Acoustic Research Component cables? (1 Viewer)

[Mark Rich]

NatL

IMO the Belden 1695a is a worthy step-up. Great shielding and Teflon insulation. Its also more flexible than the 1694a. If funds are tight I don't think you will be left wanting with the 1694a though. The next best thing would be Gepco cable (avcable.com) or Canare L-5cfb (Heartland or BlueJeans etc.).

Rich,

I have tried solid core coax cable for audio and did not like the results. Exaggerated midrange and boomy bass. The L-5cfb is great for video but not so great for audio. It uses tinned copper for the shield which is not the ideal when mixed with foamed PE. If you can find someone who sells audio cables using Belden 89259 its much better. It uses stranded 22 awg bare copper core, Teflon insulation, Bare copper braid and a Teflon jacket.Superior materials IMO.

 

[NatL]

Mark - thanks for the advice. I somehow had the impression that Belden 1695a was really only better for longer runs. I will go with the Rhino performace for Component video cables.

I'm more interested in making the right investment for the long term right now instead of saving the couple extra dollars. That said, this will still save me $50 over the Silver Serpents.

I will also grab a 1M Rhino standard digital coax while I am at it. The web site does not really specify the difference between them and their performance line, though?

N

 

[Ron Reda]

Thanks for the cable information, Fellas...it was very helpful.

I too am looking to replace my 2M Monster Video 2 component cables and am willing to spend up to $150 on a set. I have had good luck with a few of the companies listed (Cable Solutions off eBay and Bolder Cables), but it has been with their respective audio cables (which have both performed wonderfully).

I'd like to choose from either Cable Solutions, Bolder Cables, Cat Cables and Better Cables.

So, for 2M lengths, is it worth the extra money to go with the Belden 1695a-based cable or should I stick with the 1694a?

Also, I have noticed that no one has really chimed in on the Silver Serpents from Better Cables...how do they compare?

Last question...will the cable offerings from any of the companies I've listed above pretty much toast my current Monster cables?

BTW, the cables are for DVD only (no HDTV application just yet)...

 

[Mark Rich]

NatL,

The standard Rhino digital cable uses belden 1695a, Canare connectors with an added braided shield. The performance series is the full Jon Rische recipe and uses a ceramic disc capacitor to further aid in RFI rejection. Its the same digital coax that Bolder sells but for less money. If you can afford it I'd go with the Performance series.

This is a very, very good digital coax cable that makes a nice DIY project if you are handy.

Ron,

The Bettercables SS has a good reputation and first class customer service but are a little expensive. Cat has gotten a very good reputation for their audio cables but not sure about their video. Little too boutique for me but to each their own. The Bolder video cable IMO is way overpriced. I'm sure its very well made (Bolder has a great reputation) but it can be had for less from Rhino (think its their premium series)and from others. I'd go with the Belden 1695a but thats just my opinion. I think you will do well with either of your choices.

I'd say that even the Belden 1694a will smoke your Monsters All the specs are available at the Belden web site. Think I read in one of the home theater magazines that THX's ranch uses it for their digital applications. If its good enough for THX, CNN and others....

 

[JJR512]

Steve-AZ, YGPM.

 

[Calvin S]

Any thoughts or specs on the Phoenix Gold brand of component cables? I bought them before I was an active user of this website, otherwise I'd have probably bought one of the brands mentioned here. So, I'm wondering how they compare. Crutchfield sells this brand now, although I didn't buy them from there.

 

[Bill_Weinreich]

So, for 2M lengths, is it worth the extra money to go with the Belden 1695a-based cable or should I stick with the 1694a?

There is VERY little differences between these two cables (characteristically) beside the fact that the 1695A uses a Teflon jacket for plenum rating and the 1694A uses pvc. The 1695 does edge out the 1694 for longer runs with less attenuation at higher frequencies but that point is moot on a 2M run.

Bill

 

[Chu Gai]

well capacitance will be less with the teflon but you can have reasonably high capacitance in a short run and still not roll off any high frequencies.

 

[Ron Reda]

OK, so I'll go with the Belden 1695A...now what about connectors/terminations or is it all about preference?

 

[Yee-Ming]

I've been considering getting some decent cables as interconnects for my universal player to receiver: I'm currently using the freebie stuff that comes in the various boxes, in various permutations: one 3-strand actually for L/R audio + composite video, one 2-strand for L/R audio, and a single which was actually for monitor-out from receiver to TV :b

Research on HTF (and another Singapore-focused forum) leads me to conclude that I should go with Belden cables and Canare RCA plugs. Apart from the glowing review on HTF, one additional reason is that there's a shop here where the owner will custom-build cables for you from these materials, and his prices seem reasonable, e.g. Belden 89259 for S$9/m, 1694a for S$4.50/m, Canare RCA crimp-on at S$7 each, so I can actually purchase these. And apparently if you buy crimp-ons, he'll assemble at no extra charge (modest charge for any soldering work though).

Mark, is Belden 89259 that much better than 1695a? Most have sung the praises of Belden, but apart from yourself and Jon Risch's website, no one's actually plumped for 89259 rather than "plain old" 1695a (or for that matter 1694a). And to be clear, some seem to suggest that 89259 is for use as a video cable or digital interconnect, I'm looking to use it as audio analog interconnect from a universal player to receiver. Is this all right?

As for Canare RCA plugs, is there just one, or are there different "grades"? Ploughing through 4 pages of thread- hits in my research doesn't seem to have given me the answer to this.

Any and all help much appreciated.

 

[Bob McElfresh]

Until Mark shows up, I'll tackle a few of these:

As for Canare RCA plugs, is there just one, or are there different "grades"?

Canare only makes 1 style/grade of RCA plug. There are different model numbers to fit the different sizes of coax. Your builder will have in stock the right plugs to fit the coax he uses.

 

[Yee-Ming]

I went ahead and got a pair of interconnects built with Belden 89259, and another pair with Belden 1694a, both pairs terminated with Canare RCAs.

I seem to hear a little improvement in treble detail with both of these over the cheapo freebie cables, but that's about it. Bass still seems a little disappointing. for instance, swapping CD playing between digital, so the interconnects don't come into play as the receiver is doing the DAC, and analog, shows improved bass when the receiver does DAC rather than the player. But of course that might have to do with the player v. receiver's DACs.

Any suggestions as to Belden cables that do better with bass?

 

[Chu Gai]

no chance that the sound levels were different when you did the swapping leading to the perceived differences?

 

[Yee-Ming]

Unscientifically dealt with, on digital connection it's a fair bit louder than on analog connections, and I have to turn it down. Even after turning down, bass seems better on digital connections than analog.

Bass seems weak at low to moderate levels, but all right at louder levels. Is there some psychosomatic reason behind this? Or actual scientific reason?

 

[Chu Gai]

One of the benefits of dealing with matters carefully and scientifically is that it allows the individual to make more accurate evaluations. And also, it allows one to come to some honest appraisals of often repeated statements such as "well it sounds different because it's using that DAC or this DAC or because it's in bypass mode, etc." Just because something is repeated and repeated quite often, does not mean it is correct.

Now I don't know how you set about approximating setting the volumes to be equal. If you did it by ear, that's no good. If by a Sound Pressure Meter, that's also no good...better than the ear, but still inadequate. One needs to use a multimeter to set the levels using both sources to be identical at the speaker terminals. The easiest way to do that is to have done something like recorded a test tone on a CD say at 1 kHz and then use that to set the voltages at the speaker terminals to be the same. At that point, provided you can enlist the aid of a friend to do the switching and you, the listener are unaware of which source is being played, can you make a truly honest and unbiased assessment.

To my knowledge, no one who has gone through that effort has been able to reliably distinguish between digital and analogue especially in the context of your efforts. With regards to your evaluations of the two cables, even compared to the stock items, I'm not especially surprised. It's of interest to note, that people have passed a digital signal with no errors...none...using just a coathanger.

However, there are possible explanations why the bass just may seem better on the digital some real, some imagined.

1) it really is better. that could be confirmed by determining the frequency response of your player. it involves work though such as creating a CD with test tones...playing them...measureing the output at the speaker terminals...constructing a crude FR plot. as to why this might happen with analogue has to do with the use of capacitors called coupling capacitors, generally electrolytic, that have begun to dry out affecting the FR. the solution, apart from replacing them, is simply to run digital be it coax or toslink.

2) the output levels really weren't the same leading to a percieved improvement that's solely based upon relative output levels.

3) they really are the same by some coincidence, but your advanced knowledge of what's being played has subconciously influeneced your opinion.

4) you're listening differently. consider that one doesn't listen by remembering every last little thing they heard. hearing is what's known as a lossy process and depending upon how he listen, affects the way we process the information.

As to why you like the bass better when the overall sound level is louder just has to do with your preferences and the way you hear. Receivers back in the old days and even today, came with loudness switches, such that when one was listening to low volumes, kicking the switch in would boost the low and high frequencies. This way our ears think the sound is of equal loudness. If you don't have one, try fiddling with your tone controls to see if this is better.

I imagine we could go on and on with this. As to whether you wish accept this or reject it, is entirely up to you. Certainly you've been presented with approaches that you can take to arrive at an unbiased objective decision. Some may say it takes the fun out of audio. Well what fun is it spending good money where none need be spent? Life is full of lessons, the question is what's the cost before a lesson is learned.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Whew, shades of the "heavy" subjectionist v. objectionist debate which I believe you got imbroiled in some time ago (I read some of it, but obviously never contributed since I know very little on this subject).

I can certainly see the merits of what you're saying about carefully matching outputs etc, but as you've pointed out, it's going to take a lot of effort, certainly more than seems worthwhile on a relatively modest set-up like mine.

Edit: Oops, should have read "subjectiveist v. objectiveist". My bad. But obviously Mr Chu figured out what I meant.

 

[Chu Gai]

Well Yee, you can always get some books or look up articles on acoustics. Perhaps available somehow through your local library. I don't know...maybe you've outgrown your system...maybe you need a different, more powerful sub. But the magic's not in the cables and there's a lot of people buying things, that while 'technically' better, don't translate to audible improvements or differences. All that does is make you poorer.

 

[Matt_Doug]

So lets start with the incontravertable.

1. copper is the most economical conductor so the purer the better.

2. the more shielding the better which usually means braid and foil.

3. for video; 75ohm impedance througout is necessary for optimal transmission which usually means rg6 cable with Bayonet (BNC) or 75ohm type rca connectors.

4. crimp connections are generally better than solder.

5. teflon is the industry standard insulation of choice.

6. for long distances the lowest capicitance specs is best.

Except for ac cables (my vice is power conditioning)

i've always used the next to cheapest the dealer had in hand and was willing to discount. Which turned out to be Audioquest for analog audio, digital audio and composite video(sidewinder & vsd1) And AR pro series for component video. My $.02.

 

[Chu Gai]

1) it's hard not to get OFC copper. anything other than that...4 9's, single crystal, polished, directionally drawn is irrelevant.

2) dbl shielding is generally fine, but quad or other shielding is cheap enough too...

3) depends on the length but 75 ohm is cheap enough. for typical lengths even RG59 is overkill but has the advantage of being smaller/lighter/more maneuverable and possibly putting less strain. don't know if this bigger thing is related to 'manliness' but i'm sure a partially convincing argument could be made for it.

4) 6 of one. you're probably right for DIY.

5) only if you want the lowest capacitance then yes teflon or various degrees of foamed teflon will do that. however, using polyethylenes or polypropylenes won't penalize you that much and it's probably 10X or more cheaper. either way a difference in video would be supremely difficult to establish. likely the connection you made might be the limiting factor.

6) it's got to be super duper long.

hehehe...we all have vices.

got to squeeze the dealer...like asking for floor mats and a years worth of oil changes just before you decide to sign for a new car. makes ya feel better!

 

[Yee-Ming]

Heh. I'm now tempted to simply get one more pair, since I now have on hand 4 of these nice Belden/Canare interconnects, to finish the "set" for 5.1 input and be done with it. Trying too hard in critical listening seems to me to detract from simply enjoying the music, you're just fretting about sound quality, rather than music quality, if you take my meaning.

Would a slight length differential be an issue? The current 4 are 1.5m long (since 1m was going to be a bit short -- my digital coax is 1m and it's pulled taut), but they're a bit long-ish and getting in the way. I was thinking of getting 1.2m to complete the lot, assuming that I can't now modify the 1.5m lengths.

IIRC, electrons travel down the cable at practically c, the speed of light, so realistically 0.3m isn't going to affect timing, and might only very marginally affect signal strength and therefore volume?