Mains Cable confusion?

[Clare Newsome]

candycable:
Hi Andrew- Sorry I am new to this- Give me a scope and RF generator and I am happy! Seriously - can you point me in the right direction and I will do so this evening. Thanks

In the meantime i've added in the information from an earlier post - please feel free to amend. Thanks!

 

[Andrew Everard]

maxflinn:sony, panasonic, samsung etc don't have "specialist", "qualified" cable "designers"

Y'see in at least one of the cases you mention, you're wide of the mark as usual, max. Clickety...

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:
maxflinn:sony, panasonic, samsung etc don't have "specialist", "qualified" cable "designers"

Y'see in at least one of the cases you mention, you're wide of the mark as usual, max. Clickety...

iwas reffering to mains cables andrew, which of course are designed, well i assume they are, by the major electronics giants.

they are used/supplied by them anyway so why some people assume they are not fit for purpose is beyond me....

 

[Andrew Everard]

maxflinn:iwas reffering to mains cables andrew, which of course are designed, well i assume they are, by the major electronics giants.

Then you should have made that clear, rather than making a sweeping, erroneous statement.

 

[professorhat]

maxflinn:iwas reffering to mains cables andrew, which of course are designed, well i assume they are, by the major electronics giants.

I doubt they design them (though happy to be proved wrong). I suspect however that they just buy a load from a mains cable supplier to bundle with their goods.

maxflinn:they are used/supplied by them anyway so why some people assume they are not fit for purpose is beyond me....

They are fit for purpose - they will supply power to the device. This doesn't mean they can't be improved upon. It's not considered that unusual to buy a car and replace the tyres with better ones. The original ones were fit for purpose in that they kept the car on the road, but some people like to pay more to get better grip and handling.

 

[Craig M.]

Andrew Everard:
maxflinn:iwas reffering to mains cables andrew, which of course are designed, well i assume they are, by the major electronics giants.

Then you should have made that clear, rather than making a sweeping, erroneous statement.

seeing as this entire thread is about mains cables, i would've thought it was clear.

 

[Craig M.]

professorhat:
maxflinn:iwas reffering to mains cables andrew, which of course are designed, well i assume they are, by the major electronics giants.

I doubt they design them (though happy to be proved wrong). I suspect however that they just buy a load from a mains cable supplier to bundle with their goods.

maxflinn:they are used/supplied by them anyway so why some people assume they are not fit for purpose is beyond me....

They are fit for purpose - they will supply power to the device. This doesn't mean they can't be improved upon. It's not considered that unusual to buy a car and replace the tyres with better ones. The original ones were fit for purpose in that they kept the car on the road, but some people like to pay more to get better grip and handling.

ah, but better tyres can be proven to make a difference to the cars performance.

 

[Anonymous]

professorhat:
maxflinn:iwas reffering to mains cables andrew, which of course are designed, well i assume they are, by the major electronics giants.

I doubt they design them (though happy to be proved wrong). I suspect however that they just buy a load from a mains cable supplier to bundle with their goods.

maxflinn:they are used/supplied by them anyway so why some people assume they are not fit for purpose is beyond me....

They are fit for purpose - they will supply power to the device. This doesn't mean they can't be improved upon. It's not considered that unusual to buy a car and replace the tyres with better ones. The original ones were fit for purpose in that they kept the car on the road, but some people like to pay more to get better grip and handling.

oh i think it does..

why would a given manufacturer spend in the 100s of millions of pounds developing the latest tv's and then supply said tv's with a mains cable that handicaps the performance that they spent 100s of millions of pounds developing?

no science needed prof, not even much logic, just common sense

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:

maxflinn:iwas reffering to mains cables andrew, which of course are designed, well i assume they are, by the major electronics giants.

Then you should have made that clear, rather than making a sweeping, erroneous statement.

the thread is titled "mains cable confusion, andrew...
not sweeping, nor erroneous

 

[Andrew Everard]

I bow, as ever, to your superior knowledge of confusion, max. Now, was it Hong Kong, Halifax, Shanghai, or Scotland...?

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:I bow, as ever, to your superior knowledge of confusion, max. Now, was it Hong Kong, Halifax, Shanghai, or Scotland...?
it was early

 

[Andrew Everard]

maxflinn:why would a given manufacturer spend in the 100s of millions of pounds developing the latest tv's and then supply said tv's with a mains cable that handicaps the performance that they spent 100s of millions of pounds developing?

no science needed prof, not even much logic, just common sense

Read what professorhat said again, max: there was no mention of handicapping performance; rather he expressed the view hald by some that changing the mains cable can improve the performance beyond that supplied as standard. As with most mass-produced goods, every TV sold is a balance between production costs, expected selling price and specifcation, just as in the tyres analogy the prof supplied.

 

[Anonymous]

Blimey - all I did was try and tell a little about cable design and why's for people who are interested. To answer about 'Major Electronics Companies' - having worked for two major international electronics companies as a lead European engineer - one Japanese and one US, and being involved with several others on a technical level, I can confirm that cable usually is bought in from cable manufcturers. I am pretty sure that no electronics manufacturers who own their own extrusion lines becuase the economics simply wouldn't add up. Having also worked with several cable factories, I can also confirm that as well. I ran one of the major cable suppliers for pro-audio in the UK for ten years, selling, literally, over hundreds of thousands of metres of cable. Even this warranted only a few days of cable factory plant run time.

Good post professorhat.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:maxflinn:why would a given manufacturer spend in the 100s of millions of pounds developing the latest tv's and then supply said tv's with a mains cable that handicaps the performance that they spent 100s of millions of pounds developing?

no science needed prof, not even much logic, just common sense

Read what professorhat said again, max: there was no mention of handicapping performance; rather he expressed the view hald by some that changing the mains cable can improve the performance beyond that supplied as standard. As with most mass-produced goods, every TV sold is a balance between production costs, expected selling price and specifcation, just as in the tyres analogy the prof supplied.

paradox alert....

if an aftermarket mains cable can improve the performance of a tv, avr, etc then by definition the standard cable is handicapping said componants performance...

 

[Clare Newsome]

Andrew Everard:maxflinn:why would a given manufacturer spend in the 100s of millions of pounds developing the latest tv's and then supply said tv's with a mains cable that handicaps the performance that they spent 100s of millions of pounds developing?

no science needed prof, not even much logic, just common sense

Read what professorhat said again, max: there was no mention of handicapping performance; rather he expressed the view hald by some that changing the mains cable can improve the performance beyond that supplied as standard. As with most mass-produced goods, every TV sold is a balance between production costs, expected selling price and specifcation, just as in the tyres analogy the prof supplied.

Or indeed the fact of every Apple iPod/iPhone/iPad shipped coming with a totally dreadful pair of earbud headphones, which are best put in the bin. It's only by upgrading to better headphones that you hear the full potential of the products - and it's the same with most portable media players.

I'm not saying a mains cable upgrade is the same as a headphone upgrade - merely supporting Andrew's point that consumer electronics companies work to a price point, and leave after-market upgrades in the consumers' hands. (And in Apple's case, hope you pop back into the Apple Store and buy your upgrade headphones there

)

 

[Andrew Everard]

maxflinn:paradox alert....
if an aftermarket mains cable can improve the performance of a tv, avr, etc then by definition the standard cable is handicapping said componants performance...

I thank you again for your lesson in linguistics, max. As I and others have now said, there are more factors at play in the production of goods designed to be sold at specific price-points on a wide variety of markets, and while engineers aren't deliberately hampering the performance of products, it's possible that most items of hi-fi and hardware could be made to perform even better when designed on a 'cost no object' basis.

And some believe that upgrading the mains cable is a simple, effective improvement, just as others will buy a DAC or whatever and upgrade the op-amps, or a valve amp and invest in some different tubes.

It's a question of what one feels is the right balance of expenditure and performance, based on one's beliefs in priorities in these matters.

How's the saga of the cheap mechanic coming along?

 

[Clare Newsome]

I've thought of another consumer electronics example - radio tuners/AV receivers.

Now we all know that a decent tuner/receiver will only perform at its best for radio with a proper aerial - yet manufacturers (of even the high-end kit) only provide one of those cheap, plastic aerials in the box, with the thin wire.

So to maximise your radio experience with those product, you need to invest in a decent aerial.

Depending on how serious your radio listening will depend on the aerial upgrade you make.

Again, i'm not equating this with mains cable upgrades in performance terms, merely illustrating the point - again - that CE manufacturers are working to a price point.

 

[idc]

candycable:
Blimey - all I did was try and tell a little about cable design and why's for people who are interested. To answer about 'Major Electronics Companies' - having worked for two major international electronics companies as a lead European engineer - one Japanese and one US, and being involved with several others on a technical level, I can confirm that cable usually is bought in from cable manufcturers. I am pretty sure that no electronics manufacturers who own their own extrusion lines becuase the economics simply wouldn't add up. Having also worked with several cable factories, I can also confirm that as well. I ran one of the major cable suppliers for pro-audio in the UK for ten years, selling, literally, over hundreds of thousands of metres of cable. Even this warranted only a few days of cable factory plant run time.

Good post professorhat.

Audiophile + cable = debate, often heated. I read that Belden supply a lot of audiophile companies with their cables, even putting said company's log/name on them. And Belden do not subscribe to many audiophile beliefs such as cable directionality, but happily sell cables with a direction indicated on them.

 

[Anonymous]

It's quite simple.

Equipment manufacturers have known for years about the inherent problem of mains electricity and design their equipment accordingly. They also ensure (and this does depend upon where the item is being sold) that the equipment complies with the emissions standards in place at the time. This covers RFI, which could indeed be a problem with some types of equipment, which is why the standards exit. You'll no doubt be familiar with the FCC statements which adorn most manuals. The standards apply to any item that may emit radio frequencies, not just HiFi or AV equipment.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that AV or HiFi equipment is going to be affected by anything other than mains borne noise. Given that noise starts at the substation, and travels through many miles before it reaches your consumer unit, let alone socket, it is fair to assume that a 1 or 2 metre cable, unless it is combined with a filter for said noise, and to my knowledge, most aren't, is going to have zero impact on the HiFi or AV system.

The other point is, of course, that no-one has yet proven the link between mains noise and the audio frequency spectrum in the sense of reduced frequency response or accentuation of a particular part of the audible frequency range. You may well hear the clicks and bumps of, say, a microwave or fridge turning off, but your system won't suddenly become bass shy. Mains borne RFI is different and was covered pretty well in the case against Russ Andrews where, if you remember, the company was asked to remove the advert because it claimed one of his cables could reduce RFI but then failed to prove that the cables in question had any effect.

All of which means to say the the mains lead supplied with your equipment is probably as good as it gets, certainly from the point of view of practical science. However, this is the world of HiFi and AV, and the real world stops at the door.

 

[Anonymous]

Correct. I was a Belden reseller... I could tell you some brands that we used to supply, but that would be really naughty....

Interesting thing about directionality. The problem when a cable behaves in directional manor is that it is having some effect- worst case diodic. If the signal is sensitive to the direction that the strands are drawn then this can be eliminated in manufacture by laying the strands or- more economically practical, the bunches of strands in consecutively countering directions.

And, yes, many (most) directional cables are directional depending on which way the arrows are printed. The trouble is most wire drawing is done in a different factory to where the extrusion is done. It is possible that the conductors have been wound from larger drums to smaller and perhaps again several times in order to make the conductor up. Therefore, by the time it hits the extrusion factory the chances are they have no idea which direction the conductors were drawn. And then the operator of the extrusion line might decide the bobbin the conductor is wound on is not suitable for the line he is using that day, and may rewind it in another direction....

And then the buyer for the cable is very unlikely to see that cable being made....

The good news is that when cable is drawn it is done by the ton, and when it is extruded it is done by the thousand metres, and so whoever is making a special conductor will have many thousands of metres of material, it will be consistent. That means, whatever way it is labeled, it will match its pair. Whether you are sensitive to directionality or not I will let you decide.
An interesting point about conductors is whether solid or stranded is best. This argument roared out of control in the 80's. Here's what is....When a high power (speaker) cable has few strands, the inter-strand emf causes vibration enough to dissipate energy at certain resonant frequencies. Solid core does not suffer from this. However, solid core does not have much surface area, and conductor surface area is where high frequencies get established easiest, so solid core wires tend to deliver marginally worse at higher frequencies- (increase propagation delay). However, this might be outweighed by the loss in the strands where few strands are used.
However, when very fine stands are used, the emf between each strand is reduced (by nearly the inverse square of the number of stands - so that's quite dramatic). Also, each time you double the stranding, you double the conductive surface area. Very fine stranded cable does not suffer vibration loss, but has superb conductive properties. In the eighties, they didn't have the technology to strand that finely....

On the other hand, when making cables it is easier to keep the separation between conductors consistent when solid cores are involved. With coarse standing the impedance becomes a little more unpredictable (solid core internet (CAT5 etc) cables outperform stranded on distance because of this....unless the stranding is very fine and the cores wound very precisely, then that can outperform solid core.

Just thought I would throw that in...

 

[Anonymous]

Cat 5 defines the performance standard of the cables which a cable described as Cat 5 must meet. If they perform better it's a plus, but designers work with the Cat 5, 6 or whatever spec, so whether a cable is solid core or not is immaterial.

 

[idc]

In April 200 the Audio Engineering Society had a talk from a Steve Lampen from Belden. He stated that they had run blind tests regarding cable directionality, which found the result to be no better than random.

I am no engineer, but many claims about cables in particular only suggest a link between the claim and actual audibility. So whether a cable reduces RFI, has a supposed direction, is silver or copper or a bit of both, is multi stranded or solid core etc, when it comes to blind testing, they all fail.

 

[Anonymous]

Both Andrew and Clare have pragmatic and sensible views. You can't make silk from a sows ear. Your system will be limited in some aspects of performance by the weakest link of that aspect.

My Roth Audio Blob when playing my ipod would not benefit, even change sound, if I change the cable. Why?- because the I pod has so much compression and jitter that the timing detail is already lost. There is no detail to work with, Now on my nice Moon system the cable makes huge difference

On a clear day you can see everything, when you are in a thin mist and you look across at a view you loss some detail, when its a thicker mist you get the rough outline, and in a fog you can only see the obvious and close things. Once the detail is lost, it is lost, and no bright lights or sensitive binoculars will get it back. Sound is the same, the more coarse the kit, the more the distortion and the more the noise, the less the detail can be resolved. An expensive lead is not going to fix my ipod/ Roth Audio blob - but I still enjoy it playing loud when I am cooking. (Thanks James for the Audio Blob by the way).

Believe you me, when the sound of a good performance is captured on a good microphone and well recorded and then played back on a well set up system, it sound beautiful, real and musical. All the timing detail is preserved. If you then reduce the quality of each part of the audio reproductions system, you lose detail until it is the sound become – well – like my ipod. Enjoyable but not the same.

To achieve reproduction at the highest leve take a lot of technology. Each bit of kit is manufactured to a price. You pays your money and you takes your choice. And an expensive mains cable won't make a middle market system sing.

 

[idc]

Funny you should mention jitter. I think that jitter is an another audiophile red herring used to suggest differences. But is it actually audible? There are some studies which suggest it is, others say no and others say it does not matter as some products with a higher level of jitter sound better than others with lower levels.

Certainly DAC makers have seen jitter reduction as a very good way of promoting their products. But they fail to provide real evidence that jitter is an actual issue.

 

[Anonymous]

OK - but pragmatically, when you are running a news feed from some event and you have a two hundrend metre run froim the source to the transmission van, the stranded CAT5 cable might bring the system down, where as the solid still hold up- I've been there. CAT 5E cable caN make good installation microphone and AES cable by the way..now that's not in the performance standards book!.