5% silver loaded cable has a measured capacitance of 36 pF per meter - it is now on my work desk, waiting for some free time to solder the XLR connectors.

Long ago Gary Koh has a nice thread on using such cables as a basis for cables experiences.

 

[Audiohertz2]

I've tried to really stay away from single-ended connections in my main system. After hearing what a garden variety balanced cable (when properly supported) could do to a single-ended cable (seems to me at the time it was a Kimber or Esoteric) there really wasn't any going back.

Properly supported ….?

 

[Holmz]

Balanced line connections have standards unlike RCA cables. The first one to know is AES48, in which we find out that ground is ignored. The second is a low impedance aspect, where the device driving the cable can have its output expressed in dBm, which refers to the VU level when driving 600 Ohms, so its an expression of milliWatts.

The result is that balanced line cables from 70 years ago can work in a manner that is completely neutral. That is literally what ushered in the Golden Age (as Harry Pearson described it) of high fidelity (that and the introduction of the Westerex 3D cutter head). I've often wondered why audiophiles don't want interconnect cables to be inexpensive and completely neutral (such that you don't have an expensive cable turning into a white elephant in your living room). I've not sorted out if they don't know about the standards and the resulting benefits or just don't care.

When the standards are not being supported its pretty well the Wild West, which seems to be how most of high end audio handles balanced line.

You’re totally alone here Ralph… or just about alone.
The technical mumbo-jumbo makes sense, but the thread is about honesty and transparency.
Why would anyone selling the cable with huge markups want people to go to an almost free cable?
It is like Jimney Cricket cautioning Pinocchio about letting his conscious being his guide.

It would be like a drug dealer sponsoring an NA meeting.
It is certainly possible in theory, but I have never ever heard of it happening, even in a fictional piece.


Back to the Bond stuff…
Even I, who should know better, sees the allure of the cable.
I know I should not, but I still do.
People that do not how to spell Faraday or Maxwell, are almost certainly just going to be beguiled by the spell cast from marketing departments haunched over their word salad cauldrons.


Anyhow…
Old mate Paul, is headed to MSP in a few weeks for some India(n) based spiritual thing that is celebrating a ~70 or 100 year event.
And sis is arriving next week to see the Auntie go to Ft. Snelling.

 

[mtemur]

The problem you are up against is that if the gear doesn't support the balanced line standards (for example: AES48) you'll hear cable differences.

What makes you think a cable that merely complies with standards is automatically neutral, free of any sonic character, and incapable of imposing its own signature?

If you believe standards like AES-48 guarantee ultimate neutrality and erase the sonic differences between conductor or insulation materials, you’re mistaken. And if you don’t hear otherwise, you probably need better equipment—or sharper focus when listening.

Standards don’t guarantee anything. That’s the plain truth.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

Why offer the choice and not just provide balanced connections, and give the wires to your customers for free as the ones most suitable for your gear as a kind of official endorsement from the manufacturer?

There are no free lunches. You will end up paying for those cables. So why not take the manufacturers recommendations and purchase the cables from your local dealer?

 

[microstrip]

What makes you think a cable that merely complies with standards is automatically neutral, free of any sonic character, and incapable of imposing its own signature?

The standard imposes rules on the sender, cable and receiver. I can easily accept that it maximizes neutrality, as it works as a complete system in the audio bandwidth.

But surely most audiophiles want cables that are not neutral - we want them to have a sound signature than enhances our system performance.
And cable manufacturers can be very imaginative in the way they please customer preferences.

If you believe standards like AES-48 guarantee ultimate neutrality and erase the sonic differences between conductor or insulation materials, you’re mistaken. And if you don’t hear otherwise, you probably need better equipment—or sharper focus when listening.

I have owned the Atmasphere MP1 - MA2 combo in the past - I can assure you it is the type of top equipment that shows all the differences. Before you ask, I moved away from them only because of heat and, I accept, a bit of the audiophile natural desire of change ...

Standards don’t guarantee anything. That’s the plain truth.

Properly understood and implemented they assure a lot, I can assure you. But surely applied in their area - the high-end is surely an unregulated area.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The standard imposes rules on the sender, cable and receiver. I can easily accept that it maximizes neutrality, as it works as a complete system in the audio bandwidth.

But surely most audiophiles want cables that are not neutral - we want them to have a sound signature than enhances our system performance.
And cable manufacturers can be very imaginative in the way they please customer preferences.

Well said except, imho, for the statement that "most audiophiles want cables that are not neutral." While many do want to "enhance" the sound signature to their own preference, many others are led to believe, by cable marketers and others, that neutral and uncolored is, of necessity, bland.

 

[Elliot G.]

Well said except, imho, for the statement that "most audiophiles want cables that are not neutral." While many do want to "enhance" the sound signature to their own preference, many others are led to believe, by cable marketers and others, that neutral and uncolored is, of necessity, bland.

this is another version of the language is corrupt and virtually meaningless. Neutral? Accurate? Musical? Organic? Uncolored? etc. what these words mean is totally dependent on who is using them. Cables all act as filters and so different filters do different things.
The fact that every show there are more cable suppliers reinforces the notion that cables are not the same and neutral is what they all claim to be.

This chicken or the egg moment is totally based on how do you voice anything and by voicing it what did you use to do so in conjunction with the product you are building.
Yes this is a conundrum rapped in a riddle enclosed in a puzzle of meaningless words but what the heck would we argue over without this

 

[microstrip]

Well said except, imho, for the statement that "most audiophiles want cables that are not neutral." While many do want to "enhance" the sound signature to their own preference, many others are led to believe, by cable marketers and others, that neutral and uncolored is, of necessity, bland.

Yes, marketing uses whatever it is needed to sell. IMO neutral is not bland, but many times it is less amusing ...

 

[microstrip]

this is another version of the language is corrupt and virtually meaningless. Neutral? Accurate? Musical? Organic? Uncolored? etc. what these words mean is totally dependent on who is using them.

Surely.

Cables all act as filters and so different filters do different things.

The general perception is that filters suppress some things. IMO cables do more than that. They add distortions.

The fact that every show there are more cable suppliers reinforces the notion that cables are not the same and neutral is what they all claim to be.

IMO most cable manufacturers just add random sound signatures to their cables. But a few have consistent , directed characteristics in all their range of products - I admire such people.

This chicken or the egg moment is totally based on how do you voice anything and by voicing it what did you use to do so in conjunction with the product you are building.
Yes this is a conundrum rapped in a riddle enclosed in a puzzle of meaningless words but what the heck would we argue over without this

 

[Atmasphere]

Nope. It is a highly-specified quad twisted-pair cable with great consistency and applicability. Look up AES72-2019.

Thanks! The same issue of supporting balanced line properly is still an issue though. Mogami, FWIW, has been offering quad cables for decades on now. I've found they really don't make any difference if the equipment driving and receiving the signal both are AES48 compliant and are also capable of at least -4dBm operation.

Properly supported ….?

Yes. See above. In high end audio, we expect the cable to do the heavy lifting WRT to sound quality.

In broadcast and the recording industries, traditionally its been adherence to the standards that has forced cables to have good sound quality. IOW the equipment on either end of the cable does the heavy lifting, not the cable. This is why so many audio engineers will tell you cables don't make a difference- if they are in recording or broadcast, they don't!

Why would anyone selling the cable with huge markups want people to go to an almost free cable?
It is like Jimney Cricket cautioning Pinocchio about letting his conscious being his guide.

Yup! I have a Sisyphean task. But if you think about Sisyphus, eventually that rock is worn down to a pebble. It just takes time.

But to answer your question, they would not, which speaks directly to the title of this thread. But so much of high end audio balanced line equipment isn't designed to prevent interconnect cable interaction (isn't compliant with balanced line standards), so 'high end audio' cable manufacturers can freely make expensive cables that do indeed make a different with that equipment, which IME is most balanced line gear made in 'high end'. Hence the on-going debate about whether balanced is better or not. I've found that if you do it right there's no going back.

What makes you think a cable that merely complies with standards is automatically neutral, free of any sonic character, and incapable of imposing its own signature?

If you believe standards like AES-48 guarantee ultimate neutrality and erase the sonic differences between conductor or insulation materials, you’re mistaken. And if you don’t hear otherwise, you probably need better equipment—or sharper focus when listening.

Standards don’t guarantee anything. That’s the plain truth.

Its not the cable that is the big deal. Its the equipment driving it and receiving the signal. That is what AES48 is all about. If you think I've not auditioned the differences or lack of them, using compliant and non-compliant equipment while also being the oldest supporter of balanced line connections in high end audio, you'd be mistaken.

Standards aren't much use if no-one pays attention to them. But try and see how well a USB cable that is non-compliant works for passing digital audio and you might understand the problem.

this is another version of the language is corrupt and virtually meaningless. Neutral? Accurate? Musical? Organic? Uncolored? etc. what these words mean is totally dependent on who is using them. Cables all act as filters and so different filters do different things.
The fact that every show there are more cable suppliers reinforces the notion that cables are not the same and neutral is what they all claim to be.

This chicken or the egg moment is totally based on how do you voice anything and by voicing it what did you use to do so in conjunction with the product you are building.
Yes this is a conundrum rapped in a riddle enclosed in a puzzle of meaningless words but what the heck would we argue over without this

You might wonder how RCA Living Stereo LPs sounded as good as they did. Or Mercury Living Presence, EMI or early Decca (London). In some cases there was over 100 feet of (what would be considered by 'high end audio' standards as really terrible) microphone cable before the signal arrived at the input of the tape machine. Yes, all cables act as filters so if you apply filter theory to a cable you then design a system that prevents cable colorations in the audio range. Besides AES48, one of the techniques is low impedance operation. In the old days of tubes line level standard was 600 Ohms. For microphones (like my Neumann U67s) the standard might be only 150 Ohms.

Most modern 'high end audio' preamps will fall flat on their faces driving such loads! It requires that the line stage be a small power amp in its own right.

I don't know if the standards for balanced operation are unknown in high end audio or simply ignored- its likely both. But when we started doing balanced line decades ago, the assumption was that if there was an XLR output, it had better be able to drive 600 Ohms without any problems so that's what we did. If you want to talk about 'high end audio manufacturer honesty and transparency' this cable thing has got a lot of deception IMO/IME and for far too long (I knew Robert Fulton, the guy who more than anyone else founded the high end audio cable industry back in the 1970s). But the hoops you have to jump through to get balanced right might be more than many manufacturers would want to face.

 

[microstrip]

Thanks! The same issue of supporting balanced line properly is still an issue though. Mogami, FWIW, has been offering quad cables for decades on now. I've found they really don't make any difference if the equipment driving and receiving the signal both are AES48 compliant and are also capable of at least -4dBm operation.

Yes. See above. In high end audio, we expect the cable to do the heavy lifting WRT to sound quality.

In broadcast and the recording industries, traditionally its been adherence to the standards that has forced cables to have good sound quality. IOW the equipment on either end of the cable does the heavy lifting, not the cable. This is why so many audio engineers will tell you cables don't make a difference- if they are in recording or broadcast, they don't!

Yup! I have a Sisyphean task. But if you think about Sisyphus, eventually that rock is worn down to a pebble. It just takes time.

But to answer your question, they would not, which speaks directly to the title of this thread. But so much of high end audio balanced line equipment isn't designed to prevent interconnect cable interaction (isn't compliant with balanced line standards), so 'high end audio' cable manufacturers can freely make expensive cables that do indeed make a different with that equipment, which IME is most balanced line gear made in 'high end'. Hence the on-going debate about whether balanced is better or not. I've found that if you do it right there's no going back.

Its not the cable that is the big deal. Its the equipment driving it and receiving the signal. That is what AES48 is all about. If you think I've not auditioned the differences or lack of them, using compliant and non-compliant equipment while also being the oldest supporter of balanced line connections in high end audio, you'd be mistaken.

Standards aren't much use if no-one pays attention to them. But try and see how well a USB cable that is non-compliant works for passing digital audio and you might understand the problem.

You might wonder how RCA Living Stereo LPs sounded as good as they did. Or Mercury Living Presence, EMI or early Decca (London). In some cases there was over 100 feet of (what would be considered by 'high end audio' standards as really terrible) microphone cable before the signal arrived at the input of the tape machine. Yes, all cables act as filters so if you apply filter theory to a cable you then design a system that prevents cable colorations in the audio range. Besides AES48, one of the techniques is low impedance operation. In the old days of tubes line level standard was 600 Ohms. For microphones (like my Neumann U67s) the standard might be only 150 Ohms.

(...) (I knew Robert Fulton, the guy who more than anyone else founded the high end audio cable industry back in the 1970s).

A side question - did Robert Fulton focus on other aspects than gauge in his speaker cables? I always thing about the FM Acoustics Forcelines when I read about him.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

this is another version of the language is corrupt and virtually meaningless. Neutral? Accurate? Musical? Organic? Uncolored? etc. what these words mean is totally dependent on who is using them.

There are definitions for these words. It is their usage that is corrupted among audiophiles. Just putting these 5 in the same bag is evidence of that.

The fact that every show there are more cable suppliers reinforces the notion that cables are not the same and neutral is what they all claim to be.

It may reinforce that "notion" but it is hard evidence of successful marketing and sales.