I thought I'd contribute a little DIY how-to, for your reading pleasure.

I used to work in pro audio (front of house, monitor, and live recording), and one thing about pro audio is that it uses a LOT of interconnects. Plus, bands steal them, you leave them at the performance hall, they get run over by a cart, etc. You could buy new ones all the time, or you can get good at making them.

I thought I'd share my basic unbalanced interconnect recipe, since there has been a renued interest in discussing cables.

These cables are meant to be durable, have a solid connection, reject noise, have as flat a frequency response as possible, be a reasonable price, and be relatively easy to make. They are not meant to lift veils off your speaker, add sparkle, or improve your love life. They are first and formost, a working man's cable. But when people are paying thousands for you to provide their sound, they demand high quality, so they have to be good at that too.

I like them because they feel good in the hand, are very durable, and are cheap to make. Plus, they reject noise in a very satisfactory manner, and sound as good as I've ever heard a cable sound (but beware, I don't usually hear differences in cables, unless something is wrong with them).

The cable is Canare Star Quad, specifically L-4E6S. Star Quad cable has four 24 gauge stranded OFC conductors inside, two blue, and two white, all in a 'quadruple helix' twist. Each has its own insulator. Around all this is a braided copper shield with >95% coverage, and then a matte outer insulator that comes in a number of delightful colors. It is 6mm in diameter.

The connectors are Canare F-09 RCA connectors with springy strain relief. They are a narrow profile, which I like, because they fit even my more cramped components, and the brass body covers the 'leaves' of the RCA outer conductor, to protect them. The signal conductor is solid brass, and all connective points are gold plated. They also have a nice crimping clamp inside. The F-10 connectors are nice too, they are a bit fatter, and have a bit nicer machining on the leaves. They also cost a little more. They would both make good choices.

My only other addition is some red and clear heat shrink tube, and some printouts from my computer. I don't use Tech-flex, though you are welcome to do so! It is nice stuff, but doesn't really add anything but sex appeal to your cables. Even in a pro environment, the Canare Star Quad had plenty of durability. Of course, don't let me stop you! Its not that expensive, it comes in a gillion colors, and feels good in the hand.

On to the cables!

Star Quad is nice, because there are a lot of ways to use it. However, for unbalanced interconnects, the best way is to tie the two blue conductors together, and use them as the signal ground, then tie the two white conductors together, and use them as the signal. Then connect the shield to the signal ground at one end only (preventing a ground loop).

For balanced XLR connections, tie the shield to pin 1, the two whites to pin 2 (as the positive signal line) and the blues to pin 3 (as the negative signal line). Leave the connector chassis floating. In this balanced configuration, you can run low level signals hundreds of feet, along power cables, and still get a crystal clear output. I'd put it against any other cable for this configuation.

Noise rejection isn't so good with unbalanced interconnects, but star quad still helps. The double twisted pairs results in a cable with vanishingly low inductance and series resistance, though modestly high capacitance (compared to other cables). However, for an interconnect, I feel that low inductance is more important than low capacitance. The low inductance and full shield means it rejects RF and EM interference quite nicely. Being nearly silent around SCR type dimmers (a massive source of interference) is one of Star Quad's claims to fame.

http://audiokarma.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10712&stc=1

Here are the connectors, and the cable.

http://audiokarma.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10713&stc=1

Slide the pieces over the cable. If you forget this step, you'll be mad at yourself!! I've slipped over a clear piece of heat shrink with a slip of paper from my computer under it. It says 'source', because conventionally, the side of the interconnect that has its ground tied to the shield goes to the source of the audio. If you mix it up, its not a real problem, but this is the best practice. Then is a piece of red heat shrink tube, to indicate that this is the right channel of a stereo pair. Then the connector chassis, and the springy strain relief.

I don't cover my connectors in heat shrink, though some people like to. I buy the cheaper 2:1 heat shrink, which doesn't shrink enough for that process, and it makes it hard to disassemble the interconnects later for reconfiguration. Also, it makes them wider, and I bought narrow for a reason. But again, if you like the look, don't let me stop you!

Also shown on the table, the core of the connector.

http://audiokarma.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10714&stc=1

Strip back about a half inch of the main insulator. Pull the shield down a bit, and snip it down the center. Pull off any stray bits of shield, and twist the remaining shield around to the side.

Strip back most of the blues, and twist them to the shield. Then strip back just a little bit of the whites, and twist them together.

The blues/shield bundle will go through the hole in the connector, and the white bundle will go to the center conductor.

http://audiokarma.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10715&stc=1

I put the cable into place, and give the crimp a squeeze with my fingers to hold it steady. Place the white wires into place, and solder them in. I use basic 60/40 rosin core solder.

Note, a 10$ hobby vice from http://www.harborfreighttools.com makes this job about a million times easier. :)

http://audiokarma.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10716&stc=1

Flip it over, fold the shield/blue wire bundle backwards and flush, and then solder it on, make sure you get a good solid adhesion to the chassis.

Crimp down the cable grabby crimp with some pliers. Don't go nuts, or it'll tear through the insulation, just give it a gentle squeeze from a few angles so it gets a good grip.

Not shown, a small wrap of electrical tape around the crimp helps the springy strain relief stay in place without wiggling.

Once they are soldered, gently bend the chassis if necessary to make it straight, and then slide the outer body up, and screw it into place. To get it firm, I grab the center pin with some duck bill mini-pliers (with no teeth), so I can get a grip. But don't go too tight, just enough to hold it in place.

http://audiokarma.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10717&stc=1

Heat the heat shrink tubing to cause it to, uh, shrink. I use a lighter (very gently), but a heat gun is the most appropriate tool. The 'source' label is down the cable a bit, to keep it from interfering with the cable flexibility at the end.

There, one side is done!

http://audiokarma.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10718&stc=1

The next side is a bit different... This time we aren't tying the shield to the blue wires. Strip back the same amount of cable as before, but this time, snip off all the shield. A quick wrap of electrical tape prevents any remaining bits of shield from making connection.

Solder the connection together as before, making sure you don't melt off the electrical tape you carefully laid in place.

Crimp the connector, twist on the body (that I hope you remembered to slide over before soldering!!), and enjoy!

http://audiokarma.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10719&stc=1

A finished 2 meter pair. They aren't the sexiest cables in the world, but they have a good design, good parts, and they'll treat you right.

Final specs:
Capacitance: 150 pF / meter
DC Resistance: < .098 ohms / meter
Attenuation: .003 V / meter
Group Delay: 5.9 nS / meter
Nominal Impedance: 44 ohms

I got my parts from Markertek, http://www.markertek.com, a broadcast and pro audio supply house.

The connectors were 2.19$ each, and the cable was $0.36 per foot. The final price, for a 1 meter stereo pair: $10.92

The heat shrink I already had around, but it is just a few dollars for a four foot section, so just pennies per interconnect.

How do they sound??? Well.. They don't! Not to me, at least. They are very clean, reject noise very well, and make the component sound like I think it should. Really cheap cables sound bad, these cables sound like nothing. Like a cable should. :)

Will it beat fancy cables costing gillions more? I dunno! But it does have some good solid engineering behind it, so I think it has a least a fighting chance. ;) These connectors and cables are used by many high end manufacturers, and are sold by the gillions to the more lazy pro audio companies. Quite a number of HiFi interconnects use the same cable as well, hidden beneath the pretty tech-flex.

I'm going to submit a pair to the Cable Swap, as well, so people can give them a try alongside their other cables, and alongside the other fine cables in the Swap.

Hope you've enjoyed reading my incredibly long winded explanation of how I make bits of wire on my coffee table while watching a movie (made 10 interconnects during "Howl's Moving Castle", so not too bad).

peace,
sam

Can't wait to try them Sam - did you get my email?

Thanks for supporting the cable swap program!

Very nice "write-up" Sam.
They sure look dang nice for the price.
Thanks for taking the time for the pictures and links, etc... :thmbsp:

Glad to see these...I have also done alot of pro sound over the years and these are almost identical to cables I have made or used. Definitely old school! :D I have also used good 75 ohm solid copper core and copper or tinned copper shielded coax for the same purpose to good effect.

Very nice write up indeed, Thanks!

GREAT post Sam! Awesome read.

Glad to see these...I have also done alot of pro sound over the years and these are almost identical to cables I have made or used. Definitely old school! :D I have also used good 75 ohm solid copper core and copper or tinned copper shielded coax for the same purpose to good effect.

Yup, anyone in the pro circuit has seen a few of these before. ;) Like I said, a real workin' man's cable.

Good point on the coax! I forgot to mention it:

I sometimes make cable with Canare L-4CFB (also available from http://www.markertek.com), its an RG59 type coaxial cable, tinned copper braid shield plus a foil sub-shield, PTFE insulation, and a solid center conductor. It has lower capacitance, and is a little cheaper than starquad (only $0.23 per foot), but has a harder time rejecting noise, and doesn't feel as nice in the hand, or lay as well along the floor, so I don't use it much for regular interconnects. It is, however, a great choice for lower noise environs, and it has a nice solid OFC center conductor. I DO use it to make coaxial digital cables because the lower capacitance is more important for a digital signal (made one last night).

I use the same connectors, and the same basic process. The center pin is the signal, and the shield is connected to ground at both sides. If there is a desire, I could send one of my coaxial digital cables to the swap as well.

peace,
sam

PS Hmm, can't find your email, russ! Hmm, even the spam filter didn't seem to eat it... Resend, if you would? sam at flexistentialist dot org

Very nice post Sam, I'll be referring to this when I get around to building my own cables.

Thanks!

Thanks for the info on the interconnects. Just what I was looking for.

I am thinking this is good enough to make a sticky out of! So there it be!

A very informative and detailed thread!

I started a thread several months ago looking for suggestions and/or recipies on how to make good quality IC's... and AK'er Leestereo posted a very similar recipie using Canare products, but unfortunately his photos disapppeared whith the server crash in the fall of 2005.

Here is the link to the original thread http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=37480

Ahh, Leestereo's got about the same method! Of course, he uses the whites for ground, and the blues for signal... Sacreligious!! ;)

Like I said, this isn't my magical mystery design, its just a good ole' pro interconnect. There are probably a gillion of them floating around out there, languishing in the drawer of an anvil case, rattling its way across the nation in the back of a truck, to be hooked up by a greasy man who had a line of coke and a shot of gin for breakfast, to carry a signal receiving many levels of amplification, before being blasted out to thousands of eager fans. Plus, I use them in my stereo. ;)

peace,
sam

This design was one of the very first DIY interconnects I ever did, about 15 years ago!

A local parts house carried the Canare wire and connectors...they were a big step up in quality both in what they were constructed from and how they sounded over the ubiquitous Radio Shack cheapa** gold ended cables...man those things have some of the thinnest gold flashing I've ever seen! The Canare plugs, OTOH, were very nicely made and to this day have not turned green or black, again unlike the RadShack junque...

One suggestion is to use the Canare F-10 instead of the F-9, the F-10 uses PTFE vs. Polyacetyl:
Canare Audio Plugs (http://www.canare.com/index.cfm?objectid=BB083776-3048-7098-AF5DA43EE99C3A24)
That is if you have the space for the slightly larger barrel...and the insulation holds up better if you decide to change cable material and resolder...Polyacetyl melts fairly easily, the PTFE, well, it's Teflon...and it seems to have a slightly cleaner sound...

After the Canare, I switced to DH Labs Silversonic BL-1, much better, cleaner, clearer, less grunge, not too expensive...My Martin Logans really showed up the limitations of the Canare cables and the Monster Cable M 2.4 speaker cables, so back in 1997 I ordered a bunch of the BL-1 and T-14 to rewire my system...
DH Labs BL-1 (http://www.silversonic.com/docs/products/BL1.html)
About $3.50 per foot....

Today, for relatively inexpensive flexible interconnects I prefer using Cardas 2X21.5 ga. Twinlink, as it has a cleaner, more extended sound than most others and is pretty darn grunge free....also about $3.50 a foot, from Michael Percy...I've used WBT 0147's:
http://www.partsexpress.com/images/093-516m.jpg
and the Dayton version:
http://www.partsexpress.com/images/091-1270m.jpg
PE RCA (http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=091-1270)

Along with the Canare F-10 and Cardas plugs

Both the DH and Cardas cables have shields that you treat the same way as the Canare, that is, floating at one end...

One of my favorite budget recipes is to take Andrew Heliax FSJ1-50 or FSJ2-50 and make JPS clones from them...the FSJ1 is 1/4" "Hardline" coax; this is a corrugated tubular copper shield with a copper clad aluminum center conductor...the FSJ-2 is 3/8"....it's really simple, just terminate the stuff like any other coax...to cut the outer jacket and shield I use an X-acto razor knife...just deeply score the copper until it can be snapped off....then clean the foam insulation off the center conductor.

Note: DO NOT SCORE THE COPPER CLADDING ON THE CENTER CONDUCTOR WHEN REMOVING THE FOAM INSULATION. If you do, it will never sound right. I use my thumbnail or a piece of styrene plastic, never anything like a knife or razor blade. 91% Isopropyl alchohol cleans off whatever residue is left on the center conductor....use Cardas solder for the best joint....

I used some WBT clones that I bought from someplace like MCM or Parts Express, or ? I really can't remember...
Sorry about the pop-under on this but here's a detail of the RCA plug on the Heliax:
Sorry Free Website went down, will upload later

The 1/4" stuff looks to be the same material the JPS used in their Superconductor and Superconductor + series, the 3/8" is like the Super 2....I'm currently using the 3/8 between my Audible Illusions preamp and my VTA-70i amp....

The only negatives of the Heliax based cables are that they are incredibly stiff, but once bent into position they stay, and they take 3 weeks to settle down! I have never had a set of cables YO-YO like this stuff! They start out sounding pretty good, then the next time you listen you wonder where the treble went...then the bass gets lumpy....then they go toward bright...these damn things are schizo! But, if you hang in there, after about 21 days, you'll hear their true sound...just plug 'em in, play music thru them, and let 'em rip! But be patient....

I also had used the 3/8" to make a set of bi-wire speaker cables that I used to use with my ML's, but those things were really, really stiff, and I switched to Goertz, and now I use an Ecosse CS 4.4 bi-wire cable, just because I have 'em...

Bound for Sound had a review of their speaker cables back in 1997 that said the same thing:
BFS JPS review (http://www.jpslabs.com/Reviews/BFS2-1.htm)
And another on the interconnects:
JPS Review 2 (http://www.jpslabs.com/Reviews/BFS1-1.htm)

The 1/4" is $1.75 per foot, the 3/8" is $2.75, in 50' increments from Cable Experts, but there may be other places that have smaller minimum orders...I think Cable Experts used to have a 25' minimum...oh well....a quick search of ebay also brings up several sellers of Heliax....

there's also a company in Australia that makes similar cables:
The Music Cable (http://www.the-music-cable.com/)

Another good sounding recipe that I have made, with minor modifications, is Chris VenHaus' DIY recipe (I made mine with Cardas Litz wire and Bullet plugs)
Chris VH Recipe (http://www.venhaus1.com/diysilverinterconnects.html)

One of the things that I have also learned in making cables is to use an old RCA jack to hold the plug while you solder it...this is especially good with plugs that have a plastic that softens under soldering, like the F-9's and Bullet plugs, and helps keep the center pin from deforming the insulator....

Now, if you can't hear the difference between interconnects in your system, go for the Canare and don't look back! But, if your system has the resolving power to be able to discern the subtleties between cables, or you want to play with how the different impedence/capacitance/resistance of different interconnects react in your system, then there's a whole world of experimentin' just waiting for you!

Man great post,Thank you.I have been buying Markertek interconnects sinc Balanced Audio Technology turned me on to their site. I was not sure of the correct way to make my own but now I can try it. Sam or anyone else know what crimpers and dies to get if I want to crimp them that way? Their pre-made interconnects are very reasonable and have a life time warranty,plus they will make any cable to your specs or requests but I don't know the price for this service.I know I purchased xlr-rca/w canare cable and connectors for about $11.99 for a 6'pair of cables.People that want to spend the big bucks, I think their most expensive pre- made rca interconnects are $29.99 for a 3' pair made from oxygen free Canare GS-6 cable/w SwitchCraft connectors.No $10,000.00/3 meter stuff though.

This design was one of the very first DIY interconnects I ever did, about 15 years ago!

A local parts house carried the Canare wire and connectors...they were a big step up in quality both in what they were constructed from and how they sounded over the ubiquitous Radio Shack cheapa** gold ended cables...man those things have some of the thinnest gold flashing I've ever seen! The Canare plugs, OTOH, were very nicely made and to this day have not turned green or black, again unlike the RadShack junque...

One suggestion is to use the Canare F-10 instead of the F-9, the F-10 uses PTFE vs. Polyacetyl:
Canare Audio Plugs (http://www.canare.com/index.cfm?objectid=BB083776-3048-7098-AF5DA43EE99C3A24)
That is if you have the space for the slightly larger barrel...and the insulation holds up better if you decide to change cable material and resolder...Polyacetyl melts fairly easily, the PTFE, well, it's Teflon...and it seems to have a slightly cleaner sound...

<snip>

One of the things that I have also learned in making cables is to use an old RCA jack to hold the plug while you solder it...this is especially good with plugs that have a plastic that softens under soldering, like the F-9's and Bullet plugs, and helps keep the center pin from deforming the insulator....

Now, if you can't hear the difference between interconnects in your system, go for the Canare and don't look back! But, if your system has the resolving power to be able to discern the subtleties between cables, or you want to play with how the different impedence/capacitance/resistance of different interconnects react in your system, then there's a whole world of experimentin' just waiting for you!

Yes, the F-10 connector is probably a little higher quality, but its wider and more expensive. I do have space concerns on a lot of my gear, so the narrow is the way I go! But if you have plenty of space, the F-10 is just a few cents more.

Good tip on the old RCA jack. Its been a long time since I've deformed a cable shell insulator from solder heat, but when I wasn't such a good solder'r, I did it a few times, so your tip could provide cheap insurance!

I think Canare wire and connectors have the best 'bang for the buck' of any cable or connector out there, but if I felt the need to go 'fancier', Cardas is the way I'd go. They make pretty no-nonsense wire, and generally have good engineering to back it up. You pay a premium for it though (but still nothing like the boutique wire suppliers).

peace,
sam

Man great post,Thank you.I have been buying Markertek interconnects sinc Balanced Audio Technology turned me on to their site. I was not sure of the correct way to make my own but now I can try it. Sam or anyone else know what crimpers and dies to get if I want to crimp them that way? Their pre-made interconnects are very reasonable and have a life time warranty,plus they will make any cable to your specs or requests but I don't know the price for this service.I know I purchased xlr-rca/w canare cable and connectors for about $11.99 for a 6'pair of cables.People that want to spend the big bucks, I think their most expensive pre- made rca interconnects are $29.99 for a 3' pair made from oxygen free Canare GS-6 cable/w SwitchCraft connectors.No $10,000.00/3 meter stuff though.

You should check out the Canare website to see which crimp plugs work with what cable. http://canare.com/index.cfm?objectid=69A216BB-3048-7098-AF8323D1F6933858

If you were using the L-4CFB coax that I mentioned, you'd need the RCAP-C4F crimp plug, the Canare TC1 crimping tool, and the TDC-4C crimping die.

Unfortunately, the tool and die sets are not cheap... About 75$ for the tool, and 65$ for the die. But if you are making LOTS of cable, it'll pay for itself in ease, speed, and security of connection.

peace,
sam

You should check out the Canare website to see which crimp plugs work with what cable. http://canare.com/index.cfm?objectid=69A216BB-3048-7098-AF8323D1F6933858

.

Unfortunately, the tool and die sets are not cheap... About 75$ for the tool, and 65$ for the die. But if you are making LOTS of cable, it'll pay for itself in ease, speed, and security of connection.

peace,
sam

This is a step I have taken as I can make lengths to size. Purchased the right tools for the job on hand with flexability. Cable I'm using Belden 1694A cable and Can-RCFP-C5F rca's
Tools I felt I needed to do the job.
Can-TC-1 crimping tool
CAN-TC-D-5CF die
Can-TS100E coax stripper
Milwaukee 8975-6 heat gun.
This I feel will pay for itself as I have a pro audio setup plus a few home setups where I would like to clean up excess length. Plus get to learn something new and it is a project I can handle that I belive will benefit my systems.

Rather than appear to be some kind of contentious jerk, I decided to build a set of the Canare L-4E6S + F-9 interconnects today.

I followed the recipes closely, but used the blue for hot, the white for ground, soldered them with Cardas QuadEutectic solder, and added a tweak that I have found interesting on cables with PVC outer jacket: treating them for static.

I clean the jackets with 91% isopropyl alchohol, then clean them twice with a paper towel wetted with Tech Spray's Zero Charge All Purpose Anti-Static Treatment, then I apply a coating of Tech Spray's Zero Charge Guardian II Static Dissapative Coating for Non-porous Surfaces with another papaer towel. After a bit of drying, they are ready to go.

So, I compared them today to 1 other cable I made, Cardas 2X21.5ga Twinlink with Canare F-10 connectors, against Wireworld's Equinox 5, and against Stereovox's HDSE....

I've gotta say, fresh outta the gate, the Canares did not suck! They seem a bit more "up-front" than the Cardas or the Wireworld, but they were quite a bit like the Cardas based cable...FWIW, all cables were 1m and used between my Phillips SACD1000 and my Audible Illusions Modulus 3A.

Speakers are my Martin Logan Aerius i's, amplifier is my tweaked Sound Valves VTA-70i, speaker cable is Ecosse...

The only real downside that I hear with the Canare is that there is a bit of chalkiness to the sound, just a layer that seems to slightly obscure and diffuse the sound....inserting the sublime Stereovox HDSE in place of the Canare cable really shows this up, the music from the Stereovox just seems to come from a much quieter place, with better image focus and clarity...not that they are any brighter, they just seem to "wash the window" so to speak...

The Cardas and the Stereovox also seem to have a better portrayal of that illusion of space that really good interconnects seem to get and lesser ones seem to fill up with a noise or grunge....currently the Canare isn't really noisy or grungy, but it isn't as pristine as say the JPS clones or the Stereovox...yet, maybe time will tell!

So, without any real burn-in on the Canare's, I gotta say that they are pretty darn good performers, in fact, I think that I would rank them as thus:

#4: Wireworld
#3: Canare
#2: Cardas Twinlink
#1: Stereovox HDSE

I feel like the Canare is a very, very good buy, and that perhaps the RCA connectors are holding it back....the F-9 has always seemed a bit grainy and obscured to me, the F-10 less so, but they just don't hold a candle to the clarity of Cardas SLVR's, much less something that's just "not there": The Bullet Plug.

Parts Connexion has a sale on some WBT stye plugs that look real interesting, and are just like the ones I use for the Heliax based interconnects...
http://www.partsconnexion.com/catalog/connectors_files/image027.jpg
These might go a way toward helping the L4 cable sound better, and, they're $5.95 a pair!!! That's a real competitor for the Canare F-9s....

So, I've left the Canare in place and will let them play for a few days and re-run the tests and see if anything has changed then...but, if I had to put them into a "store bought" kind of realm, I'd say that they are as good as most of the $100 to $200 cables, better than about anything Monster has in that price range for sure!

Seems you have messed with this stuff a bunch Rick - what are you thoughts on gold plated copper plugs as apposed to brass?

Have you tried Eichmann plugs?

Seems you have messed with this stuff a bunch Rick - what are you thoughts on gold plated copper plugs as apposed to brass?

I haven't personally used any of the direct gold over copper plugs, but the new Basis interconnect uses them...not cheap interconnects....but if they sound good then they are worth the price....I haven't brought any of the Basis cables home....yet!


Have you tried Eichmann plugs?

Yep, I've reterminated Goertz Silver and Copper Micro Purls, XLO Reference, DNM Reson, and a homebrew version of Chris VenHaus' recipe with the copper based Bullets...the Eichman Bullet Plugs have about the smallest signature of any connector I have tried....now, they have a slightly cheaper version that uses gold plated brass instead of the copper or silver but I haven't tried them yet...

I've really gotten kind of cheap when it comes to connectors, but I can get Cardas and WBT at dealer cost so I ususally use the Cardas...I guess if I could still get the Bullet plugs at dealer cost then I 'd use them...it also depends on how massive the cable is....I wouldn't feel good about using the Bullet plugs with Heliax, for example....the locking WBT clones, though, fill the bill for them....

Have fun!

Thanks for doing a comparison, Rick! I don't make enough money to buy really fancy cables to compare to, I've got to rely on my occasional borrowings or trying out other people's systems to make comparisons.

I'm glad the Canare's held up nicely! They are good solid cables, and its good to see that confirmed by another set of ears. It would be fun to try some fancier terminations, but that'll have to wait for some more cash in the bank. The F-10s would be a cheap upgrade though, they are only about 30 cents more each. ;) I think I can handle that.

peace,
sam

Alright, Phideaux,

It's now deigh teux of the Canare cable experiment.

I left the Canare cables between the SACD1000 and the Mod3A overnight with the player on repeat to put some time on the cables to give them a chance to strut their stuff...

Today, SWMBO's best friend is in the state, so like all good wimmen they're out shoppin'...at the factory stores in San Marcos....54 miles away....aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!

What a better way to spend an non-confrontational day than making interconnects fight it out.....so, I went into my cable closet, drug out a bunch of wires, and had at it.

The contenders, in no particular order:

Original JPS Ultraconductors, 1m

Monster M850i, 1m

Wireworld Equinox 5, 1m

Stereovox HDSE, 1m

Goertz Micro Purl Silver terminated with copper Bullet Plugs, 1m

DH Labs Silver Sonic BL1 Series II terminated with Tiffany clone RCA's, .5m

Cardas 2x21.5 Twinlink terminated with Canare F-10, 1m

A DIY design based on Chris VenHaus's cable design using Cardas 21.5 ga. for the hot conductor and two runs of 20ga. magnet wire for the return/ground, 1/4" polyethylene tubing for the center tube, teflon tape, Techflex covering, copper Bullet Plugs, .5m

DIY Superconductor clone of Andrew Heliax FSJ1-50 with Axon WBT clone RCA plugs, .5m

Ixos Gamma Audition 1014, 1m

And, of course, the Canare L-4E6S with F-09 RCA's, 1m

I warmed up the system by letting it play since I got up this AM and after a heavy dose of electro shock therapy...uhhh, online paperwork for my business, a light lunch, and it was time to play!

I used the SACD of "O Brother Where Art Thou", track 4 "Down to the river to pray" just because it was nothing but voice, acapella, no instruments, so any differences are really kind of subtle...but that's what makes it fun, and challenging!

I basically found that there were three groups of interconnects, good, better, best, and any other system, or any other listener, will have different results...these are all very, very subtle differences, and if I was bothered or interrupted today I would not have been able to figure out where I felt the cables ranked.

Ok, here we go!

The good.

Why just good? Well, I sensed these cables were just a bit lacking in the areas of smoothness, definition, soundstaging, but more importantly, there's just a bit of "confusion" in the sound...now, what I mean by that is that there is just a very subtle scrim or hash on the cables...I fully admit that I have tinnitus and ANY kind of screechiness, tizziness, grunge in the top end, any upper end anomolies, just get to me and fatigue me after short periods of time...these cables all did that to a certain extent.

It's also interesting to me that all of these cables use stranded copper, non-litz conductors.

Last Place:
Monster M850i.
I could listen to this cable for less time than any other. While it's frequency response was good, it also was not very good in separating the acapella voices, everything seemed a bit too mushed together...soundstaging was OK. Shieded twisted pair stranded

Next:
Canare L-4E6S
I thought that this was better than the M850i in every way, it was less fatiguing, better imaging, deeper layering, voices were separated a bit better, soundstaging was a bit better, too. Shielded, stranded, star quad.

Next:
Ixos Gamma Audition 1014
I bought a BUNCH of these cables several years ago at MCM on close out for little or nothing, so it was natural to add them into the mix. There is a little to differentiate these from the Canare. In fact, they may tend to be more like the Monster in fatigue factor, but where they were better was in the layering of voices, the separation of the male singes from the females in the back ground, and in the fact that these guys have always had a pretty darn good soundstage, bigger than what the Canare portrays. Maybe not as quiet as the Canare. Real close to the Canare in overall quality, but the better separation and detail makes me feel like it's a bit better cable. Stranded 3 conductor type braid with a dummy conductor..i.e., two stranded copper conductors and one solid plastic rod braided under an outer jacket. Copper with polyethelyne insulation.

Better.
Why better? Well, in my case, it was purely my percieved fatigue factor, if I can listen to a cable for longer without my ears getting tired then I feel like that's a better deal. These also seemed to be a bit quieter than the previous ones.

Last Place:
Wireworld Equinox 5
My placement of this cable here surprises the heck out of me! It is a VERY smooth cable...so smooth, in fact, that for most solid state systems this could be the ticket...non-fatiguing, good soundstaging, a bit limited on layering and separation...the sound qualities displayed by this cable in comparison to the others in this group was a surprise to me as I really have used these the most between my SACD and pre over the last year! Coaxial Litz construction

Next:
Cardas Twinlink
Another smoothie! But, where the WW seems a bit too laid back, a bit too smoothed over, a bit too flattened out, the Cardas cleaned it up a bit, nice big soundstage, better layering, and better separation of Allison from the background singers. Better differentation of the male singers from the female. Shielded, twisted pair Litz

Next:
JPS Ultraconductor (original style with the blue braided cover)
Not really much to differentiate from the Cardas, but a bit quicker, a bit cleaner. Solid copper clad aluminum, twisted pair.

Next:
Goertz Micro Purl Silver
Very much like the JPS, just a tiny bit more extended, a tiny bit cleaner and a tiny bit warmer. Solid silver twisted ribbon

Next:
The DIY design based on Chris VenHaus's cable design.
This cable was very much like the last two, but opened up the soundstaging a bit, was extended without grain or glare. This is about as good as the DH Labs, but maybe a bit less extended, it has that Cardas "glow"....perhaps the silver wire would help that?

OK, now the Best
These cables all caused me to really sit back and think about what was happening here. They were clean, clear, very low grain and grunge free. The separation of the background singers' voices was much better than all but the previous DIY design. The soundstaging was huge and layered. It was also good to revisit two cables that I haven't used much lately, the JPS clone and the DH Labs, and either one of these cables was better than all but the DIY VH design.

The DH Labs Silver Sonic
When I first put this in I was shocked by the focus. Then I noticed the layering and separation, the tunefulness. I really liked this cable. Where I felt like it lost some ground to the next two was that it might have just a bit of an edge to it, but these cables had not been used in a while, and it was nowhere near what I heard with the "Good" cables. Shielded, silver clad copper, teflon insulated, twisted pair.

JPS clone made from Andrew Heliax FSJ1-50
When I put this cable in the system, I wondered why I ever took it out....oh yeah, it's STIFF! This stuff is bent into place...and then it stays there! But the sound quality from it is just sublime...that little "edge" that "might" be there from the DH Labs isn't. Smooth, clear, extended, detailed, layered, for the price of the hardline and the connectors this stuff is a steal. Another huge soundstage, wrapping around the room! My sample has also been unused for quite a while and these things do change as they get used, big time, bending them, rearranging them, letting them sit unused, and you're going to have to do some break-in to get their true sound. Solid copper corrugated shield, copper clad solid aluminum center conductor

And finally,
Stereovox HDSE
I really couldn't imagine something getting better than the JPS clones...well, this was, it was as much above the previous interconnect and the DH Labs as those two were above the Goertz. This was the most extended of all the cables here, and compared to even more expensive cables that I have heard in other systems, may not have the clean top end of $500 or more cables, but what it does it does well! The differentiation of the singers in the background, the placement of Allison Krauss, the size of the room, all were the best yet with this cable. This design is no longer current having been replaced with the Stereovox Vespa which I have not heard in my system....there is a new more expensive Stereovox cable that addresses some of the concerns that some have had with this cable, but I'll never be able to afford any!

Now, these are just my impressions of a day of listening to my system with a vocal track. Other music, other systems, other listeners will probably have different results.

So where does this leave the Canare L-4E6S with the F-09's? When you consider that you can purchase the parts from Markertek to build a 1 meter set of interconnects for less than $15, well, then, it's a slam dunk bargain! To my ears, though, I think that I would rather source some of the Heliax and go that route, IF I COULD LIVE WITH THE STIFFNESS!

The Heliax's outer conductor is a solid, corrugated copper tube. The center conductor is a solid aluminum wire clad with copper. The insulation is polyethylene foam. You make these the EXACT size you need, bend them into place, and leave them! If you don't use bearing type isolation devices like Aurios, Darumas, etc., and your gear sits pretty much motionless, and you don't swap gear often, then this is a great budget cable recipe running a little over twice the Canare price for a 1m set if you go with the 1/4 hardline and the WBT clone connectors on sale at Part Connexion right now....

If you need a bit more flexibility, then the Chris VenHaus recipe should work quite well...using the specified silver wire instead of the Cardas I used, and following his materials list more closely would undoubtably bring that interconnect up a notch, as it was it was neck and neck with the top three!

So, Phideaux, I'm glad you started this thread as it made me examine what was in my system, build a cable I hadn't built in years, and have an enjoyable day playing with the stereo,
THANKS!

And to those who don't feel like cables make a difference, well, just look how much fun I had today!

But just between you and me, well, it's gonna be a loooooong time until I bring out that SACD and play it again, man, talk about saturation!

Rick

Boy, that Heliax looks like interesting stuff.. I'll have to find a bit to play with, I've never used a SOLID shield coax before! Talk about an effective faraday cage..

Thanks for letting us know all of your experiences, Rick. And I'm glad you had a good day with man's best friend, the hi-fi. ;)

peace,
sam

Out of poking around DIY interconnects for no particular reason I went with Belden 1694A over Canare. It was used quite a bit also. One question belden 1694A, good or bad choice for all my audio interconnects. Flexiblity is not an issue.

The Belden shouldn't be too bad as long as you don't use the shield for anything but shieding....TC really has no place carrying any kind of signal, even return.....

To find out more from someone who likes Belden cable, go here:

DIY Information (http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/index2.htm)

.

I just want to say that I am now the proud owner of a pair of Phidauex's home-brew IC's. My MAIN reason for acquiring these was for aesthetic purposes, rather than sonic: the mess behind my bedroom setup was sorta unsightly.

I know this could also be in the Feedback Forum, but I thought it appropriate to put it here as well.

I had been looking in a PE catalog at Dayton Audio's basic 1.5' RCA connectors when I came across this thread. I shot a PM to Phi to see if he was willing to put a set together for me - I'd rather throw an AK'er my business if it was possible.

For a pair of 1.5' cables, total cost with s/h was $15 (or as he put it, parts+beer).

Now, I'd like to say that I am not an "audiophile." As many of you here have read, I am not into perfect audio replication. I am into good, quality sound. Period. I don't have a dedicated listening space, I don't have a record washing machine, and I don't have AR-9's.

I have always used standard, generic stock cables/IC's and wanted to upgrade based purely on my need to clean up the tangled mess that collects behind my equipment. My bedroom system is very simple and modest: KA-7100 (refurbed by EW), a Yamaha T-4017 tuner and a Sony CDP-311, all played through a pair of Polk RTi-28's.

My test music was Lou Reed's remastered "Berlin" CD. Specifically the 3rd track, Men of Good Fortune.

When I A/B'd the Phi-IC's with the generic IC's there was an OBVIOUS difference to me, and I wasn't even sure what I was supposed to be listening for! There was a subtle clarity that was now present with my new Phi-IC's.

I also appreciate how the cables are clearly labled with "source" sides. A+ job, Sam! Thank you very much.

Changed the images to attached, instead of linked from my webspace. It means using more AK bandwidth, but it also means more consistency, since a few people have mentioned not being able to see the images occasionally!

-Sam

Following phidauex's directions, I have built a couple of pairs of cables and I am a believer! I do not know if they sound better, but damn, they look and feel great! The whole thing just feels like a quality cable. I even went the extra yard and got colors! Yes! Red, black, white, yellow, orange, blue, green, purple. This cable, from markertek, is cheap so I got 30' of each. I figure the total cost for a potload of cable and connectors is still less than the cost of a pair of "designer cables". And they feel so good.

Thanks phidauex!

Glad you like them, spiff! The Canare gear is meant to last, it feels really nice to use, has a good solid grip, and will last a looong time. Enjoy!

peace,
sam

Phideaux, do you have a similar set of instructions for XLR analog cables? I am going to make a few for my McIntosh equipment. My plan was to order some from Markertek and try to copy them. It would be great if you already know how to do this.

Thanks,

Bill

Hi Bill,

XLRs are easy with Star Quad cable. I like using Neutrik XLR connectors, something like their XX or XX-HE series, they are all good though, I just like how their connectors work, they feel good to use, and are very durable. Canare XLRs are good too. Switchcraft connectors are a good deal, but I don't think they are as durable.

Basically, carefully disassemble the XLR body, and slide the chassis over the wire. Strip the wire as normal, pulling the shield back a bit.

Strip the two white wires, and connect them together. Then strip the two blue wires, and connect them together. Now, the whites will be the positive signal, so connect them to pin 2. The blues are the negative signal, so connect them to pin 3. The shield connects to pin 1. The chassis remains floating (not connected to anything). Unlike the unbalanced interconnects, you DO want the shield connected at both ends. In this case, the shield is ONLY a shield, it carries no signal, so a ground loop isn't created by connecting it at both ends. Slide the chassis back up over the connector body, and tighten it down. I don't use any heat shrink, or any strain relief other than what the connector chassis provides. You can mark the sides with heat shrink to designate left or right, if you want, but there is no need to add a 'source' marker, since the wires are symmetrical.

Which pin is which? When looking at a female XLR face on, with the locking tab up, Pin 1 is top right, pin 2 is top left, and pin 3 is the bottom. Usually the connectors have little numbers by the pins to help you remember. The XLR mnemonic is "Shield, Live, Return". :)

Occasionally manufacturers swap the + and - pins, but if they are following the standards for balanced connections, then the above should be right.

peace,
sam

EDIT: On reflection (see below), for balanced lines, connect the shield at ONE SIDE ONLY (typically the source side). If the balanced line will be used for microphones, musical instruments, or other non-mains-powered devices, then connect the shield at BOTH sides.

Is this a solder connection?

Thanks for the reply, I am going to try to make some.

Bill

I looked in the Markertek catalog: They have an XX and an HD series. The HD is water resistant, heavy duty,etc. Is that what you mean instead of XX-HE?

Thanks,

Bill

Unlike the unbalanced interconnects, you DO want the shield connected at both ends.

phidauex, I respectfully disagree with this comment. In fact, this made me read your first post in this thread and I can't really agree with a comment there as well. In an unbalanced system, it is not possible to make a connection that won't provide a path that would support a ground loop. Connecting the shield on only one end of the unbalanced cable doesn't break the ground path when you've got two blue wires connecting the ground of the two pieces of gear together. Although, NOT connecting the shield at one end (as suggested) doesn't have any adverse effects.

Conversely, in balanced systems, reference to ground is not really necessary and NOT connecting the shield at one end (usually the receiving end) will break any chance of a ground loop.

At least, that's my take on this topic.

phidauex, I respectfully disagree with this comment. In fact, this made me read your first post in this thread and I can't really agree with a comment there as well. In an unbalanced system, it is not possible to make a connection that won't provide a path that would support a ground loop. Connecting the shield on only one end of the unbalanced cable doesn't break the ground path when you've got two blue wires connecting the ground of the two pieces of gear together. Although, NOT connecting the shield at one end (as suggested) doesn't have any adverse effects.

Conversely, in balanced systems, reference to ground is not really necessary and NOT connecting the shield at one end (usually the receiving end) will break any chance of a ground loop.

At least, that's my take on this topic.

Hmm.. Well, I'm not claiming to be a 100% authority on the topic, I'm just passing along what I felt was the 'best practice' based on my knowledge of theory and my experiences.

First, unbalanced cable:

Many unbalanced cables have only two conducting paths, like coax, with a shield path and a center conductor path. In this case, you have no choice but to connect the shield to the connector ground, and the center conductor to the center pin.

However, when using star quad, or other two conductor + shield cables, we have THREE possible conducting paths. One should be the center pin of the connector, of course, but then we have to decide what to do with the others. I like to use the other inner conductor as the signal ground. But then what to do with the shield? If you leave it disconnected, it won't do much good at all. If you connect it at one side, you ground the shield, allowing it to reject noise. If you connect it at BOTH sides, you ground the shield allowing it to reject noise AND you increase the capacitance of the cable, which can leave it more open to induced currents, without improving the overall shield characteristics. So while its fine to connect the shield at both ends, it makes sense to leave it off of one end.

Two conductor twisted pair cable such as L-2B2AT (or 4-cond L-4E6S Star Quad) are intended for Balanced circuits, but may also be used for Unbalanced assemblies. One of several wiring tricks, is to solder the blue conductor to the connector's center pin and the white conductor to the shield ground contact. An installer may then choose to "float the cable shield" by not soldering the overall braid (or drain wire) at one or both ends of the cable. This technique may result in better "unbalanced" circuit noise rejection.

In other words, with the shield connected at both ends, noise induced in the shield is added in series to the signal ground path, but with the shield connected at one end only, noise induced in the shield does not get added to the signal.

Now, as to Balanced assemblies, its a little simpler. We've got three pins, and three conductors, thats pretty easy. The two inner conductors are the signal and its inverse, and the outer conductor is the shield, but do we connect it at one, or both, or no ends?

Upon reflection, I'm going to agree with you, Kris. For microphones and other non-mains powered instruments you want the shield connected at BOTH sides for best noise rejection, and to provide a return path for phantom power current.

But for connected between two mains powered devices, then leave the shield connected to one end only, to prevent ground loops in gear that may not be properly mains grounded.

I was thinking about microphones (which is what I built the majority of my balanced interconnects for), and hadn't considered that most people here wouldn't be using mics, but would be connecting balanced audio gear. It won't hurt to connect the shield to both sides, UNLESS your gear isn't properly grounded, in which case it could create a ground loop problem.

So anyway, with unbalanced, I think I'm still right, and for balanced, Kris's suggestion of only connecting on one side is a good one, unless you are making the cable for microphones or musical instruments.

peace,
sam

I looked in the Markertek catalog: They have an XX and an HD series. The HD is water resistant, heavy duty,etc. Is that what you mean instead of XX-HE?

Thanks,

Bill

Yes, the connections are solder-on connections. Neutrik has a lot of series of connectors, not all of which are available at Markertek. The XX is their basic standard, and is a good connector. If you'll be using your high end CD player out in the rain, then I'd recommend the HD. ;)

peace,
sam

However, when using star quad, or other two conductor + shield cables, we have THREE possible conducting paths. One should be the center pin of the connector, of course, but then we have to decide what to do with the others. I like to use the other inner conductor as the signal ground. But then what to do with the shield? If you leave it disconnected, it won't do much good at all. If you connect it at one side, you ground the shield, allowing it to reject noise. If you connect it at BOTH sides, you ground the shield allowing it to reject noise AND you increase the capacitance of the cable, which can leave it more open to induced currents, without improving the overall shield characteristics. So while its fine to connect the shield at both ends, it makes sense to leave it off of one end.

Thanks for the clarification. When I read it, it seemed to be a bit backward, so I decided to do a little reality check and just do some real life measurements. I took a length of balanced microphone cable and measured the capacitance in three different configurations. First, with the shield connected at both ends, then at one end, then at neither end. If your desire is to lower capacitance, then connect the shield at neither end. There is absolutely no difference if you connect one end of the shield or both ends. With no shield connection at all, I measured 1100pF. With one or two shield connections, I measured 2200pF. I've attached a drawing of the three setups for clarity.

Thanks for the clarification. When I read it, it seemed to be a bit backward, so I decided to do a little reality check and just do some real life measurements. I took a length of balanced microphone cable and measured the capacitance in three different configurations. First, with the shield connected at both ends, then at one end, then at neither end. If your desire is to lower capacitance, then connect the shield at neither end. There is absolutely no difference if you connect one end of the shield or both ends. With no shield connection at all, I measured 11pF. With one or two shield connections, I measured 22pF. I've attached a drawing of the three setups for clarity.

Curse you and your 'empirical' evidence! I wish I had as sensitive of measurement instruments at my disposal. ;) I'll have to use your abilities more often!

So, I was wrong the capacitance doesn't go up, but I'm still thinking that connecting at both ends A) Does nothing to improve the noise rejection B) could hurt noise rejection by putting the noise source in series with the signal ground, instead of in parallel with it. I wonder if we could simulate it in a circuit sim...

peace,
sam

Well, this may be getting a bit theoretical for this thread, but let me run this past you, Kris.

I'm trying to model an interconnect as a discrete circuit, which is a task fraught with danger. But I'm trying anyway...

Each of the three lines is modeled as a series inductor and resistor, with a parallel capacitor. The ground and signal lines are separated by 10k resistors on each side, and the shield is connected to the ground by a low value resistor on one side, or both sides, depending on the sim. The ground reference is connected to ground through a low value resistor on both sides, and there is a 60hz 'noise' source attached to the shield. The measurement point is across the 10k resistor between signal and ground at the load end.

Image one is shield connected at one side, image two is shield connected at both sides. Ignore the component values, this is just meant as a comparative exercise, so they don't need to be right, just correct relative to each other (ie, resistor to ground much lower than between signal and ground).

The first image, with shield connected only at one end, shows far less penetration of the noise source into the final output signal, suggesting that floating one end keeps the noise source from being a part of the ground reference line.

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything with this, I'm just experimenting. I welcome your thoughts.

peace,
sam

YIKES, really opening up the proverbial can-o-worms, eh? Unlike digital circuit simulators, simulating analog circuits leans a bit towards the 'art' end as opposed to the 'science' end. In other words, how well you model the circuit and its environment plays into how well the simulation mimics real life.

The way you've modeled each conductor is to have an L and R in series with a C in parallel to that. I believe the L and R are correct, but the C would be a parallel network between conductors. Next big question is, how should the noise source be modeled? You've got it as a voltage source with respect to the system ground. Perhaps it should be a differential voltage source applied across the length of the cable, or a current source in series with it. Really, I don't know, I'm just tossing up questions here.

I did attempt to do a simulation of a cable with similar components you've got here, and found that I wasn't comfortable enough with the cable model and how I was injecting a noise that I wasn't inclined to continue with it too far. But, I say keep plugging away, you may be onto something here.

I went to the Canare site and found a diagram that shows wiring the connector to ground on both ends.

http://www.canare.com/files/Cat11_p35.pdf

This was for the Quad Microphone cable L-4E6S

I went to the Canare site and found a diagram that shows wiring the connector to ground on both ends.

http://www.canare.com/files/Cat11_p35.pdf

This was for the Quad Microphone cable L-4E6S

Yup, and for microphones, or other non-mains powered devices (like musical instruments), that is the correct configuration, shield connected at both sides. But with a device to device connection, the shield isn't necessary on both sides, and could potentially create a ground loop between the units.

peace,
sam

YIKES, really opening up the proverbial can-o-worms, eh? Unlike digital circuit simulators, simulating analog circuits leans a bit towards the 'art' end as opposed to the 'science' end. In other words, how well you model the circuit and its environment plays into how well the simulation mimics real life.

The way you've modeled each conductor is to have an L and R in series with a C in parallel to that. I believe the L and R are correct, but the C would be a parallel network between conductors. Next big question is, how should the noise source be modeled? You've got it as a voltage source with respect to the system ground. Perhaps it should be a differential voltage source applied across the length of the cable, or a current source in series with it. Really, I don't know, I'm just tossing up questions here.

I did attempt to do a simulation of a cable with similar components you've got here, and found that I wasn't comfortable enough with the cable model and how I was injecting a noise that I wasn't inclined to continue with it too far. But, I say keep plugging away, you may be onto something here.

Yes, I admit I took a number of liberties with the cable model in the simulation. Like I said, I wasn't trying to 'prove' anything, just experimenting to see if I could reconcile my intuition about the topic with an actual model. Your comments about the nature of a noise source are apt.. I was assuming it would be like a voltage source with respect to signal ground, because that is how we experience noise, a random, low level modulating voltage with reference to our signal ground. But the origins of that signal, and how they are affected by the properties of the cable, aren't 100% clear to me yet.

Maybe I need to go at this the experimental route. Make two unbalanced, cables, one with the shield connected at both ends, and one with it connected at one end only, run it between two pieces of gear, and then watch the noise at the load. Maybe I could put an SCR dimmer next to it or something, to really fire up the noise so I can resolve it with my scope...

I'll give that a try! I'd welcome you to do something similar, Kris, if you have the time, since you seem to have access to better measurement tools than I. :)

peace,
sam

PS Here is another company that does it with the shield connected at one end only. They've got a great cable FAQ too, btw. Its got a little of their own marketing in it, but a lot of good, well backed up information.

http://www.vandenhul.com/artpap/groundend.htm

It's interesting how conversations evolve. I originally entered into this discussion because of a comment in the first post when discussing unbalanced cables:
Then connect the shield to the signal ground at one end only (preventing a ground loop).
Now it appears we're talking about maximizing the rejection of induced noise from external sources. Which is fine. Only reason I bring this up is because I wanted to let you know I'm not disagreeing with "shield on only one end in unbalanced cables" for the purpose of noise rejection. It was only the preventing ground loops in unbalanced cables which I objected to.

At any rate, I've read the VdH page and their words make sense to me on first glance. Your idea of doing some experiments sounds like a good way to validate such thoughts.

Ahh, I see! Well, now that I think about it, you are indeed correct, my wording wasn't the most accurate, the unbalanced cable w/ shield at one end only doesn't really prevent a ground loop, in the traditional sense of the word, since unbalanced signals always need a ground reference, regardless of shield configuration. I was imagining a looped signal path, IE, shield connected at both ends, and imagining why that wouldn't be the best idea, and then, because I was thinking of it as a loop, misused the term 'ground loop'.

Heh, I'm glad that we are on the same page, even if I wasn't aware of it.

peace,
sam

Phidauex,

Thanks for the 'teach-in'. I've just made up some interconnects using Van Damme starquad with Neutrik phono plugs (easier to get here in the UK than Canare). There's noticeably less noise than I had using my unscreened DNM cables - not surprising given the number of mains cables and hulking great toroidal trannies in my setup. Musically, there's a bit more detail and a greater sense of atmosphere in recordings, but no sense of the cable adding any of it's own 'character'. They'll do for me.

In many ways I find the whole 'high-end' cable thing slightly amusing. After all most recordings are made using the likes of Canare, Belden and Van Damme cables - if they're good enough for recording, they're good enough for playback!

Graeme

i can't believe it, i just pulled out some canare L-4E6S last night and started doing exactly what you've done, was just about to head into town this morning for some connectors. i had some cable left over from headphone mod i had done (i ordered way to much) and had been wondering what to do with the rest of it
before i headed into town i was going to do a search on AK for any DIY cable advice, but i always check out new posts first, and :D
i haven't checked out the entire thread yet, so i'll do that, three pages, i'm sure there is a lot of good advice in there.

Phidauex,

In many ways I find the whole 'high-end' cable thing slightly amusing. After all most recordings are made using the likes of Canare, Belden and Van Damme cables - if they're good enough for recording, they're good enough for playback!

Graeme

Yeah, but that's "old think".....there are many new folks out there in the recording industry that have been trying, and more importantly buying, "high-end" cables for their recording studios...and the difference between their recordings with modern wire, power condtioning, power cables, etc., and those made with the old crap wire you mentioned is staggering...

So, even though the recordings in the past may have been made with pedestrian cabling, that doesn't have to hold true for the future...unless of course our music is all screwed up by mpegs, iplods, etc....then all bets are off...

And yes, I do know a younger fellow who is very involved in studio recordings and who has outfitted a studio with better cabling and yes, the "engineers" are stymied for an explanation...

Just my $.02, as always, YMMV...

RickB,

As you should be well aware, there's more to engineering a good recording than power conditioning, mains cables, and high-end signal cables. I've heard some awful recordings made on top-of-the-line studio gear.

I don't think the likes of Canare, Belden and Van Damme would be best pleased to hear their cables described as 'old crap'. They make some of the best quality 'pro' cables in the industry using high quality materials developed from years of research and design.

A cable's performace can be distilled down into a handful of factors - resistance, inductance, capacitance, nature of the dielectric material, and EMI/RFI rejection. In other words, science and engineering. Snake oil doesn't come into it.

Reading your profile, I suspect your views on high-end cables aren't entirely objective coming from one who has a vested interest in selling them.

RickB,

As you should be well aware, there's more to engineering a good recording than power conditioning, mains cables, and high-end signal cables. I've heard some awful recordings made on top-of-the-line studio gear.

I don't think the likes of Canare, Belden and Van Damme would be best pleased to hear their cables described as 'old crap'. They make some of the best quality 'pro' cables in the industry using high quality materials developed from years of research and design.

Yeah, I have heard some of their stuff..it's ok...but just...in 1985 when I started my trek back into HI-Fi I believed that the Radio Shack gold ended cables were good enough..and, for the stuff I had then, they may have been....today, though, I really wonder what my Infinty RS-IIIa's, Soundcraftsman PCR800, Onkyo Grand Integra P-308 preamp would have sounded like with different cabling than the Canare (as described in this thread) and original Monster Cable...as it was, it was terribly fatiguing to listen to, and led me to Magneplanars, then to Martin Logans, Lowthers and DIY....and, if you think that Lowthers are ear bleeders, when I took my Third Rethms to a local Bottlehead meeting one of the standout comments was "Wow! I didn't know Lowthers sounded like that! They're not harsh at all..." Part of this was the Rethm enclosure and phase plug, part the Cardas wiring in the speakers and cabling...part was 3 years of break-in...part was the high quality of the DIY amplifiers we were using....


A cable's performace can be distilled down into a handful of factors - resistance, inductance, capacitance, nature of the dielectric material, and EMI/RFI rejection. In other words, science and engineering. Snake oil doesn't come into it.

Geeze, let's see, I started messing with electronics eight years before you were born, have worked as a QA tech at a once-upon-a-time major computer manufacturing company when you were two and three years old, had half a dozen MG's, Austin-Healeys, Triumphs and Jags run thru my garage, a bunch of motorcycles, have had an Advanced Class Ham Radio license for over 15 years (I taught myself the Morse Code and actually worked out the math problems on the tests rather than just memorizing the answers, I did top out at about 15WPM which was good for the Advanced, but I had passed all the writtens including Extra) and have the QSL card verification of talking to the astronauts on a Space Shuttle mission, did a lot of the digital modes via Ham Radio, and I don't care if you believe that cables can sound different or not.

I have heard the difference. I have shown the difference to people that said there was no difference.

Sometimes it's like stepping from a 2004 Honda Accord into a 2005 model...other times it's like stepping out of my 130,000 mi. Nissan 4X4 pickup into my GF's new RX-8...

Yet, I really don't care what electrical parameters cause the change in sound, RCL, strand interaction, silver, copper, aluminum, monkey peepee, whatever, it makes no difference to me, all that matters is what it sounds like.

Many systems do not have the resolution to be able to discern the subtle qualities that cables exhibit, many of my classic pieces of gear do not care very much about the cabling..some do...if your system does not show up the differences between cables, then by all means, DON'T SPEND YOUR MONEY ON THEM and DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME trying other things, just listen to music and be happy!

And the fellow with the recording studio I mentioned in the previous note? Well, he started with a couple of Shunyata power cords on a few key pieces in his studio....he was really converted by HIS OWN EXPERIENCE, not by what anyone told him, not by what he read on the web, but by what he did by himself. He has found the value in his purchases and is beginning to see that small, subtle changes are cumulative in their nature...a little here, a little there, and all of a sudden everything snaps into focus.


Reading your profile, I suspect your views on high-end cables aren't entirely objective coming from one who has a vested interest in selling them.

If you go back thru this entire thread, I suggested a few DIY options that I felt outperformed the Canare for not too much money, the JPS clones, the Chris VH based design, and the DH Labs based cables, even the Cardas Twinlink (which is now being sold in kits by Welborn Labs) are all alternatives that I felt were better....

The fellow I work part time for does not deal with any of the materials I used to make the DIY cables in my mini-review except for the Cardas wire.

We do sell Goertz (which Is why I have some, I am cheap and can buy at dealer cost so WTF not?), we do sell the real JPS products, and we are a Stereovox and Wireworld dealer, too...but nowhere in any of my posts have I suggested someone get in touch with me and buy cables from me or my employer...I am here as my own person, not a sock puppet, and my opinions as inflammatory, wrong-headed, obnoxious, or just poopy-panted are MINE.

That being said, I have had the chance to listen to a LOT of gear, a LOT of cables, and have them at my home, in my system, for extended times to get a handle on how they sound, many folks do not have that chance and I feel VERY lucky to have that ability....and price, as evidenced by my perception of the sound of the WW Equinox IN MY SYSTEM AT THE TIME is really no indication of how I feel something will sound.

So, I did not enter this discussion to smack another AK'ers design idea to the curb, only to offer my insight into this discussion as I had "Been there, Done that" many years before...

It is interesting, though, that the Canare cables did beat an approximately $80 pair of Monster Cable M850i's rather handily, right "out of the box" and in long term listening, in the system described earlier in this thread...the value is there...but, for half the price of the Monster, you can build the Twinlink or DH Labs BL-1, and have a cable that has, in my opinion, a better sound than the Canare....but for the $10 or $15 it costs to make a pair of the Canare cables, well, it's a stone cold slam dunk that they are going to be better than 99.999% of the "gimme" cables that came with your gear or that you can buy at what used to be Radio Shack.

If I had to cap off a final comment to this note it would be:

1.) Start with the Canare
2.) Build something different after getting used to and breaking in the Canare
3.) Listen to the new cable after it settles in for a while...like it more? or less?
4.) Try another design, let it burn-in,settle in, like it? or not?
5.) Have fun playing with your stuff, it costs less than drinkin' and ho-in' in the long run!

Rick

Thanks Phideaux and House de Kris,

You guys have launched me into the world of making my own cables. I bought some of the Canare cable some F10's and some XLR connectors.

I have made around 20 unbalanced cables of various sizes and 7 balanced cables. I have even color coded everything with various colors of Canare cable.

I really think they sound very good and the price is right. I have all McIntosh gear that is brand new so I decided to wire everything myself and get rid of the hodgepodge of cables I used to have.

I do have a question: I have a MX119 AV control center that is driving a MC207 7 channel power amp. The MX119 has 3 balanced outputs and the rest, are unbalanced outputs driving the MC207.

At first, I made 3 balanced cables to drive the MC20 for the left, right and center channels. I started hooking up the other 4 channels with unbalanced cables, then realized that even though the MX119 has only unbalanced outputs for the 2 back and 2 side channels, the MC207 can except balanced or unbalanced cables for its inputs. In other words, the MC207 has both balanced and unbalanced inputs for all of its channels.

I decide to make cables with an RCA plug from the AV control center and an XLR plug on the power amp side. I then used the ground on the XLR on the amp side and did not terminate it on the AV Controller (preamp) side. I like the positive connectiosn of the XLR and I thought this was a better electrical and mechanical solution. Any opinion? Is this the right thing to do or should I have stuck with RCA to RCA?

Thanks for all of your help, you guys have taught me a lot and I appreciate it.

Hi Sam
Read your terrific article on i/c construction,and I am thinking of having a go.The Canare cable and connectors are available here in the U.K.One quick question. I am building a powerful retro system JBL/YAMAHA .It will ultimately be tri amped. The interconnects I have from my previous modern set up are silver,and expensive.I believe your cable would be more suitable . Would you agree?.I would endevour to sell the silver cables. The heat shrink I am not sure about availability. I have been advised that silver cable is not good for every application. People like you, do a a hell of a lot to cut through the bull on this great hobby.
Regards
listener :tresbon:

Great thread! I just have a couple questions about the ground shield.

So, you should always connect the shield to the ground wire ONLY at the source side? What happens if you dont?

And, i am assembling a 3.5mm mini stero headphone jack to RCA plugs (like what is called an ipod cable sometimes). Should i only connect the shield to the ground wires at the 3.5mm plug side?

Need some info as i will be assemblin this cable tomorrow, thanks!

hmmmm...
if you make xlr-to-rca cables, would you still only connect the sheilding on one end? if so, i'm guessing the xlr end would be preferable, or should it matter?

hmmmm...
if you make xlr-to-rca cables, would you still only connect the sheilding on one end? if so, i'm guessing the xlr end would be preferable, or should it matter?

In general, stay consistent throughout the system. So, choose either "ground going forward" or "ground going back." I've always followed the "ground going forward" path. So, if I were to make a cable to go from an output on XLR to an input with RCA, I'd hook the shield to the XLR end only.

In general, stay consistent throughout the system. So, choose either "ground going forward" or "ground going back." I've always followed the "ground going forward" path. So, if I were to make a cable to go from an output on XLR to an input with RCA, I'd hook the shield to the XLR end only.

I follow the same 'downstream' end shielded rule for the shield between active stages on the idea of extending the input's ground from the most sensitive portion for shielding. For a conventional passive control where the RCA sockets are common-grounded to the case it's not so clear. Ideally, one should probably separate case ground from the signal return paths in the passive control box and separately ground it's case to the case ground of the other device(s). Then use a reversed-IC connection into the passive where the shield end is at the source device output (upstream) end. This gets the bulk of the passive's case totally out of the signal path and retains full-shielding of the path. I have run into this conundrum while reconfiguring my present revived 'big' system and am contemlating this as the proper way to handle it.
What say you all?
S.B.

I put this over in the Dollars & Sense with this thread in mind.

I found a great deal on CANARE F-09 RCA plugs, 1/2 the price of what Markertek charges.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=192421

Check Shipping Prices Before Buying From MilesTek Corporation. Mine was inflated.

I follow the same 'downstream' end shielded rule for the shield between active stages on the idea of extending the input's ground from the most sensitive portion for shielding. For a conventional passive control where the RCA sockets are common-grounded to the case it's not so clear. Ideally, one should probably separate case ground from the signal return paths in the passive control box and separately ground it's case to the case ground of the other device(s). Then use a reversed-IC connection into the passive where the shield end is at the source device output (upstream) end. This gets the bulk of the passive's case totally out of the signal path and retains full-shielding of the path. I have run into this conundrum while reconfiguring my present revived 'big' system and am contemlating this as the proper way to handle it.
What say you all?
S.B.

i'm going to DIY some Star Quad RCA->XLR cables to connect my unbalanced preamp to my XLR-only amp in a few days. so...to double-check that i'm clear on downstream vs. upstream, the best thing to do would be to tie the cable shield and one set of conductors to the RCA shield at the preamp, and leave the cable shield untied at the XLR end going into the amp. correctamundo?

The Rane website has many suggestions on how they recommend cable pinouts.

rane is so thorough that it makes my head swim sometimes. i looked at that section once before, i think, and i'll take another peek.

i made an XLR cable today following this thread, and i have a question. should there or should there not be continuity between pins 1 and 2?

My way of thinking, no. But, that's just my personal opinion.

i made an XLR cable today following this thread, and i have a question. should there or should there not be continuity between pins 1 and 2?

Should not.

thanks, didn't think so. it's strange, since the continuity disappears when i remove the male shroud. i wonder if the somehow the solder from pin 2 is just barely making contact with the shield, since the shield is tied to ground, correct? or it could be that the ground shield is slipping from its slot and making the contact...:scratch2: i'm using the newer Neutrik EMC connectors, and these are the ass'y instructions i followed. i'm going to keep poking around. any other ideas?

chris

I'd guess the shield cups/shells are shifting during assembly. I'd only suspect the solder if you have a big glob on the pin.

But, I've never used that style. The "normal" ones seem to work fine for me.

Finally figured out the problem. The shield cup narrows pretty quickly after the PCB, and you basically don't want your wire to be exposed any longer than the solder cups. Some copper from the Pin 2 lead was just brushing the inside lip of the cup once everything was tightened down. Looks like I'm going to have to unsolder and redo the connection.

....(made 10 interconnects during "Howl's Moving Castle", so not too bad).

Cool Anime masterpiece. Miyazaki.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/images/howls_moving_castle_gal.jpg

--thread bump with a pic--

Thanx for taking the time to send us this.

I've been inactive on this forum for a while now (other interests taking over, lack of time to spend, starting a business, moving with family, etc.). Just thought I'd drop in and say I'm glad people are still making the cables! I still have tons, and occasionally make a few more for friends or when I lose mine in a move, but the original sets I made for this article are still cranking away. Keep your ears shiny, audiophiles!

-Sam