[Rob Watts]

Sorry, I can't quite follow that. Who or what, is MSG?

Mono sodium glutomate - it's a nasty flavour "enhancer".

 

[Malcyg]

Sorry but there are subtle differences on BNC cables. The good news is that so far expensive audiophile BNC cables sound no different to the same length of quality BNC RG59/U RF cables. I have bought a set of cables, and I have been snowed under with work, so I have not had time to play with them yet. But I will report back on the results.

Yes it is bit perfect, but it's the RF characteristics upsetting Dave's ground plane. The difference in SQ is a slightly warmer sound, plus an increase in sound-stage depth. This is identical to the improvements wrought with galvanic isolation on Blu 2 and the PSU RF filtering I had to do; but those changes were easy to hear and immediate; the cables are more subtle.

Note that if it sounds brighter, with the appearance of more detail, it is worse. Don't be tempted by RF noise MSG added to spice up the sound!

Rob, as you say, the differences were largely subtle, but one set of cables were very noticeably dark compared to the others. Whilst this gave the impression of a quite refined presentation, the higher end detail was quite repressed and certain musical parts were hard to discern. What could have been the cause of that? Your comment above could be taken to imply that all the other cables were introducing RF noise, but by straight comparison with Dave, then this appeared not to be the case. I have found BluDave to be somewhat less bright than Dave alone with the same source.

 

[Rob Watts]

Rob, as you say, the differences were largely subtle, but one set of cables were very noticeably dark compared to the others. Whilst this gave the impression of a quite refined presentation, the higher end detail was quite repressed and certain musical parts were hard to discern. What could have been the cause of that? Your comment above could be taken to imply that all the other cables were introducing RF noise, but by straight comparison with Dave, then this appeared not to be the case. I have found BluDave to be somewhat less bright than Dave alone with the same source.

That's the effect of reducing noise floor modulation, things become dark, and soft. Run with it - restore the balance by adding more transparency, EQ, move speakers a little closer, etc.. You will of course get used to it given time! Otherwise you will be constantly chasing your tail using distortions to balance other distortions...

 

[Crgreen]

Mono sodium glutomate - it's a nasty flavour "enhancer".

Thanks. I'd be interested to know which BNC cables do not introduce RF into Dave's ground plane. My general impression is that on occasions the Blu II makes the Dave sound a little brighter. I'm using the supplied cables.

 

[Malcyg]

Thanks. I'd be interested to know which BNC cables do not introduce RF into Dave's ground plane. My general impression is that on occasions the Blu II makes the Dave sound a little brighter. I'm using the supplied cables.

That's the effect of reducing noise floor modulation, things become dark, and soft. Run with it - restore the balance by adding more transparency, EQ, move speakers a little closer, etc.. You will of course get used to it given time! Otherwise you will be constantly chasing your tail using distortions to balance other distortions...

Thanks Rob, that is very interesting and I will go back and try those cables again and give them a bit more time. Certainly, the cables that sounded best to me were far more than I would be prepared to spend, but my observation was that they were less sharp and bright than the cheap ones and gave a very fluid sound.

One point I'm struggling to understand is that if the cables are adding degrees of RF with a consequent brightening of the sound, why do I find Dave on its own to be somewhat brighter than BluDave using the same source? If the Cables are adding brightness, then logically BluDave should sound brighter than Dave because of the cables.

Interesting to note that Colin does seem to find BluDave to be slightly brighter than Dave whereas, for me, it is the other way round.

 

[Crgreen]

Thanks Rob, that is very interesting and I will go back and try those cables again and give them a bit more time. Certainly, the cables that sounded best to me were far more than I would be prepared to spend, but my observation was that they were less sharp and bright than the cheap ones and gave a very fluid sound.

One point I'm struggling to understand is that if the cables are adding degrees of RF with a consequent brightening of the sound, why do I find Dave on its own to be somewhat brighter than BluDave using the same source? If the Cables are adding brightness, then logically BluDave should sound brighter than Dave because of the cables.

Interesting to note that Craig does seem to find BluDave to be slightly brighter than Dave whereas, for me, it is the other way round.

Colin, not Craig

 

[Malcyg]

I'm sorry Colin! I've been emailing a guy called Craig about something and I probably haven't had enough caffeine yet.

 

[Triode User]

Thanks Rob, that is very interesting and I will go back and try those cables again and give them a bit more time. Certainly, the cables that sounded best to me were far more than I would be prepared to spend, but my observation was that they were less sharp and bright than the cheap ones and gave a very fluid sound.

One point I'm struggling to understand is that if the cables are adding degrees of RF with a consequent brightening of the sound, why do I find Dave on its own to be somewhat brighter than BluDave using the same source? If the Cables are adding brightness, then logically BluDave should sound brighter than Dave because of the cables.

Interesting to note that Craig does seem to find BluDave to be slightly brighter than Dave whereas, for me, it is the other way round.

This talk of data cables is interesting but for me I really don't recognise the description of brightness. For me the Blu2 adds more detail and resolution. I find this particularly noticeable in the bass but I accepts Rob's explanation that often extra information in the upper registers can also give the impression of more highly resolved bass. I would not say that Dave by itself or with Blu2 is 'brighter' one way or the other.

Maybe my USB cable and twin BNC cables, despite being cheap, are quite well RF screened.

To be honest I find a much bigger difference due to speaker cables rather than data cables and my current selection has arrived at short (1m) cables and very thick (12mm2). But again, the advantage I hear with these cables is in resolution/detail together with attack at the start of the notes and decay at the end rather than any brightness (or lack of it).

Maybe different ears and different things that we concentrate on when we are listening?

 

[Crgreen]

This talk of data cables is interesting but for me I really don't recognise the description of brightness. For me the Blu2 adds more detail and resolution. I find this particularly noticeable in the bass but I accepts Rob's explanation that often extra information in the upper registers can also give the impression of more highly resolved bass. I would not say that Dave by itself or with Blu2 is 'brighter' one way or the other.

Maybe my USB cable and twin BNC cables, despite being cheap, are quite well RF screened.

To be honest I find a much bigger difference due to speaker cables rather than data cables and my current selection has arrived at short (1m) cables and very thick (12mm2). But again, the advantage I hear with these cables is in resolution/detail together with attack at the start of the notes and decay at the end rather than any brightness (or lack of it).

Maybe different ears and different things that we concentrate on when we are listening?

In this context, brightness is relative, not absolute: hence my use of "little brighter".

 

[Rob Watts]

Thanks Rob, that is very interesting and I will go back and try those cables again and give them a bit more time. Certainly, the cables that sounded best to me were far more than I would be prepared to spend, but my observation was that they were less sharp and bright than the cheap ones and gave a very fluid sound.

One point I'm struggling to understand is that if the cables are adding degrees of RF with a consequent brightening of the sound, why do I find Dave on its own to be somewhat brighter than BluDave using the same source? If the Cables are adding brightness, then logically BluDave should sound brighter than Dave because of the cables.

Interesting to note that Craig does seem to find BluDave to be slightly brighter than Dave whereas, for me, it is the other way round.

OK there are obviously many more audibly important effects than just RF noise and noise floor modulation; so fundamental improvements in resolution, will give an improvement in transparency, and these have the effect of making things sound brighter. The problem with noise floor modulation, is that it is often almost impossible to tell the difference between a tiny improvement in transparency, or a tiny degradation due to increased RF noise and so more noise floor modulation. Hence it's easy to end up going round in circles, and not actually making true progress. It's why in my case it helps to have a detailed understanding of why something is making a difference to the sound helpful - it clearly helps in design decisions, and it helps in determining whether a change is a fundamental improvement or whether it's merely balancing the system out (one distortion balancing another). Doing this kind of thing is not easy, and it's why I constantly re-evaluate and re-do listening tests, as it's very easy to misunderstand and misinterpret evaluations. It's why I am so keen on null listening tests, when one can hear no change at all, as there is no chance of misinterpreting a sound quality evaluation, and it also proves that the variable you are testing has no longer any effect. But even null tests need re-doing later, as circumstances change, and performance level gets better.

I too find adding an M scaler to generally make the sound significantly warmer and more natural; but in this case there are many other effects going on, it's not just about RF noise. And it does depend upon source material.

 

[Malcyg]

This talk of data cables is interesting but for me I really don't recognise the description of brightness. For me the Blu2 adds more detail and resolution. I find this particularly noticeable in the bass but I accepts Rob's explanation that often extra information in the upper registers can also give the impression of more highly resolved bass. I would not say that Dave by itself or with Blu2 is 'brighter' one way or the other.

Maybe my USB cable and twin BNC cables, despite being cheap, are quite well RF screened.

To be honest I find a much bigger difference due to speaker cables rather than data cables and my current selection has arrived at short (1m) cables and very thick (12mm2). But again, the advantage I hear with these cables is in resolution/detail together with attack at the start of the notes and decay at the end rather than any brightness (or lack of it).

Maybe different ears and different things that we concentrate on when we are listening?

Well, don't forget that I have the same BNC cables as you to compare with, and they are surprisingly good for the money.

You're right in that we may have different interpretations of brightness. For me, my system has got progressively less bright as I have got rid of noise. Bypassing the network has recently given a very positive upgrade. The other aspect that I would call brightness, but it may be the wrong word, is the presence of a sharp digital edge most noticeable on upper frequencies. This edge has been smoothed off with Dave and then again even more so with Blu II. This smoother, more realistic presentation coupled with greater transparency and depth and deeper more articulate bass combines to give a presentation that I would call 'less bright', but I accept that my terminology may be misleading and I'm just a lazy typist!

Scratch the above, Rob has just answered in a better way than me.

 

[Malcyg]

OK there are obviously many more audibly important effects than just RF noise and noise floor modulation; so fundamental improvements in resolution, will give an improvement in transparency, and these have the effect of making things sound brighter. The problem with noise floor modulation, is that it is often almost impossible to tell the difference between a tiny improvement in transparency, or a tiny degradation due to increased RF noise and so more noise floor modulation. Hence it's easy to end up going round in circles, and not actually making true progress. It's why in my case it helps to have a detailed understanding of why something is making a difference to the sound helpful - it clearly helps in design decisions, and it helps in determining whether a change is a fundamental improvement or whether it's merely balancing the system out (one distortion balancing another). Doing this kind of thing is not easy, and it's why I constantly re-evaluate and re-do listening tests, as it's very easy to misunderstand and misinterpret evaluations. It's why I am so keen on null listening tests, when one can hear no change at all, as there is no chance of misinterpreting a sound quality evaluation, and it also proves that the variable you are testing has no longer any effect. But even null tests need re-doing later, as circumstances change, and performance level gets better.

I too find adding an M scaler to generally make the sound significantly warmer and more natural; but in this case there are many other effects going on, it's not just about RF noise. And it does depend upon source material.

Got it, thanks.

 

[GreenLeo]

OK there are obviously many more audibly important effects than just RF noise and noise floor modulation; so fundamental improvements in resolution, will give an improvement in transparency, and these have the effect of making things sound brighter. The problem with noise floor modulation, is that it is often almost impossible to tell the difference between a tiny improvement in transparency, or a tiny degradation due to increased RF noise and so more noise floor modulation. Hence it's easy to end up going round in circles, and not actually making true progress. It's why in my case it helps to have a detailed understanding of why something is making a difference to the sound helpful - it clearly helps in design decisions, and it helps in determining whether a change is a fundamental improvement or whether it's merely balancing the system out (one distortion balancing another). Doing this kind of thing is not easy, and it's why I constantly re-evaluate and re-do listening tests, as it's very easy to misunderstand and misinterpret evaluations. It's why I am so keen on null listening tests, when one can hear no change at all, as there is no chance of misinterpreting a sound quality evaluation, and it also proves that the variable you are testing has no longer any effect. But even null tests need re-doing later, as circumstances change, and performance level gets better.

I too find adding an M scaler to generally make the sound significantly warmer and more natural; but in this case there are many other effects going on, it's not just about RF noise. And it does depend upon source material.

May I clarify some terms?
Darker = Warmer =energy of LF increased?
Brighter = Colder = energy of HF increased?

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

I think there is probably a complimentary cable at a price level for each setup.

If for instance the person has bought Dave and or Blu ii and has paid little or no attention or expense to isolation and control of room acoustics then a cheap cable with limited control of RFI and EMI will probably suffice for their needs. This is not meant to be inflammatory btw. If you don't mind about isolation and room acoustics then no need to worry about cables imo.

I agree with Rob in his observation that RFI can trick us into believing it is delivering greater detail and 'you need to go with it' and adjust your system and speaker positions to suit this new reality in the same way you adjusted to suit a world 'with' RFI. As you gradually improve isolation and room acoustic control, RFI will show itself and any weakness in a cables shielding and connectors will be revealed. RFI does not just create brightness and edginess. It makes imaging unstable too. This isn't noticeable until room reflections and boom are controlled. Then it is plain as day. So it all depends on how far you want to go in getting the best out of your equipment. There is a cost in excellence. There is also an old saying "ignorance is bliss" I can genuinely see valid arguments for both approaches tbh. Hifi is a very costly obsession.

 

[Rob Watts]

May I clarify some terms?
Darker = Warmer =energy of LF increased?
Brighter = Colder = energy of HF increased?

Agreed. But not seen the term colder! I guess you could add analytical, coarser (extreme brightness) to brighter. On the other hand, smoother or richer to darker... There again, one persons' smooth is another's soft, laid back and lacking in focus...