Yes, thank you.
@BobBJC & @rower30 - I just got my 3ft OCC IC for BHK PRE to BHK 300s to replace the library 5ft OCC IC you were so cool to loan me for a few months. The 5ft pair is in the mail tomorrow. Listening to Peter White for the first CD and they sound just as great as the 5ft. The quality is first rate! Galen and the Iconoclast team: thanks for helping me realize my PSA SQ capabilities. I am humbled!
Bob - you rock cause you get it done, day in and day out… welcome to the PSA family.
Galen - thanks for fighting the resistance for 3 years, you are a pro.
6 Likes
Thank you sir!!
1 Like
I just learned that the specs make the 4x1 XLR cable suitable for AES. So now I’m interested as well as I’m still experimenting with the connection between my DMP and Lyngdorf 3400.
Best SQ so far I get with AES using a quite long (approx. 3 meters) Apogee Wyde Eye. Better then the 0.5 meter solid core Oyaide S/PDIF (terminated with Xhadow plugs) I had been using before.
Although the 3400 is equipped with HDMI also, they don’t say anything about I2S compatibility, so that is probably not an option for me. So AES is the way to go and my current solution could probably still be optimized, but not for a lunatic prize of cause.
So, the Iconoclast may be it?!
Which variant in this case (to not get overkill…)?
And what length? There are claims that a 75 or 110 Ohm connection must not be shorter than 1,5 meters…
Thanks for any insight!
Good Morning,
I would go with a 5’, 1X4 in TPC copper.
1 Like
AES/EB has a pretty wide impedance spec of 115 +/-15 ohms, and ICONOCLAST 4x1 XLR is 100 ohms nominal 101670/12x86) = 99.6 ohms.
Digital can’t have an analog wave “shaped” by the superposition of the EM wave, so copper draw composition (TPC, OFHC, OFE and UPOCC) isn’t theoretically critical. What is, is raw R, L and C.
This all means that the ICONOCLAST GEN 1 (designed for AES/EBU and analog, both) in TPC is the right initial answer. The cable had to overlay both the analog and digital with current size considerations for studio NEUTRIK XLR connectors.
The GEN II RCA and XLR is AUDIO only. It in no way benefits digital. This is why it is a 75 nominal impedance target cable, 101670/17 x 86 = 69 ohms. Audio uses 47K-ohms as the termination impedance, so the cable impedance is not as critical.The majority of the signal voltge drops across the load end, not the cable, the higher and higher the load impedance is.
1 Like
In another thread I believe you stated that for analog audio, unbalanced RCA cables had the possibility of sounding better than balanced XLRs in certain conditions.
Does that apply to digital also?
Thanks for that explanation.
What about the influence of cable lenght, as described here? spdif
It should not since digital has error correction, where analog is a superposition of all the noise as we go. Digital tosses the noise. An RCA or a XLR should form the exact same bit stream into the filters, where all the “analog” type stuff is starting to happen. Well, that ignores the upfront approximations on bit depth (antialiasing error putting the “point” at the right magnitude and frequency / jitter) and frequency (time slicing the signal up into smaller pieces).
Best,
Galen
1 Like
The cable needs to be long enough for ten or so wavelengths to couple to be a waveguide. Some systems even need additional ATTENUATION to absorb RL reflctions of the load. That ten wavelength approximation is assuming we have an ideal cable and load, we don’t.
There will be signal reflections of the load that are best attenuated out. A longer cable may be better. It isn’t always shorter with digital, true.
In the digital domain, comparing ASEBU signals to SPDIF (balanced connectors to rca) is not as simple as in the analog domain. The signals are different transmission protocols, not just differential as with analog.
The qualities of the respective outputs will have more effect than the type of cables. A lot of manufacturers do not invest much in their ASEBU outputs and inputs because they are not used very often. When engineered and implemented to their respective maximum capabilities ASEBU almost always outperforms SPDIF.
…not just…?
We need to be more concerned with what we don’t know that compartmentlizing away what we think we do with statements that erode the true complexity of any situation. We are afraid of what we don’t understand, so we belittle it with what we think we do.
What I just said, is that analog and digital are never…“not just” or even close.
They are both the best wrong answers to very complex non linear problems. What does outperform even mean? Technically there is no such thing as out performs until “we” decide what is favored over other attributes. What can be WORSE to make something else BETTER is why we have the best wrong answers. Let’s not kid ourselves on that point.
So is S/PDIF worse or better than AES/EBU standard? Well, one uses a far simpler cable for true signal transmission. A coaxial cable is still the most pure EM wave mover we know of. The other uses a very complex “balanced” (a best wrong answer if there ever was one) cable system that is as close to a mirror image as we can get, and is specifically designed to mitigate NOISE. The EM wave is not seeing near the same cable through it’s length.
You are correct, that the I/O that feeds the cable is also part of “outperforms”. To say one system is better than the other (pick signal or noise, theoretically you don’t get both) will be decided by the errors in theI/O and cable, both. That’s a much more complex situation than “just” anything.
AES/EBU is usually a tugher option since we can have passive (transformer) or active stage. Both have issues. But if you need to mitigate NOISE the errors aren’t as critical addressing that as they are for the signal, though.
Digital AES/EBU balanced can tolerate a lot of noise by design. Here it “outperforms” for sure. If ACR, Attenuation to Cross Talk Ratio is high, a simpler system has fewer best wrong answers built-in.
I’m going to take each system one at a time since we don’t have the same level of approximations (a term engineers use to describe how close to right, or how much wrong we are) a system used.
Theory is great, and we can define “outperforms” but we all use what we have. That might not line-up with theory. That’s the part that “just” tends to overlook.
Galen
2 Likes
Used cables from a trusted authorized dealer taken in trade, then auditioned in your home system for a couple of weeks is the best way to buy high quality, well made cables. That is the only way I was able to acquire $4,200MRP Tara Labs RSC Air Evolution 8 foot speaker cables. And from a long time cable doubter, in my system (BHK300 monoblocks, Audio Research LS28 preamp, Focal Sopra No.2 loudspeakers), they do make a difference and are worth every penny of the $1,700 I paid for them.
I did not mean to offend you Galen. I am not an Engineer, and I do not speak the language. What I meant but my “not just” sentence was a simple explanation of single ended vs balanced analog signals that are similar. You can essentially take half of a balanced signal and make a single ended signal. Again, a very simple explanation. I was trying to explain it in a manner the inquirer would understand, as close as I could to the level of his question.
The Digital signals are not comparable in that manner. My knowledge of AES/EBU v S/PDIF is over 20 years old, standards and practices might have matured a bit. You cannot take half of and AES/EBU signal and make a S/PDIF signal, it will not work. At least it would not when I was selling audio equipment in the 90’s. Back then AES/EBU was rated for wider bandwidth and there were no “inexpensive” parts available to manufacturers because it was not that popular.
I was once given an explanation along these lines:
When designing and building a given piece of equipment, choices and compromises that can affect sound quality are made, even in the most expensive equipment. Using the single ended and balanced issue.
If a DAC or Source product manufacturer is considering having both S/PDIF and AES/EBU interfaces the cost and level of difficulty will be affected by the quality of the respective interfaces. If they chose to just included one of the interfaces, they can include a better interface than if they do both.
Same goes with a preamp. If both balanced and singled ended interfaces are included, the equipment will either be roughly twice as expensive, or half as good. (once again an over simplification.) Imagine if balanced was the standard, and no one had to put money into the single ended interfaces. The equipment could be optimized for the balanced signals.
Respectfully,
hlg3
No, you didn’t offend me at all. We agree, half as good or twice as expensive pretty much does it.
You can take half a balanced for unbalanced but you better not use a balanced cable doing it. Poor single ended shield and added cap aren’t something you want to pay MORE for. Each cable is unique for their purposes.
Galen
1 Like
I was not referring to cable design, go beyond gauge and material and you loose me.
I was speaking about the interfaces and the signals they send.
My favorite manufacturers representative back in the day was Dave Nauber, then with Madrigal (Mark Levinson.) He is an engineer who can talk all the theory, engineering, production and translate it to normal speak. He is with Classe now, or at least what is left of it.
…Imagine if balanced was the standard, and no one had to put money into the single ended interfaces…
This is a tough one as single ended is optimized for signal purity (best TEM WAVE system we have) and XLR balanced is optimized for noise immunity. Since balanced has two legs to be made electrically perfect, as well as multiple ground plane reference in the cable it is harder to manage signal purity.
If we have a local and low impedance ground system, we don’t need XLR, or the higher cost so some people will complain that they are paying a premium for a feature that doesn’t impact them (noise).
The I/O and cable BOTH are tougher to make balanced. RCA has a place in “local” run audio as it can be so good and cost far less.
This is true for digital balanced (like Ethernet) or analog balanced, too. Still the same fundamental systems in place for each.
Best,
Galen
Someone mentioned a flexible covering that can be used to slip over, to cover cables. I can’t remember where that was or the name of the material. Any suggestions? I’d like to change the color of my cables.
techflex
Parts Connexion