TLDR (I’m very long-winded): this YT video took measurements of three different audio cables, including a 200€ one, and found differences where there should be none. My physics knowledge (and general consensus among the scientific community) says the measurements of the different cables should be identical or near-identical — or I am, at least, under that impression. My own measurements, because the channel does provide the files, confirm that the expensive 200€ cable does measure differently from the others. But surely something else must be causing this? Please help me find out what that is, Lemmy!

Edit: see this and this other excellent comment.

Below, I go into a little more detail and context, and I go through what I have tried, etc.; I tried splitting everything up into chunks to make it easier to read, but I was never good at being succinct. Sorry about that 😬 :P

Context: What Am I Talking About?

Firstly, I should clarify that this isn’t relevant to most people, only really physics and audio-technology nerds. But I’m desperate. This question has been tormenting me for days…

I should provide some context. For some reason, YouTube gave me a rather odd video suggestion. I am very interested in audio technology, mixing, and mastering, but I’m not a snake-oil audiophile type. I guess you could call me a lover-of-audio, e.g., audiophile, but I don’t attach myself to that community. So you can imagine my confusion when this video was suggested to me on YouTube.

For anyone unwilling to click on an ambiguous YT link like that, here is a brief description: audiophile guy (who believes that cables affect sound) compares three cables, two of which are “cheap” (e.g., approx. 50€) and one of which is expensive (like 200€ — for a cable). His conclusion is ultimately (yes, I watched that far) that they don’t really affect sound, because they’re just interconnects (so RCA cables), and not speaker or power cables. But he actually records each cable and provides those music files — which means I can compare them as well…

By “records each cable,” I mean that he used each cable to connect a CD-player to a pre-amp (for some reason) and then an analogue-to-digital convert (ADC) into his computer, where he can record the output; this way he gets just the supposed difference the cables make. I realize that the CD-player might have some inconsistencies, since CDs are a moving medium, but jitter compensation and stuff like that is very advanced these days, so this is getting pretty close to an accurate measurement of the cables, I think (correct me if I’m wrong!).

In the video, this guys claims that the measurements show a difference between the cables. This debate around cables is something I thought was quite contested, so I naturally decided to download the tracks (which he provides in the description) and compare them myself. Here’s what happened.

My Own Testing: They Don’t Null

So I downloaded his recordings, phase-aligned (which they weren’t already) everything and normalized to peak (which, again, was necessary, and creates the lowest delta compared to LUFS, etc.), and then null-tested. That means I inverted the phase of one, played two of the files at the same time, and thus got the delta between them.

The Mogami and Belden cables (the cheap ones) are nearly identical; there is a slight difference in the null-test, but it is statistically small enough, that I attribute it to measurement inconsistency (e.g., CD-player, DAC, or ADC performance, but also maybe natural conditions, etc.). I especially suspect — given that most differences occur at higher frequencies but aren’t really audible when listening — a jitter related issue, causing the timing to be just a little off, thus creating a delta in the higher frequencies. This could be due to the CD-player, but I have no idea.

…the Neotech (the expensive one), however, is significantly different.


Firstly, he provides the file for the Neotech cable with a significant phase delay compared to the others, of about 50 ms, and it is also about 0.02 db louder than the others. That is rather suspicious on his part. This alone makes it sound better, but when I correct this volume and phase difference — it still sounds better, and the null-test confirms that it is still quite different (we’re talking differences up to -40 db here, which should definitely be audible).

It turns out, the volume difference actually changes throughout the song; meaning that in some places the difference is 0.01 db, and in others 0.03 db. But I can correct for that! I don’t know why it happens (someone smarter than me, please explain), but I can correct for it… And yet, the null test still shows a clear difference (especially when the singer makes s-sounds, i.e., sibilance).

Please Help Me

What is going on? My physics knowledge tells me this should be impossible. I can only imagine that for some reason the Neotech is more conductive, or something like that, and therefore recreates the harsh and very fast dynamics of sibilance more accurately. (edit: crossed out because this is a little too ridiculous) But the difference in conductivity should not be enough to cause that… I really am confused. Someone with more expertise please explain this!

For context, I cannot blind test ABX the Neotech. I cannot hear any difference whatsoever. This is very subtle stuff here. But I can see a difference, the null test shows differences as high as -45 db when the singer does those s-sounds and everything has been normalized. So clearly something is happening (and again, this is phase aligned and normalized and everything). So what could it possibly be?


Edit: here, for clarity, screenshots of the null test at different moments in the tracks from the youtube vid (here nulling between the magomi and neotech).

Normal part of song, no sibilance or cymbals, but otherwise singing, piano, bass guitar, drums, etc.: insignificant delta

When the singer creates sibilance with an s-sound: huge delta

The null test was performed in the Reaper DAW with Voxengo SPAM and Reaper’s built-in phase align, normalization, and phase inversion.


Lemmy, please show me what I have missed! Show me the obvious error I or the video creator made. Sorry to make such a long post on c/asklemmy, but I don’t know where else to ask.

  • FBJimmy@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I suspect you haven’t missed anything and the audio tracks provided have been either inadvertently or deliberately manipulated by some other factor unrelated to the RCA cables.

    For context, I’m an Elecronics Engineer with a Masters Degree and 17 years industry experience in a mix of RF and Pro Audio product design, including designing high spec audio converters for both studio and test and measurement use.

    Apart from something extraordinarily badly designed, broken or dirty, there is no plausible reason why a cable carrying a signal with no significant current and no high frequency components can have any effect on that signal - high frequency audio is approximately DC in the wider scope of Electronics Engineering.

    That answer doesn’t suite people trying to get rich selling ridiculous cables though.

    • Übercomplicated@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Thank you!

      I suspect you haven’t missed anything and the audio tracks provided have been either inadvertently or deliberately manipulated by some other factor unrelated to the RCA cables.

      This is very, very possible, especially given that the measurements were hardly taken scientifically or with video evidence. And that suspicious pre-amp…

      Apart from something extraordinarily badly designed, broken or dirty, there is no plausible reason why a cable carrying a signal with no significant current and no high frequency components can have any effect on that signal - high frequency audio is approximately DC in the wider scope of Electronics Engineering.

      This has been and still is my understanding, but the video just freaked me out a little, as it makes very tall claims about it’s magical measurements. But it’s good to get the reality confirmed by an expert, thank you!

      That answer doesn’t suite people trying to get rich selling ridiculous cables though.

      Yeah, I’m still a little in shock that the weird cable costs $200… how can people take that seriously when cables for $5 sound identifical in blind testing??

    • FBJimmy@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      (speaker calbles almost warrant a debate due to the currents and the reactive load, but the smartest people I knew in the field would just use domestic mains cable for this as it ticked all the boxes that mattered at a low price. They’d literally connect £10k speakers.up with it!)

  • mrnobody@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I’m not reading all that, but skimming through, I see RCA cables.

    RCA is still sending analog signal, so things like cable quality are what used to matter, and don’t much anymore in the digital age… But gold-plated connectors, actual core copper being OFC not CCA, what gauge (true 16ga or a lot of cheap sheath)?, are they twisted pairs to reduce interference/cross-talk, is it shielded, what sheath material, the list goes on…

    Monster brand cable made a name for itself back in the day for having actual quality cables for the most part, so the noticeable difference in quality paid off… Anymore, again, generalizing, a digital cable is a digital cable (like HDMI) and therefore you either have signal or you don’t. No static, no interference, etc. A cheap $8 HDMI 2.1 cable on eBay will land you NEAR identical to “top” brands like audioquest shit and so on… They bank on the ideas of old where a supposed top end cable matters. So they charge a stupid premium for stupid people.

    I’ve been doing Pro AV on and off for close to 30 years, but don’t take my word for it lol. I don’t have immediate documentation or sources, just experience. And I know what works and that 99.999% of people will never know most digital cable brand differences like the analog days.